Posted on 08/23/2005 10:39:22 AM PDT by woodb01
The Golden Calf of Evolution is on Fire…
STORY SOURCE
NoDNC.com staff
The recent notice that Harvard was going to engage in “advocacy” research (it’s difficult to call the advocacy science) shows how concerned the evolution camp is about the theory of intelligent design. Contrary to popular myth, the theory of evolution has many holes. The only way evolution continues to survive is because people don’t actually stop to think about the absurd things that evolution requires one to accept on totally blind faith.
If in fact evolution were truly a science, then according to the scientific method, challenges to the theory of evolution, even a challenge calling itself “intelligent design” would be readily accepted. The whole notion of science is to put forth a theory, and then work to further develop the theory, or abandon it, based on challenges to discrete aspects of that theory. Real science not only accepts those challenges, but encourages them to ensure its accuracy. Evolutionists routinely censor and attack all dissent.
Now why would real scientists be so concerned about “intelligent design?” Why would prestigious Harvard University commit to invest a million dollars annually in a new program dedicated on the origins of life in relation to evolution? And as Harvard chemistry professor David Liu noted "My expectation, is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."
That is an interesting statement from a scientist. In professional circles, this is called “confirmatory bias” and it is not about science, but about making additional theories fit the predefined outcome that you want them to fit. It is advocacy “research” and not science. After all, with evolution, there is no way to test or verify history, so it is routine to just “create” anything you can imagine to fill the void, anything except intelligent design. Taking their cues from cults, when something doesn’t fit, just make up something that can’t be verified.
The secret of why Darwinists (evolutionists) see intelligent design as a threat is because in its simplest form, it is not only verifiable, but intelligent design is an ideal corollary [FN1] to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Paraphrased that law says:
Any system, on its own, moves from order to disorder, and eventually becomes totally random.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is considered an absolute, solid, verified truth in science. The reason it is considered a “law” in science is because it is said to apply to all matter in the entire universe and in all situations and circumstances. It has been tested, re-tested, verified, and re-verified and found to be a universal scientific truth.
Why is the Second Law of Thermodynamics Important?
Evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In plain terms, it expects people to accept, on blind, unverifiable faith, that out of disorder, and through a bunch of accidents, order is created--, disorder becomes order.
Another way of looking at that would be to think of a deck of cards, carefully shuffled and thrown high in the air. With the expectation that eventually an “accident” would happen which would cause all 52 cards in the deck, to fall in perfect order, and perfectly aligned. [FN2]
Now we get to the interesting part, the part that absolutely horrifies Darwinists and all evolutionists in particular. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS THE COROLLARY [See FN1] TO THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS!
With external inputs of energy, directed in a specialized way, disorder and randomness can be ordered.
Any system, whether open or closed, requires specialized work or specialized energy input to go from disorder to order. This same specialized work or specialized energy input is also required just to maintain order.
Let’s look at it this way. If you work at a desk, or construction, or homemaker, or whatever your job is, there are parallels. Evolutionists expect you to believe that if you leave a mess long enough, a set of accidents will eventually occur that will organize all your papers, build a new house, or clean each room in your house, etc. This is plain nonsense and not science.
Evolutionists realize that a COROLLARY to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is both science, is testable, is verifiable, and is true. This is why they are terrified. For evolution to “work” it requires that a settled scientific LAW be changed to accommodate it. Evolution’s FALSE COROLLARY to the Second Law of Thermodynamics expects one to accept the following paraphrased idea:
With external inputs of energy, random or disordered energy creates order.
In more “evolutionary” terms, enough accidents, stacked on top of each other, for a long enough period of time, creates order and perfection. Never mind that evolution also says that “natural selection” destroys all “accidents” that don’t have almost immediate usefulness. It is lunacy to believe that from random occurrence you gain greater and greater order. It then becomes zealous fanaticism when you deny that this is anything more than a secular fundamentalist belief system. In fact, this is in direct defiance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Under evolution, instead of moving toward disorder, we are moving toward order.
On one hand we hear that life has developed and “evolved” through “accidents” that create the variations of the species. And in contradiction to everything coming about because of these “accidents,” Darwin’s evolutionists say that “natural selection” does away with the “accidents” and “chooses” the superior “accidents.” On one hand we have life being created, derived, developed and sustained through “accidents,” and on the other hand we have life being destroyed and killed off (natural selection) because the accidents aren’t the “right type” of accident.
