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)
I have not argued against common ancestry.
Why you would think non-random integration would destroy the concept of common ancestry is strange.
That does seem reasonable, but not relevant. Darwin Central encourages honesty.
It would be nice if you guys could discuss this issue without making war. Some of us are interested in whether current reasearch does, or does not, support a particular hypothesis, after all, we are talking science here. It's too bad, given the attitude of some members here, that such an informative debate is not likely to happen.
Even were the points of insertion unique, the current pattern (taken over several virial insertion regions) would indicate common ancestry.
Completely off topic, I have a catalog for Argosy University. It has a history of Argosy and the Sarasota campus. There is no mention of any doctoral programs prior to 1981, and no PhD programs at the Florida campus at all. I got the catalog by emailing the information officer. Argosy really only teaches counselling, curriculum development, and business admistration
I have lost track of the thread where this came up.
But if the genes don't fit
Your theory is split.
Thanks for the info. If its' possible, I'd like to have that e-mail address, and ask them directly about Bliss. They may comment, and they may not. It's worth a shot.
Just my opinion that if you walk like a duck.....
I considered that, except for the fact that that would have made the (already flawed) analogy even *more* of a complete departure from a useful comparison to the SCID-X1 study results.
Even though it would still be a poor analogy, one could try to use the analogy of "hitting the same person three times", or "hitting each of a pre-chosen set of three people" or "hitting all members of a set of triplets". (It would be a poor analogy because the SCID-X1 trials actually hit the same region in three *different* blasts of the "machine gun", but at least the "three hits" notion is preserved).
The "three sets of twins", on the other hand, has *NO* meaningful equivalent in the SCID-X1 trials whatsoever -- there's no "triple pairwise" event.
The effect desired is expression of a wild type gene to correct the disease confered by the patient's mutated gene. Ostensibly insertion anywhere that results in expression of the delivered gene is all that is needed.
The side effect in this case is the insertion near LMO2. Retroviruses tend to insert near oncogenes, especially those related to leukemia, such as LMO2.
There definitely are multiple insertions. How many and their randomness is unknown. Only some will effect a cell -- if the insertion is near a gene that contols proliferation, for example, the proximal integration of the virus elements can up regulate that gene compared to a normal cell. This can cause a cancer, or it could actually be benign and perhaps even help to increase the number of cells expressing the therapeutic gene introduced by the vector. In such as case insertion near such a gene can increase the efficacy of the gene therapy treatment.
There's a lot unknown still in the whole broad field, from the basic molecular and cellular biology to the application of it for medical purposes.
I don't disagree.
The initial argument though was based upon the premise that integration was random and propigation was static. Odds of localization in different species were then presented for that scenario as an argument.
But the scenario first explicated is not biologically accurate or relevant.
One can make an argument based on erroneous information and premise for something is is true. That doesn't mean one should.
Randomized integration over species (or over indivudual in a single species or even an individual gamete) is sufficient to indicate common ancestry.
How many of thes insertions were in germ cells that produced children?
That's a huge factor in decreasing the randomness. All of them had to be in germ cells that produced children. Even if the actual integration event in to the chromosome of germ cells were purely random at the molecular level, the selective pressures for propagation of the elements attenuates this randomness.
Insertion of an element in a germ cell in a region that confers faster growth on that germ cell will select for that insertion. That means when observing insertions over evolutionary periods of time, sites of insertion seen will be based on non-random but directed integrative events that confered selective advantage on the cell that gor that insertion. This is true even if the initial insertion/integration event is purely random.
This why we do not have to assume that when 3 of 9 patients in a gene therapy trial have observed insertions in the same region we do not have to conclude that they must be the product of common descent because the odds of insertion in to that site are astronomical.
As itchyboy pointed out, these insertions are selected and amplified. If this insertion was in a germ cell, and in 100 years someone looked at the DNA of these three kid's offspring, would they be correct in assuming that these offspring all had the same progenitor in a prior generation from whom they inherited the insertion?
