Posted on 05/21/2007 9:33:13 PM PDT by LoserPays3000
I don't know how many other folks have read this yet, but I highly recommend it. Sutcliff's style is like Ann Coulter's and the book backs up the brazen title with over 40 sources and rock-solid research. See http://www.evofraud.com for sources, chapter excerpts, purchase.
It's also non-technical and easy-to-read, regardless of your background in science. After reading it I wonder why anyone believes in that pseudoscience. Why Evolution is a Fraud demonstrates why Darwinism is mathematically impossible, why genetics is evolution's worst enemy and how this racist pseudoscience has survived in spite of the facts to the contrary.
She applied common sense? Sorry, but even common sense has to be backed by observation and logic, something she lacks horribly. Common sense is neither all that common nor in many cases is it sensible. In fact it frequently limits the ability to consider new information. Tell me what common sense tells you about the quantum world? Or about the theory of General Relativity?
Its too bad Coulter used the same common sense you seem to value since it gave her such a poor understanding of a field she obviously knows nothing about.
You can spout all the paleobabble that you want, but it doesn’t nullify the fact that evolution is only supported by pseudoscientists who have a vested interest in keeping it going. Evolution does not stand up in light of the complex engineering behind DNA.
Thus far your argument consists of claiming that the wide range of scientists engaged in research related to evolution are pseudo scientists and belong to some huge conspiracy designed to falsely support their science. Quite the feat considering most scientists are most interested in getting their name recognized as someone 'not' keeping the status quo. Also quite the feat when so many love to tear down the work of other scientists.
And as proof of that claim you assert there is 'engineering' behind DNA. Now can you give some positive evidence beyond your personal incredulity that this apparent engineering is the result of some super designer? Another assertion won't cut it.
"Your tag is right to suggest that theistic faith is not science; just as science is not faith. The problem with evolution is that it requires immense faith, instead of science, to believe in. What is observable, repeatable and testable about evolution?
What exactly do you believe should be observable, repeatable and testable?
I hope you don't hold to the very mistaken idea that a process has to be directly observed through its entire cycle. Science makes the strides it does by taking large systems, breaking them into smaller more manageable chunks, controlling as many variables as possible and playing with independent variable(s). If this wasn't the case we would not have the real world benefits of the quantum world. This is why the process of evolution has been broken down into a large number of interrelated fields, each considering not only their own work but how their work integrates with others.
The idea that Theropods and Aves are related wasn't an assumption based on magical thinking but the result of observation of similarities and differences. The observation came first and the hypothesis came later.
Repeatability does not mean that the process has to be repeated, but that the 'experiment' be repeatable and have consistent outcomes. We don't have to repeat the transition from Artiodactyl to Cetacean to know it occurred. We do have to have the mechanisms capable of producing the sequence and at least some of the traces left by the transition. The mechanisms are known - changes to the genome, which has been observed and repeated in the lab, the ability of the genome to affect the morphology of an organism as has been shown in the lab and elsewhere, and the ability for a trait to fix in a population, which has also been observed and repeated in the lab and in nature.
As far as tests are concerned, tests are all about predictions. We can predict that we should find transitionals, organisms which exhibit traits of two different closely related species and that the transitionals should be found within a certain range of strata. We have found many that fit that bill, from the aforementioned Artiodactyl to Cetacean line, to the Hominid sequence, to the therapod to Aves sequence to... well I'm sure someone will post a link to Ichnueman's legendary post where you will see a number of other sequences.
We can also make predictions about what we will find in molecular biology. We can predict that closely related organisms will have more similarity in their genomes than less closely related organisms. When we 'test' for that prediction, we find that to be the case.
Contrary to creationists, the work done by scientists on the Theory of Evolution fits all of the requirements of science.
"Where are the valid transitional forms?
I mentioned a few sequences above but I think we need to define a transitional fossil.
First let's see what a transitional is not. It is not what Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron seem to think it is, an organism with a lion's head and a duck's rear end. The theory has never suggested that new species suddenly pop out with some fully realized features of one organism and other features of another organism. In fact is such a thing happened it would throw a large part of the ToE into disarray.
What it does say is that we should find a series of transitionals between two easily differentiated, but potentially related, species which show a gradual change in a feature (or features) from one to the other.
If the transit between Artiodactyls and Cetaceans were true we should find some fossils showing change in, hopefully diagnostic features leading to the Cetacean and away from the artiodactyl. We should find fossils showing a change in placement of the nostrils. We should find fossils showing a change in head/neck attachment. We should find fossils showing a change in leg length and hip construction. There are many more feature changes that can be predicted but we will stick with what I have listed. If we are lucky we will find fossils which show changes in multiple features.
The point is that this series of changes should diverge from the Artiodactyl and converge on the Cetacean.
The predicted gradual change in nostril placement and shape has been found. The predicted gradual change in head/neck attachment has been found. The predicted gradual change in leg length and hip has been found.
