Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[intolerancewillNOTbetolerated]

"Paul Pastorek of New Orleans, president of the board, said he will oppose the addition. "I am not prepared to go back to the Dark Ages," Pastorek said. "

I think this has to be a misquote...It was probably supposed to be, "I am not going to let anyone keep me from living in the Dark Ages. Truth be damned!"

[Tribune7]

In another 20 years we'll be able to create life from scratch using amino acids.

They said the same thing 20 years ago.

[Alamo-Girl]

I don't usually post to another thread something I've posted to a previous one, but I wish to make this exception. From This thread:

For a long time now I’ve been suggesting that the evolutionists should be malleable on the randomness tenet. I said that because it seemed like a good way to forge peace between that side and intelligent design with regard to teaching children in public schools.

However, after this research on information theory, algorithms and mathematics in genetics – in particular, the symbolization – I’m even more convinced that evolutionists insist on randomness to their own peril.

I realize the evolutionist position is that randomness does not mean the same thing as ‘roll of the dice’ – because random mutations are culled by natural selection. Nevertheless, the initiating event is a random mutation.

The presence of algorithmic information even within junk DNA (Complexity International – Brief Comments on Junk DNA [pdf]) is counter-indicative of randomness per se. The Chaitin papers [ps] explain why:

We now turn to Kolmogorov's and Chaitin's proposed definition of randomness or patternlessness. Let us consider once more the scientist confronted by experimental data, a long binary sequence. This time he in not interested in predicting future observations, but only in determining if there is a pattern in his observations, if there is a simple theory that explains them. If he found a way of compressing his observations into a short computer program which makes the computer calculate them, he would say that the sequence follows a law, that it has pattern. But if there is no short program, then the sequence has no pattern--it is random. That is to say, the complexity C(S) of a finite binary sequence S is the size of the smallest program which makes the computer calculate it. Those binary sequences S of a given length n for which C(S) is greatest are the most complex binary sequences of length n, the random or patternless ones. This is a general formulation of the definition…

In other words - to sustain the pillar, one would have to presume that random information content can be algorithmic (which is, by definition, not random.)

Even more to the point, the physics of symbols (H.H. Pattee) and the current state of the art (Rocha and Language-like features in junk DNA) strongly suggest that new research will show that mutations were opportunistic.

This would cause no violence to the theory of evolution or metaphysical naturalism were it not for the insistence on randomness in mutations. For one thing, they might have suggested that the mutations were either random or were opportunistic self-mutations - where the genetic language-like processes read an opportunity in the environment and mutated to gain advantage.

The intelligent design response to that could have been two-fold. First, that the capability itself is evidence of a designer. Second, that opportunistic mutations were additionally guided by external design, showing by information theory that symbolism and language could not have evolved sufficiently to account for the evidence, e.g. Cambrian Explosion. In response, the evolutionists and metaphysical naturalists would write both off to the anthropic principle.

In any case, I predict that intelligent design at first cause will be underscored since there is no origin for the minimal necessary information content whether or not opportunistic (Yockey seventh message).

[intolerancewillNOTbetolerated]

"I'll allow the disclaimer in bio texts the day the bible states just before Genesis 1:1, "This book contains a bunch of fictional parables and symbolic stories handed down over the millenia. Nothing in this book is intended to be truthful or accepted as fact. Please read it with the understanding that it contains mostly superstition and impossibilities. Create and foster your fantasies at your own risk."

Gee...you're a charitable sort, aren't you. For an absolute despot, I mean.

[gore3000]

In another 20 years we'll be able to create life from scratch using amino acids. -soliton-

They said the same thing 20 years ago.

They will still be saying it 100 years from now. This amino acid stuff is totally stupid and the proof that evolution is pseudo-science. You can make all the amino acids you want and mix them any way you like. You can even make all the proteins you like and mix them any way you want. You will still not get DNA. The morons of atheism/evolution have it completely backwards. You do not get DNA from proteins or amino acids. It is DNA and RNA that make amino acids and proteins. DNA has never arisen by random chance anywhere and you need a string of at least a half million DNA bases exactly arranged to begin to have a chance at creating any kind of living thing. No legitimate scientist proposes such a thing as being possible.

[gore3000]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.