STOP AND THINK about what evolution demands you to believe. Disorder creates order, accidents fix things. This is not only intellectually dishonest, it is absurd when you stop to think about it.
Is this Corollary Theory of the Second Law – Intelligent Design – Testable?
Routinely we hear from the evolution crowd that intelligent design is not testable. Not only is this blatantly false, the Corollary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (intelligent design) has been proven over, and over, and over again. In fact, it continues to be proven many thousands of times a day.
Every time a pharmaceutical medication is taken to treat a disorder, whether it is physical or mental, it is a test of the theory of intelligent design. The Pharmaceutical companies that research new drug applications to treat disease not only defy “natural selection” but direct energy and efforts to cure a disorder which results in a medication to treat the disorder.
Every time a doctor performs a necessary surgery, that is successful, it is not only a test of intelligent design, but proof that it is valid. The Physician brings order to disorder and again defies “natural selection.”
Over and over again, architect, electrical engineer, physicist, chemist, veterinary, and any number of professions routinely cheat “natural selection” with intelligent design. Over and over again evolution’s “accidents” and “natural selections” are overcome by intelligent design.
Is it any wonder that the evolution crowd is terrified by intelligent design? Proving intelligent design disproves evolution. When considering intelligent design as a corollary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as well as easily tested and verified, it’s no wonder evolutionists are frightened.
Why so narrowly confined?
When major problems with evolution are raised, such as the INPUTS to the whole evolutionary process, evolutionists shriek, almost in horrified pain “that doesn’t apply,” or “that’s another area.” Take for example the origins of life itself. When raising the proposition that the origins of the chemical INPUTS to life, and the origins of life itself are critical building blocks to verify whether or not evolution is valid, routine shrieks of “abiogenesis” or some other silly segment of the process is invoked to defend the indefensible. These silly segmentations, which alone may disprove evolution, are routinely segmented out of the idea of evolution. These things are treated almost as if they must be warded off with some magical talisman or incantation against any evil spirits that might challenge the evolutionary cult. Evolutionists hide behind these silly, ridiculous, and utterly absurd notions that you can build valid science on a small piece of a process and leave out all of the pieces that the process depends on.
When parts of the process not only demonstrate that the sacred theory of evolution may be invalid or false, the shrieks of heresy and blasphemy are raised. This isn’t science, it is utter madness disguised as science. And certainly I can understand why the issue of the initial origins of life terrify evolutionists. The idea of “abiogenesis” expects one to accept on blind faith that life just “magically appeared” from some accidents with rocks, water, and a few base chemicals. Evolution suggests that right after that life was created, it began evolving. This is difficult to believe when you stop and think about it. Life “magically appears” from rocks, water, and a few chemicals? I’m still amazed that all those alchemists in the middle ages couldn’t find a way to do something as simple as turning lead into gold. If they had simply applied evolution’s teachings, water would have been gold, diamonds, and every other form of precious gem.
Evolutionary theory demands that only physical / material properties can be evaluated. This notion completely ignores the fact that human beings have the ability to reason, to think through things, to make value judgments, to make decisions, to choose right or wrong, to have order and structure or to have disorder and chaos.
This is another point of conflict, if you accept evolution’s true premises, only natural selection is valid and all of our morals, values, and social structures aren’t valid. But they exist and their very existence proves that evolution has more holes. So what do the evolutionists do? No problem, they say that social structures just don’t apply. It’s not “material” so we won’t even consider it.
Evolution by other names is the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, kill or be killed, a form of “natural” eugenics, etc. So, if you remove the social structures, the laws, rules, morals, values, the social structures, all you have are wild animals.
The “law of the jungle” part of evolution is a glaring defect and a strong demonstration that evolution misses the mark. There is something more to human life than just “kill or be killed.” So what do the evolutionists do? They simply spout their dogma “that doesn’t apply, we’re only looking at the material world!” It’s easy to understand why they would do this, under the idea of eugenics, Hitler slaughtered millions.
If you stop and think about what “evolutionary processes” was required to create emotions, social structure, values, order, and the awareness of “self,” it is easy to understand why evolutionists are terrified of this. By their nature, by what these things ARE, they are not “natural” evolutionary occurrences. By themselves, they could not have come about by any type of evolutionary theory known today. So having these “artificial” structures imposed on “evolution” disproves evolution.