"Instead of the knee-jerk reations to what you seem to think is some creationist bogeyman, how about showing solid evidence that backs up evolution?
How about you tell us what you think constitutes solid evidence?
She applied common sense? Sorry, but even common sense has to be backed by observation and logic, something she lacks horribly. Common sense is neither all that common nor in many cases is it sensible. In fact it frequently limits the ability to consider new information. Tell me what common sense tells you about the quantum world? Or about the theory of General Relativity? **These theories are based on the legitimate science of physics. Biology, unfortunately, has this pseudoscience of evolution off of it.**
Its too bad Coulter used the same common sense you seem to value since it gave her such a poor understanding of a field she obviously knows nothing about. **How much did people have to know about phrenology before they realized that it was bogus? This lame argument that ‘you just don’t know enough about evolution’ won’t cut it because there will always be some new scam, er, theory concocted by someone trying to get another research grant.**
You can spout all the paleobabble that you want, but it doesn’t nullify the fact that evolution is only supported by pseudoscientists who have a vested interest in keeping it going. Evolution does not stand up in light of the complex engineering behind DNA.
Thus far your argument consists of claiming that the wide range of scientists engaged in research related to evolution are pseudo scientists and belong to some huge conspiracy designed to falsely support their science. Quite the feat considering most scientists are most interested in getting their name recognized as someone ‘not’ keeping the status quo. Also quite the feat when so many love to tear down the work of other scientists. **No conspiracy at all. They may have internal disputes about the various theories within the framework of evolution but very few of them are going to risk cracking that framework. One who did is Richard Goldschmidt, who dared to ask tough questions of evolution after he had already established himself as a well-respected scientist in genetics. He was attacked by his peers when he dared to assualt the foundation of evolution.**
And as proof of that claim you assert there is ‘engineering’ behind DNA. Now can you give some positive evidence beyond your personal incredulity that this apparent engineering is the result of some super designer? Another assertion won’t cut it.
“Your tag is right to suggest that theistic faith is not science; just as science is not faith. The problem with evolution is that it requires immense faith, instead of science, to believe in. What is observable, repeatable and testable about evolution?
What exactly do you believe should be observable, repeatable and testable?
I hope you don’t hold to the very mistaken idea that a process has to be directly observed through its entire cycle. Science makes the strides it does by taking large systems, breaking them into smaller more manageable chunks, controlling as many variables as possible and playing with independent variable(s). If this wasn’t the case we would not have the real world benefits of the quantum world. This is why the process of evolution has been broken down into a large number of interrelated fields, each considering not only their own work but how their work integrates with others.
The idea that Theropods and Aves are related wasn’t an assumption based on magical thinking but the result of observation of similarities and differences. The observation came first and the hypothesis came later.
Repeatability does not mean that the process has to be repeated, but that the ‘experiment’ be repeatable and have consistent outcomes. We don’t have to repeat the transition from Artiodactyl to Cetacean to know it occurred. We do have to have the mechanisms capable of producing the sequence and at least some of the traces left by the transition. The mechanisms are known - changes to the genome, which has been observed and repeated in the lab, the ability of the genome to affect the morphology of an organism as has been shown in the lab and elsewhere, and the ability for a trait to fix in a population, which has also been observed and repeated in the lab and in nature. **the changes you are talking about are adaptations, which happen all the time within a species. The speciation that supposedly happens in evolution is another issue. **
As far as tests are concerned, tests are all about predictions. We can predict that we should find transitionals, organisms which exhibit traits of two different closely related species and that the transitionals should be found within a certain range of strata. We have found many that fit that bill, from the aforementioned Artiodactyl to Cetacean line, to the Hominid sequence, to the therapod to Aves sequence to... well I’m sure someone will post a link to Ichnueman’s legendary post where you will see a number of other sequences. ** you have a predisposition to fit the ‘evidence’ into a framework that you already agree with. You can rationalize whatever you want to make evolution appear plausible, but the net result is still the same — it’s a philosophical view that does not have scientific validity. Evolution is more about pushing an atheistic agenda that says ‘man has replaced God, so shut up and realize that evolutionists are God.’ If evolution was a real science, it would not have to fabricate attacks upon non-existent Bible boogymen. Ever wonder why there is no argument over physics or chemistry with people of faith? It’s because physics and chemistry are real scientists. In fact, Isaac Newton, who knew a thing or two about physics and calculus, was a Christian.**
We can also make predictions about what we will find in molecular biology. We can predict that closely related organisms will have more similarity in their genomes than less closely related organisms. When we ‘test’ for that prediction, we find that to be the case.
Contrary to creationists, the work done by scientists on the Theory of Evolution fits all of the requirements of science.
“Where are the valid transitional forms?
I mentioned a few sequences above but I think we need to define a transitional fossil.