Oh yes, the famous unScientific American article which was so thoroughly discredited in 15 ANSWERS TO JOHN RENNIE AND SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN’S NONSENSE that unScientific American threatened to sue them to stop them from publishing. Another great example of 'evo-science' trying to win by silencing opponents.

For the real story on how evolution is a joke, check out Evidence Disproving Evolution . It will answer the question all lurkers have when reading these threads: why do these so called apostles of science turn into slimers anytime they are asked to back up their statements?

[F16Fighter]

"More creationist BS. In another 20 years we'll be able to create life from scratch using amino acids. Where will the cretionist arguments go then?"

And of course you prefer to continue the old BS about the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 odds of earth spawning life randomly.

And LOL -- Who do think you are -- Houdini?? Until you can pull out of your hat one iota of "life" out of "scratch," your happy little fantasy remains...just that.

[gore3000]

High school biology textbooks would include a disclaimer that evolution is only a theory under a change approved Tuesday by a committee of the state's top school board.

Actually this does not go far enough. For a start they need to get rid of all books which continue to repeat the lies about the Haeckel's embryos, the moths, the horses, the fruit flies, the finches, and the Miller-Urey experiment - all of them long disproven and still being repeated as scientific fact by evolutionists in textbooks. It's time that all schools stopped subsidizing the publishers of lies.

[intolerancewillNOTbetolerated]

Thanks for re-posting this. I especially appreciated the conclussion of one of the authors you cited:

"The dialectical materialist lumpen-intelligentsia are extremely annoyed that God didn't take their advice when He made the universe."

[gore3000]

IF we're going to give students all the 'facts' for making a decision, then I suppose that means we should give them all of the creation myths found in the world. But isn't that why we have separate books for biology and mythology?

Evolution is not science. Science is about observations and no one has ever seen a species transform itself into another more complex species. However, every day we see in humans, cows, pigs, chickens and everywhere else we look organisms faithfully reproduce themselves with progeny like themselves.

[gore3000]

Eventually one of the scientists suggested they stop wasting their time, and they went back to their labs to get some work done.

A scientist who tries to create life from amino acids is not a scientist, he is a crook. Any scientist knows that amino acids do not create DNA but that DNA and RNA creates amino acids and the proteins of living things. They have it backwards and you who have some scientific knowledge should know that very well.

[Tribune7]

link to Stanley Miller experiment, why amino acid abiogenesis theory is old hat, etc.

[Tribune7]

Thanks, A-G.

[Aric2000]

I am just a simple fool.


I won't argue that one little bit.

[apologist]

More creationist BS. In another 20 years we'll be able to create life from scratch using amino acids. Where will the cretionist arguments go then?

So, you're saying in 20 years, intelligence will design life using amino acids? Which creationist argument is affected by that?

On the other hand, demonstrating random, spontaneous, undirected, self-assembly of amino acids under prehistoric environmental conditions, and from there nucleic acids and finally life... now, THAT may have an impact on the creationist arguments...

[gore3000]

* 70% of American adults do not understand the scientific process;

No doubt that is the same 70% that believe in the pseudo-science of evolution. They also believe in Martians, and give Art Bell a big audience. What's the scientific proof of evolution? How does a species transform itself into another species? What is exactly the theory of evolution Patrick? Can you ever back up your theory or do you just know how to insult opponents?

[realpatriot71]

In another 20 years we'll be able to create life from scratch using amino acids.

I doubt it. I'm taking a break from from about 300 pages of cell notes for a test in the morning. If science is even able to reporduce a single signaling cascade in 20 years I'll be impressed. Life is too complex for it to ever be made in a lab at this time, let alone 20 years. Give humans a 1000 years and maybe . . .

[Saturnalia]

I don't seem to see anything at the crevo answers thread ver. 19

[gore3000]

Anyone who reads and is knowledgeable in matters of biology accepts evolutionary tenets as the basis for the development of life on earth.

Explain to me how biology supports evolution. Particularly explain how a totally new function is created by random means.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

LOL! Yes, that quote is from Yockey, author of Information Theory and Molecular Biology. He is not part of the creationist crowd or the intelligent design crowd and his work is widely accepted. Here are some additional publications by Hubert P. Yockey