Criticism Of Evolution Can't Be Silenced

This is probably the most celebrated one:

Near the 40s, there were 2 theories in the scientific arena regarding the origin of the universe. One of the them was the steady-state theory and the Big Bang theory. In 1948, George Gamow predicted that if the Big Bang theory was accurate, there should have been cosmic microwave background radiation, as a sort of afterglow from the expansion. In the 60s, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were doing a series of observations with a new microwave receiver from Bell when they received excess noise. They investigated further and discovered that they had found the elusive CMB.

That's a falsification test for the Big Bang theory.

Nice ass-kicking!

Welcome to Free Republic.

Thanks. I was kind of surprised at first to see that so many fellow conservatives were also siding with science on this issue.

>>>>"Evolution requires faith in that it requires a belief in that which cannot be seen."

>>What do you mean? We observe evolution directly via speciation and adaptation and indirectly in the fossil record.

OK, lets take your pre-Siluran or more correctly pre-cambrean fossils, the cambrean explosion is so called because you have a five million year period where you go from Microbes, and simple (and small) worms to vertebrates and eyes, sockets and all. There is no way gradual evolution happened there, this is why the theory of punctuated equilibrium was invented (where the mutations build up and POW you get a bunch of advances all at once.) Unfortunately, punctuated equilibrium ignores the survival of the fittest part that weeds out the loser DNA so you should have way more spectacular failures than successes, and the fossil layer does not bear that out either.

What's your point?

>>If Abiogenesis did not happen, there is no reason for Darwinism, and it would prove intelligent Design

I understand why you would not want to understand, that if you don’t have life, you have nothing got mutate, so if you don’t have Abiogenesis, you don’t have Darwinism. You separating them is like saying, I was talking about cars, not vehicles. (Darwin must have Abiogenesis or it breaks down.

>> Except you managed to miss the section in the article entitled "Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy."

It was a hybrid.

>> Also, you made this ridiculous claim: "If Abiogenesis did not happen, there is no reason for Darwinism, and it would prove intelligent Design." Dichotomies don't exist in science, specially in different fields. Abiogenesis is separate from evolution; pink unicorns on the moon could have made life for all we know but evolution would still be supported.

So, the god of Darwinism is a pink unicorn?

Let me make this simple for you, Abiogenesis life occurring naturally from chemicals, anything else (ergo not forming naturally) is ID. If you are saying ID is not true, you must support Abiogenesis.

Dichotomies happen all the time in Science, It’s one way of proving something, oh yeah, you don’t believe in “proof” unless it proves Darwin was right.

>>>> "Godless – Page 200 William Provine, an evolutionary Biologist at Cornell University, calls Darwinism 'The greatest engine of atheism devised by man.' His fellow Darwin disciple Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins , famously said 'Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.'"

>>Argumentum ad vercundiam.

No, the Thread started for me with a slam on Ann Coulter, I am now only quoting Fellow Scientists as to why they support Darwin. (if I had said “Everyone knows…” or “As you know…” Then I would be speaking from authority, now I am only quoting self proclaimed authorities which is entirely different.

>>>> Darwinism requires faith, (believe, and eventually we’ll fill in these nagging details) Has dogma (Evolution is not to be questioned, especially in school!) Has Tenets (Man evolved from Monkeys, or some other lower life form), opposes most other religions (Is the greatest engine of Atheism devised by man)."

>>No, it requires evidence.

Then present some, and not the Tripe you already tried to pass, real hard evidence.

>>No, it isn't dogma.

Yes it is (Grin, no is not a very good persuader)

>>Evolution is constantly refined and questioned every day in biological circles.

And knitting circles too; neither one proves Evolution is a Law, or even remotely correct.

>>What are you talking about?

I am talking about proof, truth, and reality

Try this on for size: we (homo sapiens) are here. We got here some how. (These are true statements) how we got here that is the mystery. You keep saying you know how, well, prove it is more real than the Pink unicorn you were just talking about.

>>While common descent is universally accepted by biologists, it is how evolution occurred where the rub is.

Argumentum ad vercundiam. Anyone? (So if I can find one Biologist who dis agrees, will you admit you are wrong? I Didn’t think so…)

>>How is the evolution of Man a tenet. And it opposes most religions?

It is the First step to Atheism, see my quote from Godless, Atheists think it is great, and Atheism has been rules a religion by a federal court.

You just offended millions of theists who accept evolution and about 40% of the U.S. scientific community.

ROTFLOL If they will accept this stuff then they can just switch to the pink unicorn theory.

>>You realize that species have multiple definitions correct?

Yes but this is #1 in the five dictionaries refenced by Dictionary.com (To borrow your methodology of Argumentum ad vercundiam) is accepted by all intelligent people as the only definition of consequence. (That how it’s done, now if you disagree you are unintelligent)

>> Of course, theories are the goals of science.

From Grade 8 Chicago public schools
CAS B.
8. Distinguish fact from opinion and science from pseudoscience (e.g., astronomy vs. astrology). (http://intranet.cps.k12.il.us/Standards/CAS/CAS_Science/Science_8th_Grade/8-SG11-Science/8-sg11-science.html)

I know, I’ll give you an answer even a eighth grader could understand. I’m making brownies (even if you don’t normally like brownies you do for this example) While I’m making brownies, I add some Dog Poop (now there’s lots of brownie mix, and only a teaspoon of poop) I bake them in the oven, and so all bacteria would have been killed anyway, want one?