Evolution’s true believers treat any challenge to their sacred cow as blasphemy or heresy --, I guess that’s a normal reaction to a religious belief.
Evolutionists are terrified. And the debate must be contained. If the debate is not contained, the public school indoctrination and the cult of evolution will collapse. Once people actually stop and think about the blind leaps of faith that evolution requires, it will be seen as the cult it is. Evolution is nothing but wild religious beliefs clothed with the appearance of science.
The golden calf of evolution is on fire. As more and more people actually stop and THINK THROUGH the lunacy that evolution expects you to believe on totally blind faith, evolution will finally be seen for what it truly is, a religion pretending to be science. At that point the fire consuming the golden calf of evolution will turn it to ashes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[FN1] A corollary is something that is generally a “natural consequence” of the thing it is related to. So when a corollary is based on something that is already proven, the corollary generally does not require much proof because it is accepted and understood. For example, water freezes and turns to ice at about 32 degrees (F) depending on atmospheric conditions. A corollary would be that water melts as it rises above 32 degrees (F).
[FN2] Before all of the shrieks from the Darwinists, what I have just outlined is called an analogous syllogism, it is a writing tool to help understand complex issues.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Additional Resources:
Links:
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Web_Links&l_op=viewlink&cid=12Resources:
DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution (DNA is PROVING that evolution is a hoax)
The controversy over evolution includes a growing number of scientists who challenge Darwinism. (The fraud of Darwinism...)
Einstein Versus Darwin: Intelligent Design Or Evolution? (Most LEGITIMATE Scientists do NOT agree with Evolution)
What’s the Big Secret? (Intelligent Design in Pennsylvania)
What are the Darwinists afraid of? (The fervent religious belief in evolution)
The Little Engine That Could...Undo Darwinism (Evolution may be proven false very soon)
Working from my admittedly hazy recollection of high school statistics and an Excel spreadsheet, I think the chances of throwing a deck of cards in the air and having it come down in order is 1 in (52x51x50x49....x1) or 8.07^67. Seems like a small chance.
But then compare it to the number of chances there are in the natural world. Say you have a bacterium that divides once a day. Each division is like throwing the genetic deck of cards in the air. So first you have 1 bacterium, then you have 2, then 4, then 8 and so on. After a year, you have 3.8^109 bacteria -- that's way bigger than the 1 in 8.07^67 chance of getting the cards in order. In other words, even though the chances of getting the cards in order is so small, you will have so many bacteria that one of them is almost guaranteed to have the genetic cards in order. Even if you assume mutations only occur once in every trillion tosses of the genetic cards, it still seems like the chances of getting the generic cards in order is almost 100%.
At least now I know how the evolutionists play the propaganda game! And I don't make the same mistakes twice. I also know that this tactic demonstrates that you're just about on the brink of collapse. Where do you go from here if all of your propaganda posts are suddenly countered?
Sounds like Adolf in the bunker circa April, 1945.
You mistake your ignorance of how evolution works with a lack of evidence for evolution.
Yes I am the author, no not "bitching" as you say, just learning ;-)
Learning the art of propaganda, diversion, and the "swarm" from the masters of propaganda ;-)
It is quite fascinating to observe the responses...
For all you know, these have all been my own experiments to produce empirical data about responses to evolutionary challenges in various forums ;-)
I don't know, the world looks more than a little disorderly from where I sit.
That's nothing. You should see my desk!
But to argue that all life, and the universe itself is some sort of cosmic accident... is to deny that there is a God.
If i'm wrong .... i'll embrace the darkness when I die... If i'm right .... i'll embrace the savior.
***************
This is fairly close to what my beliefs are at the moment.
Yes I am the author, no not "bitching" as you say, just learning ;-)
This poster has just admitted posting as a news article something he authored on a blog, that wasn't published anywhere else.
Isn't this against the rules?
" This poster has just admitted posting as a news article something he authored on a blog, that wasn't published anywhere else.
Isn't this against the rules?"
This isn't the first time with him either.
This isn't the first time with him either.
Ya think there may be a double standard?
This is an explicit admission.
It's already in the "bloggers" forum.... which is where it belongs.
;-)
[Ichneumon:] No, I don't,
[tallhappy:] Interesting. Why then was the random nature of the insertion included in the argument if it makes no difference if it is random or non-random?
