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)
He acknowledged that insertions were not "totally" random. Then showed in your own study reference that insertions were all but "random".
He called you right off the bat that you were deliberately misleading on the issue of *absolute* randomness, vs. "virtually" random.
One of the most difficult Information Technology issues is the generation of absolute random numbers. That ERV insertions aren't absolutely random does not detract from the original issue of the evidence for common ancestry.
I just can't bring myself to write "Green Peace". It's just Greanpeas to me.
He did that the first post this morning. Ichneumon's late nighter did him in.
Isn't the key here that tallhappy is speaking only about "functional integrations"?
It would seem to me, trusting my initial reaction, that it is the functional location that is nonrandom, rather than the distribution of integrations.
I'm not so sure. Sometimes, I wonder whether the mess on my desk breeds when I'm out of the office. What else can explain the ever-growing pile?
Sort of like how twinkies don't get restocked- they simply multiply, like bacteria, when nobody is looking.
Without researching the issue, I seem to remember that Columbus' crew were terrified of falling off the edge of the earth. Irregardless of what Aquinas and Augustine thought, the common Christian *culture*, which dominated that time period, thought the earth was flat.
---
You are concerning yourself with what the unwashed masses believed? Especially superstitious sailors!
Aquinas and Augustine were both men of science and religion and the main thrust of my post.
p.s. Irregardless isn't a word.
Yes. This is the case. Repeating elements corespond to regions of high gene density. Some chromosomes have uneven gene desnity distributions and some are evenly distributed. Repeating element patterns follow gene density patterns. If integration were purely random an even distribution independent of gene desnity would be seen.
One idea on this is that retroviral integration needs areas of gene activity. The active regions will have increased regions of unwound chromatin which allows the insertion event to take place.
If you hit three identical twins out of a million people in range over a square mile region that would be interesting.
That would seem like magic bullets of some sort. But bullest are not nucleic acids and molecular biology is not magic.
Why?
Arrrrgggghhhh!
No more! I surrender!
Matrix attachment regions as targets for retroviral integration.
Johnson CN, Levy LS.
BACKGROUND: The randomness of retroviral integration has been debated for many years. Recent evidence indicates that integration site selection is not random, and that it is influenced by both viral and cellular factors. To study the role of DNA structure in site selection, retroviral integration near matrix attachment regions (MARs) was analyzed for three different groups of retroviruses. The objective was to assess whether integration near MARs may be a factor for integration site selection. RESULTS: Results indicated that MLV, SL3-3 MuLV, HIV-1 and HTLV-1 integrate preferentially near MARs, specifically within 2-kilobases (kb). In addition, a preferential position and orientation relative to the adjacent MAR was observed for each virus. Further analysis of SL3-3 MuLV insertions in common integration sites (CISs) demonstrated a higher frequency of integration near MARs and an orientation preference that was not observed for integrations outside CISs. CONCLUSIONS: These findings contribute to a growing body of evidence indicating that retroviral integration is not random, that MARs influence integration site selection for some retroviruses, and that integration near MARs may have a role in the insertional activation of oncogenes by gammaretroviruses.
Virol J. 2005 Aug 19;2(1):68 [Epub ahead of print]
This is an active area of research. It is exciting and beyond the biological aspects has important implications for the future of medicine.
The original issue is whether ERVs indicate common ancestry. Integration "preferentially near" specific MARs should be easily differentiated from "exactly in the same spot".
Two separate infection events may be near (assuming you're not misusing the evidence on this, as you did last night), in this case within 2kbp, while an inherited infection from a common ancestor would be in exactly the same spot.
And then we add that there are multiple ERV "fossils", thousands of them apparently, and the result is that the only reasonable answer is a common ancestor is the cause, not duplicate infections that just happen to match.
And then add the other matching items in DNA, the broken vitamin "C" gene, the evidence of the chromosome centemere evidence where Chimp vs. Human DNA line up, etc. etc.
Add morphological evidence. Add outside evolution theory that's been demonstrated, and never falsified.
Bottom line, there was a common ancestor. The puzzle fits.
But keep it up tallhappy. I'm sure there are suckers willing to pay money for eager biologists with a legal mind that tell them what they want to hear.
What was my next sentence?
If you hit three identical twins out of a million people in range over a square mile region that would be interesting.
Actually, it's impossible to say whether it would be "interesting" or merely "expected", without specifying how many shots you had fired. You're not too clear on how to specify a scenario, are you?
It also might have a chance of being interesting if that were a valid analogy to what happened in the SCID-X1 trials, but it's not. The biggest dishonesty in this "analogy" is that there are actually (several) million *shots* (treated cell instances, each of which can "hit" some part of the genome), not "a million people" (targets) in the SCID-X1 case.
The second dishonesty is that while hitting the "same" people three times in a "square mile region" sounds pretty unlikely, it's tallhappy has DISHONESTLY changed the size of the "target size to target region size" ratio in a way that's DISHONESTLY inflating the odds against hitting a specific person. A human cross-section is roughly 8 square feet, meaning that to hit a specific person via a random shot into a "square mile region" is 5280 x 5280 : 8, or 3.5-million-to-1 odds against. Yes, that *is* rather unlikely.
HOWEVER, as the authors of the study itself pointed out in the material which I *QUOTED* for tallhappy -- so he has absolutely no excuse not to actually be aware of it -- the odds of "hitting" the LMO2 gene is actually only ~10,000-to-1 against. Tallhappy's flawed "analogy" of "people in a square mile region" DISHONESTLY presents a scenario which overinflates the difficulty by a factor of THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY, just to give a false mental image which is several hundred times more unlikely than the *actual* case under discussion.
Tallhappy might be better served by trying to find fault with the authors' mathematical analysis of the actual dynamics of the gene therapy trial, rather than trying to hand-wave his case back to life by spinning tales of people scattered over large acreages and failing to run any numbers.
Also, to point out how sloppily tallhappy is stretching an analogy to try to frantically make excuses, I'd like to ask, just where in the hell would you find THREE identical TWINS? Last time I checked, twins come in pairs. (And *I'm* the one who allegedly doesn't understand biology?)
Not to risk my position in Darwin Central, but I think he meant three sets of twins out of a million people.
And drop the paranoia.
My question remains, are there multiple insertions, only some of which affect a target. Are there multiple targets where the insertion would have the desired effect?
I think I need a picture.
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.