I'm not sure what you mean, so I can't comment.
I certainly do. Here's the problem once again for the lurkers. Ichemeuon posted a looong post showing what he called transitional fossils showing dinosaurs turning into birds. The problem though is that at least two very prominent avian evolutionary experts disagree with the fossils sequence...and in a signficant way.
VadeRetro et al dismiss this disagreement as not important. They essentially are calling these experts eccentric nut cases. Here is a biography of one of those "nuts" from the university he works at:
Biographical Sketch
Alan Feduccia is S. K. Heninger Professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He is an evolutionary biologist interested in vertebrate evolution, especially the origin of birds from reptiles, the origin of avian flight, and Tertiary adaptive radiation.
Feduccia took his B.S. in Zoology from L.S.U., and Masters and Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. He lectured at Michigan and then taught at S.M.U. for two years before joining the University of North Carolina faculty in 1971. Feduccia's research has taken him on numerous expeditions to Central and South America and Africa. He is the author of more than 125 scientific publications dealing primarily with the evolution of birds and other vertebrates, embryology, comparative morphology, and evolutionary systematics. His publications include some ten books (including editions & translations), and five monographs, including the internationally acclaimed and award-winning, The Age of Birds, Harvard University Press (1980), which appeared in Japanese, German and paperback editions. Reviewer comments included: "a revelation of clarity and synthesis...Feduccia--himself a leading anatomist--has brought together startling new evidence on the reptilian-avian relationship... science writing at its best," and in 1993 the book was termed "definitive" by the New York Times.
His popular books include Catesby's Birds of Colonial America (U.N.C. Press, 1985), and Birds of Colonial Williamsburg (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1989), illustrated with 70 watercolors by famed bird artist Douglas Pratt. His new book The Origin and Evolution of Birds was the lead science book for Yale University Press for the fall of 1996, and winner of the 1996 Scholarly and Professional Publishing Award of the Association of American Publishers. Feduccia has recently published cover articles in Science and Naturwissenschaften, and the former was listed in Discover Magazine's top 50 news stories of 1993, and in Science News' science news of the year.
He has lately been interviewed on numberous radio and television shows, including frequent appareances on National Public Radio, BBC, and Voice of America. He has appeared recently on the Australian television show Quantum, ABCTV (1995), the McNeil/Lehrer Report (1995 and 1997), the Japanese television series "Planet of Life", Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK), Science and Technology Satelite News, (February 1996), NBC Radio News, CBS Radio News, NPR Morning Edition, ABC Radio News, Australia (1997), ABC Discovery News (April 1998) and the Discovery Channel's If Dinosaurs Could Fly (February 1998). He is an invitee to "Renaissance Weekend."
Now obviously he is not a nut. So why do Vade and others have to characterize him as such? Well, simply put because there is no way to prove him wrong. Why? Because evolution isn't like math, chemistry, physics or anything else most rational people consider to be science. Evolutionary study dealing with "transitional" fossils is all a matter of opinion. That's right, opinion.
Think about it: if a mathematical experts disagrees with math he isn't given the time of day. You are either right or wrong. Same with physics, biology and chemistry. Our technology operates as it does because all of these disciplines have methods in which the theories can be verified and tested. Fossil study does not. Actually dating the fossils isn't or can't be done with any degree of accuracy. Think about it: if it could be done then there would be no debate about transitionals. None. They could prove that the fossils in question are X number of years old and Dr. Alan Feduccia would have to concede the point. But they can't.
Since they can't prove the age, they have to do the only thing next: call those who disagree nutcases. It's the old Clinton nuts and sluts strategy. Evolutionists who disagree with orthodoxy are called nuts. People who disagree with evolution are called sluts.