Because, as you well know but are disingenuously pretending you don't, there are varying degrees and types of "randomness" and "non-randomness", and the degree and kind of non-randomness which affects the process of retrovrial integration is not such that it undermines the degree and kind of the randomness in the process which makes "accidental" matchings astronomically unlikely.
So stop playing dumb. Or if you're *not* acting, toodle off and get an education before you get even further confused.
And, given that a statistical analysis was presented with an assertions of odds based upon the assumption of random integration,
...because it *is* random, just not *uniformly* random -- but then few random processes are. That doesn't invalidate the analysis.
I think one must conclude that you do not understand basic math or statistics either.
Actually, "one must conclude" that you are being grossly dishonest here.
Feel free to prove me wrong, though -- go right ahead and show us that the actual odds of getting two of the same retroviral fragments inserted into two genomes at the same locus is actually high enough to invalidate the ERV argument for common ancestry, along with supporting citations or evidence, contrary to everyone else's findings on this process, *AND* reconcile your claim with the observation that most shared ERVs *are* found at the same site. We'll wait.
Until then, you're just talking out of your ass as usual.
And since you are backing down
No I'm not.
on the erroneous assertion that retroviral integration is random,
It's not erroneous.
that issue becomes moot.
No it doesn't. Lie much?
I have provided you with the at least one evidence for the targetted viral integration
Not on this thread, you haven't. The tinfoil may be blocking your transmissions.
and will refer you to recent articles if you would like though, as a favor to a friend.
If you're just going to wave semi-random citations that deal with some aspect of ERVs, but *don't* actually produce findings which support your implications about the alleged likelihood of similar enough matchings between two independent infection events to masquerade as a sequence intherited from a common ancestor, don't bother.
If you *can* make such a case, however, go right ahead, I'd love to see it.
In short, if you can *make* your case, then *make* it. If you're only going to try the usual "baffle 'em with BS" which can only be *spun* in your favor, then save us all the waste of time.
Do retroviruses target some portions of DNA preferentially compared to others? Sure. Does this make the amount of randomness which *does* take place during the process deterministic enough to salvage your claims? NO, it doesn't.
See for example:
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequencesLet's have a closer look at citation #24, shall we?Excerpt: Building Phylogenetic Trees from ERV LTR Sequences. Endogenous retrovirus loci provide no less than three sources of phylogenetic signal, which can be used in complementary fashion to obtain much more information than simple distance estimates of homologous sequences. First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).The cited references are:14. Maeda N, Kim H S. Genomics. 1990;8:671–683.
22. Varmus, H E.; Swanstrom, R. RNA Tumor Viruses. Weiss R, Teich N M, Varmus H E, Coffin J M. , editors; Weiss R, Teich N M, Varmus H E, Coffin J M. , editors. Plainview, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Lab. Press; 1984. pp. 369–512.
23. Brown, P O. Retroviruses. Coffin J M, Hughes S H, Varmus H E. , editors; Coffin J M, Hughes S H, Varmus H E. , editors. Plainview, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 1997.
24. Withers-Ward E S, Kitamura Y, Barnes J P, Coffin J M. Genes Dev. 1994;8:1473–1487.
Distribution of targets for avian retrovirus DNA integration in vivoThe first paper I linked cites this one as support for its statement that "multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely" -- and they're absolutely right. Even though, as you point out (and I already knew), integration doesn't occur at every site with exactly uniform random distribution, IT STILL occurs randomly across the genome with enough "spread" to make identical insertions vastly unlikely.Abstract: The targeting of DNA integration in retrovirus-infected cells is a central yet very poorly understood aspect of the biology of the virus. To investigate this problem, we have assessed the use of specific sites for integration targets of avian leukosis virus (ALV) DNA within defined regions of turkey embryo fibroblast (TEF) cellular DNA. For this purpose, we developed an assay of sufficient sensitivity and specificity to allow detection and location of single integration events in a population of 5 million cells. Targets selected for study were either regions cloned by virtue of a previous integration event or clones chosen at random from cellular DNA. By use of this approach, we found that all genomic regions tested contained integration targets, with a frequency that varied from approximately 0.2 to 4 times that expected for random integration. Within regions, the frequency of use of specific sites varied considerably, with some sites used up to 280 times random frequency. When one region was introduced into cells at moderately high copy number by transfection, it provided integration targets in a pattern very much like that seen with the same sequence in vitro. On the basis of our sampling, we conclude that most or all regions of the TEF genome are accessible to ALV retroviral integration. As with integration in vitro, integration specificity seems to be determined largely by local structural features rather than accessibility of specific regions.