First let’s see what a transitional is not. It is not what Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron seem to think it is, an organism with a lion’s head and a duck’s rear end. The theory has never suggested that new species suddenly pop out with some fully realized features of one organism and other features of another organism. In fact is such a thing happened it would throw a large part of the ToE into disarray. **I don’t know about the two folks you mentioned, but the idea that reptile scales morphed into flight-worthy feathers is absurd. It does not matter how much time is involved, systems do not randomly go from simple to progressively more advanced. To suggest that the precise engineering is the result of ‘natural selection,’ (aka random chance)is to mock logic.**
What it does say is that we should find a series of transitionals between two easily differentiated, but potentially related, species which show a gradual change in a feature (or features) from one to the other.
If the transit between Artiodactyls and Cetaceans were true we should find some fossils showing change in, hopefully diagnostic features leading to the Cetacean and away from the artiodactyl. We should find fossils showing a change in placement of the nostrils. We should find fossils showing a change in head/neck attachment. We should find fossils showing a change in leg length and hip construction. There are many more feature changes that can be predicted but we will stick with what I have listed. If we are lucky we will find fossils which show changes in multiple features.
The point is that this series of changes should diverge from the Artiodactyl and converge on the Cetacean.
The predicted gradual change in nostril placement and shape has been found. The predicted gradual change in head/neck attachment has been found. The predicted gradual change in leg length and hip has been found.
“Instead of the knee-jerk reations to what you seem to think is some creationist bogeyman, how about showing solid evidence that backs up evolution?
How about you tell us what you think constitutes solid evidence? **How about data that are not forced to fit into the framework of evolution? The folks who dared to break that framework — Goldschmidt and Behe— were attacked with absurd arguments. The evolutionists are not going to say ‘gee, evolution is a fraud’ because that’s their bread and butter. It has more to do with perpetuating the same ideas and getting research grants than it is about real science.**
How do you define ‘natural selection?’
Instead of hiding behind a bunch of websites where, scientists default to evolution because they are doing real science, how about defending your theory?
Possibly significant.
That is a canard. Evolution is hardly due to random chance. Both Es and anti-Es are wrong on that.
Anti-science sources? You mean like James Watson who wrote DNA, Biophysicist Lee Spetner who wrote Not by Chance and Biochemist Michael Behe who wrote Darwin’s Black Box? Sutcliff cites countless examples of mathematicians, biologists, chemists and physicists who have discarded evolution and called it for the nonsense that it is.
Defend it against what? You?
I have far better things to do this afternoon.
Actually, all three of these people accept the fact of evolution and common descent.
That is false. Spetner does not buy evolution and Behe has been a harsh skeptic.
Spetner and Behe do not attack the fact of evolution or common descent. Behe has explicitly said that common descent is a given.
What they object to is existing theories of how mutations and variations occur. None of these people deny that once a variant exists, it must survive selection.
Theories of mutation, lateral transfer, gene duplication and chromosome mutation are constantly being expanded, corrected and updated. None of this affects the general description of evolution as variation plus selection.
Beautiful!!!
[’civ takes a bow]
The shallow opportunism of the antievolutionist is almost lovely in it's unaffected fanaticism.
Most probably you don't know (and even if you did you probably wouldn't care) that your hero Michael Behe has said that he has "no problem" with common descent. Since he almost certainly wouldn't define feathers as "irreducibly complex" wrt scales, he most probably also has no problem with the notion that feathers evolved from scales.
Let's start with just the first step (since evolution is after all a stepwise process as proposed).
So, you have a collection of cells on the surface of an animal. All they do is detect whether there is light or there isn't light, and maybe the intensity of the light. They can form no image. They can't even determine the direction the light is coming from.
Now lets say a mutation occurs that causes this collection of cells to form as a small cup instead of a flat surface. Now, although they still can't form an image, they can now easily enable the animal to determine if the light is directional and what direction it is coming from. That is if only the cells in the back of the cup are activated, or the signal is notably more intense there (those cells in the front being in the shadow of the cup) then the light must be coming from the front rather than, say, from directly above, in which case all the cells would be equally activated. Likewise if the cells on the left side of the cup are activated, then the light must be coming from the right, and etc.
Now, with this very simple modification, the animal has the potentially very useful new ability to move efficiently in a manner that allows it to seek or avoid light.
So, do you deny that a modification so simple as the invagination of a few cells to form a simple cup is impossible for random mutation to achieve? And how is it that the cells themselves need to be "smart" for this to happen?
So evolution is continuously evolving? How convenient! Whenever evolution does not have a valid answer, just say ‘the process is still evolving.’ This circular reasoning is why evolution is a fraud— it cannot be logically justified.
Most probably you don’t know (and even if you did you probably wouldn’t care) that your hero Michael Behe has said that he has “no problem” with common descent. Since he almost certainly wouldn’t define feathers as “irreducibly complex” wrt scales, he most probably also has no problem with the notion that feathers evolved from scales.
** Where are you getting this information that Behe has endorsed ‘common descent?’**
If by logically justified, you mean proven like a theorem in math, you are correct.
The "laws" of gravity also evolve. That's the way science works. In the meantime, Newton is close enough to get us to the moon and back.
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.