That's why these threads get contentious and why they exist. Think about it. If someone came and started a math thread and stated that they didn't believe that 2+2=4 then the thread would quickly die because THERE IS NO DEBATE. It's a fact, easily proven. Evolution isn't like that. Smart people disagree and can disagree and nobody can prove them wrong. Oh they'll yell and scream that all the experts agree and anyone who doesn't agree with the experts is whacked. But ask yourself, why do they bother? If it's so evident there would be no debate. They could state their case and it would be crystal clear, just as 2+2 is to most 4th graders.
Arrrrgggghhhh!
No more! I surrender!
I've been waiting all day in case you reconsidered. I guess I've been waiting in vein.
Or perhaps it's because Feduccia's initial premises are faulty? You might ask what makes up a 'science' before jumping to the conclusion that the study of evolution is not science. You might also investigate quantum physics before assuming all 'physics' are simple, obvious and 'provable'. I assume you are considering 'classic' physics as 'Physics' in your comment, but classic physics has been shown to be lacking in explanatory power, specifically when looking at the atomic world. Once you get to the quantum level, any relationship physics has to the observable and testable becomes tenuous.
"Think about it: if a mathematical experts disagrees with math he isn't given the time of day. You are either right or wrong.
"Same with physics, biology and chemistry. Our technology operates as it does because all of these disciplines have methods in which the theories can be verified and tested.
What makes you believe the biologists practicing in the fields of evolution are any different than other biologists? What makes you believe that evolutionary studies are not submerged in math and physics? The indirect observations used in evolutionary studies are just as testable and verifiable as quantum physics, relativity, astronomy, cosmology and any other science that relies on it.
"Fossil study does not.
This is a strawman version of evolution. Evolution is based on many more studies than just 'fossils' (paleontology). It includes taxonomy, cladistics, geology, geophysics, geography, genomics, chemistry, physics, astronomy, computer science and probably a few I've forgotten about.
"Actually dating the fossils isn't or can't be done with any degree of accuracy. Think about it: if it could be done then there would be no debate about transitionals. None. They could prove that the fossils in question are X number of years old and Dr. Alan Feduccia would have to concede the point. But they can't."
Let's take a look at that statement. Radiometrics can date the rock fossils are found in, accurately to within a specific range of time. How many years 'out' can radiometrics be and still be within 1%? If we go with the oldest age of the Earth of 4,550,000,000 years the range of dates within 1% would be between 4,595,500,000 and 4,504,500,000 years. This is equivalent to being within 9.6 months of determining the age, scientifically/medically, of an 80 year old human simply by examining his body. That sounds pretty accurate to me.
Most of the 'doubt' about transitionals comes from the creationist groups who disregard dating all together. If dating was accurate 'to the day', they would still argue the point. Knowing the exact dates of fossils would not stop Feduccia from contesting the ideas he contests because it would not tell us which fossil is in direct line with any other, it would just tell us which is older. There is no restriction to more than one lineage of dinos having descendants who flew.
"Since they can't prove the age, they have to do the only thing next: call those who disagree nutcases. It's the old Clinton nuts and sluts strategy. Evolutionists who disagree with orthodoxy are called nuts. People who disagree with evolution are called sluts.
Your opinion does not make for a good argument, especially when 'arguments of distraction' are all you use.
It has been suggested to you that Caudipteryx 'devolved' from a flying dinosaur (if birds evolved from dinos, they can still be considered dinos) which you rejected. There really is no such thing as 'devolution' or 'de-evolution' since evolution has no direction and no goal. However there is no set of evolutionary rules that specify that a non-flying dino which has evolved into a flying dino cannot evolve into a non-flying dino once again. There are cases of birds arriving on predator free islands losing their ability to fly within a relatively short period of time.
It is also not necessary that a series of transitional fossils be in direct lineage with one another. As long as the general path of change is shown and verified by analysis of multiple shared diagnostic features it is evidence of the transition. This is much like your mother's cousin who is just as valid a representative of the evolution of 100 generations of your family as you are.
One can only endure so much punishment before giving up....
Bite me!
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.