Looking at the WORST possible case that one could make from the above abstract, let's say that the 280-times-as-likely sequences weren't just the "peak" of the "hot spot" sites, let's say that *ALL* the "hot spots" were fully 280 times as likely to be "hit" by an integration event as one would expect from a purely uniform random selection, AND that the "cold" spots were as cold as could possibly be and had ZERO chance of an integration event.
So, would that WORST POSSIBLE CASE of the most extreme hotspots and the most extreme cold spots make identical integration sites likely? Hell no. The human genome is roughly 3,000,000,000 basepairs long. In our worst possible case, a retroviral insertion could only occur at 3,000,000,000 / 280 of those locations, or 10,714,285 different sites. So even though there are "preferential" stretches of DNA for retroviral integration, nonetheless the WORST CASE odds (or "best case", depending on how yuo want to describe it) of an accidental location match between two integration events are *still* greater than ten-million-to-one.
*AND*, as you probably already know, there are *other* methods besides just raw genome location by which ERVs in separate genomes can be determined to be the result of an ancestral event, versus a case of independent insertion.
So stop playing these dishonest games, you're not very good at it.
It is a nice effort but filled with numerous errors or misunderstandings and simple mistakes (e.g. "human DNA project", when it was the human Genome project.)
I am focusing on the repeating elements section where your mistakes include refering to repeating elements as "fossils" or "doing no harm" as if they are inert. And of course they do not integrate randomly. This non-randomness can be manifested at the DNA mechanistic level with repsect to the actual integration event or it can be conferered by selection after an integration event at the cellular level.
Further, you entirely misunderstand the nature of the evolution of repeating elements in the mammalian genome. There is an initial retroviral infection (which does not have to result in a "broken" virus as you described it) and the distribution of the repeat element is due to transposition events that occur subsequently over time. This initial insertion is called the "matser gene" or, to quote from Lebedev et al 2000 (cited by Theobald in 4.5):
These divergences can be used to calculate the age of the branch ancestor (master or source) gene, the retropositions of which gave birth to the branch members.
Sequence homologies of the repeat element family (in the example you used, Herv-2) distributed throughout the genome are used to compute the evolutionary time relative to initial retroviral insertion event. The loss of homology is due to the recombinant transposition events which increase the frequency of the element in the genome with each event and also cause a degenracy in the sequence integrity.
The retroviruses do not become fossilized, they are incredibly active as "jumping genes" and are believed to have been a strong driving force in mammalian evolution.
They currently are believed to be involved in regulating gene expression (with the first experimental observation of a transpositional event (induced) affecting a gene expression in neural progenitor cells and, given the specific nature (as opposed to random) of their activity, they are being used as a tool to identify oncogenes.
My comment is you are very enthusiastic (dare I say zealous), but don't really know or understand that much and it comes across.
Drop the dogma and the attitude and rejoyce in the wonder of nature and what we do not know about it as well as what is known.
The idea that retroviruses integrated randomly was common a long time ago. Still no one knows what the deterministic mechanisms are for the integration, so it was a fine working assumption to use that their integration was random. There was no way to assess if it was random or not, so it might as well be treated as if it were. But that idea has gone by the wayside in the same manner that the, at the time, perfectly reasonable idea that RNA was just scaffold for ribosomes or template for translation and all enzymatic activity resided in the proteins has been eradicated by Tom Cech and others.
Keep in mind Cech was not trying to provie anything about evolution or potential origins of life, he was simply trying to figure out why the tetrahymena RNA so painstakingly isoloated in his lab kept degrading in the fridge.
Open your mind and stop clinging to your dogma and biases. Use them as tool, not weapons.
It's already in the "bloggers" forum.... which is where it belongs.
Thanks for the rules clarification. In the future, I'll look at where this kind of thing is posted so I won't waste my time, unless I'm in the mood for playing with fools.
Well wherever she came from, Dejah Thoris is still a major babe.
We haven't had stuff this funny since G3k was posting his drivel about "wildly elliptical planetary orbits," "a circle is not an ellipse," and "1720" is a really big number.
It doesn't get any better than this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.