The Golden Calf of Evolution is on Fire…

NoDNC.com report ^ | August 23, 2005

[woodb01]

Why do people continue to accept the ridiculous idea that evolution is anything but religious dogma? The "cute" little arguments offered by supporters of evolution simply DEFY common sense.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the subject of evolution, blind fanaticism override common sense and reason.

I just can't believe that order "magically" appears from disorder. The whole idea that a mess cleans itself up, and makes itself neat and orderly is completely beyond rational thinking... It shows how absurd the "scientific" arguments from evolutionists really is... Come on folks, stop and THINK about what evolution insists you believe!

[King Prout]

put your drinks down first.

[Izzy Dunne]

I just can't believe that order "magically" appears from disorder.

Please name a scientist who has asked you to believe that magic creates things.

[Izzy Dunne]

arguments offered by supporters of evolution simply DEFY common sense.

Common sense says that the sun revolves around the Earth.

[Moral Hazard]

This debate is so stupid. Creationists are like people arguing with Neil Armstrong after he got back from the moon that the Earth is actually flat.

[FFIGHTER]

... or pour a stiff one...

[Manic_Episode]

Evolution: The ultimate in revisionist history.

[Dawsonville_Doc]

Oh, dude- this should be fun...

[Ichneumon]

Why do people continue to accept the ridiculous idea that evolution is anything but religious dogma?

Because contrary to your ignorant and incorrect propaganda, there is a *MASSIVE* amount of evidence supporting evolution, it has passed tens of thousands of validation tests, and passed countless falsification tests.

Deal with it.

The "cute" little arguments offered by supporters of evolution simply DEFY common sense.

Endogenous retroviruses defy common sense? How?

Unfortunately, when it comes to the subject of evolution, blind fanaticism override common sense and reason.

And that's just the creationists, who want to blindly rail against evolution without actually being familiar with the evidence.

I just can't believe that order "magically" appears from disorder.

Neither can I. Magic has nothing to do with it. However, being well-versed in information science, and having studied the topic for over three decades, I'm well aware that information can and does arise naturally from "disorder" when certain natural processes are at work. Deal with it.

The whole idea that a mess cleans itself up, and makes itself neat and orderly is completely beyond rational thinking...

Translation: Because *YOU* can't understand how that can happen, it *must* be impossible...

Learn some science before you attempt to critique it.

[general_re]

Where do you start?

[Manic_Episode]

Ping

[mikeus_maximus]

Anthony Flew, the guru of dogmatic atheism, was at least honest enough to follow the socratic path and go where the strongest evidence leads: Design by an intelligent mind.

Those with a more emotional objection to the evidence have an emotiobnal objection to overcome.

But they have to be able to see that self-created barrier first. And many simply won't.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for showing me what may be the most incredibly ignorant article ever posted on this website. I won't disturb the ping list for this thing. But I will ping a few hardy souls who enjoy this kind of sport.

[tallhappy]

The Golden Calf of Evolution is on Fire…

Does gold burn?

[Ichneumon]

[From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Version 2.85

Copyright © 1999-2004 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

[Last Update: April 15, 2005]

Permission is granted to copy and print these pages in total for non-profit personal, educational, research, or critical purposes.

Introduction

volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

Outline

Introduction Universal Common Descent Defined Evidence for Common Descent is Independent of Mechanism What Counts as Scientific Evidence Other Explanations for the Biology How to Cite This Document Scientific Evidence and the Scientific Method Phylogenetics introduction Figure 1: A consensus universal phylogeny Cladistics and phylogenetic reconstruction Maximum parsimony Maximum likelihood Distance matrix methods Statistical support for phylogenies Does phylogenetic inference find correct trees? Caveats with determining phylogenetic trees	Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree Unity of life Nested hierarchies Convergence of independent phylogenies Statistics of incongruent phylogenies Transitional forms Reptile-birds Reptile-mammals Ape-humans Legged whales Legged seacows Chronology of common ancestors	Part 2. Past history Anatomical vestiges Atavisms Whales with hindlimbs Humans tails Molecular vestiges Ontogeny and developmental biology Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches Snake embryos with legs Embryonic human tail Marsupial eggshell and caruncle Present biogeography Past biogeography Marsupials Horses Apes and humans
Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism Anatomical parahomology Molecular parahomology Anatomical convergence Molecular convergence Anatomical suboptimal function Molecular suboptimal function	Part 4. Molecular evidence Protein functional redundancy DNA functional redundancy Transposons Redundant pseudogenes Endogenous retroviruses	Part 5. Change Genetic Morphological Functional The strange past Stages of speciation Speciation events Morphological rates Genetic rates Closing remarks

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>>Contrary to popular myth, the theory of evolution has many holes.

So does most accepted science. An honest scientific thinker accepts the theory that has the fewest logical problems. Right now, I think ID still has it's share of holes. An intelligent design should be logical in the sense that it could be mapped and replicated once understood.

In other words, ID would quite literally imply that anyone who understood the design and had enough resources on hand, could, ipso facto, start playing God.

[Moral Hazard]

"Anthony Flew, the guru of dogmatic atheism, was at least honest enough to follow the socratic path and go where the strongest evidence leads: Design by an intelligent mind."

So Anthony Flew (whoever that is) believes in "intelligent design". What does that have to do with whether "intelligent design" actually occurred? Should I start pointing to Christians who believe in evolution and pretend like that proves something?

[Izzy Dunne]

and through a bunch of accidents, order is created

The old deck-of-cards analogy.
If you throw an unboxed, unordered deck of cards into the air, the odds are astronomically against them landing in order on the ground.
The odds are so great, that you might say they are a billion to one, maybe more.
Even if you do it a billion times, common sense says that "it won't happen".

"Therefore evolution didn't happen", is the conclusion.

Never mind that nobody has ever said that a microorganism will turn into a giraffe.
The deck-of-cards analogy fails because it assumes the same starting point each time.
Evolution says that you start from the BETTER of the original, or the mutation. The lesser dies out.
If you could put the cards back the way they were before you threw them, then you could choose to keep the new throw or the old throw, depending on whether it was more ordered or not.

[PatrickHenry]

I'll post a few links to your most famous posts, not that the creationists will bother ...

Ichneumon on the Scientific Method. It's post 401 and it's excellent.
Ichneumon's legendary post 52. More evidence than you can handle.
Post 661: Ichneumon's stunning post on transitionals.