I knew you wouldn’t.

Darwinism is like brownie mix, there are lots of good important things there mixed in with the dog poop. The problem is you expect me to swallow the whole thing.

You keep sending me to this True Origins site, I assume you wanted me to look at:

Section 5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy

I went back and looked; I still did not see anything that was speciation I did see hybridization (even though they said the didn’t in the title) This is the same way hybrids are grown now in the Midwest, control the neighbors, control the pollination (Trust me on this one, I worked for a seed company (Corn or Maize if you prefer), they cheated on this “Proof” too.) My declaration that this site is a pant load stands.

>> Evolution is a theory to be sure. But, it is also a fact.

Pick one, you can’t have it both ways (Fake but accurate…)

Let’s just go back to the Pre- and Cambrean, shall we?
Pre- cambrean = No invertebrates, no eyes.
Cambrean = invertebrates and eyes.

The Cambrean was 5 billion years, so using accepted Genetic numbers for mutations, how long will it take to mutate an Eye from no eye? (Hint, you have a time issue)

Until Darwinists can explain all the questions like these, you will have a theory that MUST accept criticism, and until you can repeat it in an independent way and tell others how to duplicate your experiment Darwinism will always be a theory.

"OK, lets take your pre-Siluran or more correctly pre-cambrean fossils, the cambrean explosion is so called because you have a five million year period where you go from Microbes, and simple (and small) worms to vertebrates and eyes, sockets and all. There is no way gradual evolution happened there, this is why the theory of punctuated equilibrium was invented (where the mutations build up and POW you get a bunch of advances all at once.) Unfortunately, punctuated equilibrium ignores the survival of the fittest part that weeds out the loser DNA so you should have way more spectacular failures than successes, and the fossil layer does not bear that out either."

The Cambrian Explosion lasted from 12 million to 20 million years. Your underestimates aren't impressive. Fossilization is rare; since the successes accumulate and the failures are weeded out by natural selection, statistically, paleontologists are far more likely to find "successful" fossils. And what do you mean by successful anyway? Many fossils are a) lead to a dead-end b) were an intermediate that eventually lead to a dead-end c) are ancestors of today's organisms.

Also, only simple worms, microbes and such? You mind explaining complex Ediacaran metazoa such as Cyclomedusa, Arkarua, Spriggina, or Eoporpita? Hardly.

"I understand why you would not want to understand, that if you don’t have life, you have nothing got mutate, so if you don’t have Abiogenesis, you don’t have Darwinism. You separating them is like saying, I was talking about cars, not vehicles. (Darwin must have Abiogenesis or it breaks down."

Wrong; that's akin to saying that meteorologists have to account for the universal origin of water and air. It's a fallacious argument.

"It was a hybrid."

There's an entire section of plant speciation *not* involving hybridization.

"So, the god of Darwinism is a pink unicorn?

Let me make this simple for you, Abiogenesis life occurring naturally from chemicals, anything else (ergo not forming naturally) is ID. If you are saying ID is not true, you must support Abiogenesis.

Dichotomies happen all the time in Science, It’s one way of proving something, oh yeah, you don’t believe in “proof” unless it proves Darwin was right."

No, you're wrong. If ID is wrong, that does not make science correct. That you know nothing about the philosophy of science does not suddenly make your points correct. If evolution were shown to be inaccurate, ID would not be correct. ID *must* have several lines of strong *positive* evidence.

"No, the Thread started for me with a slam on Ann Coulter, I am now only quoting Fellow Scientists as to why they support Darwin. (if I had said “Everyone knows…” or “As you know…” Then I would be speaking from authority, now I am only quoting self proclaimed authorities which is entirely different."

You're giving what some people say, not the evidence. Sorry, but that isn't going to fly.

"Then present some, and not the Tripe you already tried to pass, real hard evidence."

Explain:

A) Multiple identical ERV insertion at identical sites in human and chimp genomes
B) Confirmed prediction of chromosomal fusion in humans with sub-telomeric duplications
C) Confirmed prediction of oxygen isotope ratios of early cetaceans matching those of modern dolphins
D) 98.5% of our genome consists of noncoding DNA, ERVs, and pseudogenes
E) The existence of protein functional redundancy and redundant pseudogenes
F) Humans and chimps genomes are 98% identical
G) Et cetra...

"Yes it is (Grin, no is not a very good persuader)"

It's a scientific theory. A course in the philosophy of science might be in order.

"And knitting circles too; neither one proves Evolution is a Law, or even remotely correct."

The theory of evolution isn't a law and was never intended to be. Law's are the not the end-all-be-all of science; theories are. If all we had are laws, we'd be describing natural phenomena around us, but we'd never be able to explain why they happen.

"I am talking about proof, truth, and reality

Try this on for size: we (homo sapiens) are here. We got here some how. (These are true statements) how we got here that is the mystery. You keep saying you know how, well, prove it is more real than the Pink unicorn you were just talking about."

There is no proof in science nor any measures of absolute truth. This allows science to change because scientists understand that the results of their research may not see the whole picture and may be inaccurate. We've got: A) fossil evidence B) comparative genomics C) morphological/embryological/molecular phylogenies D) identical ERV insertions with chimps E) chromosomal fusion in #2 chromosome F) Et cetra.

I see plenty of evidence for evolution. You have any for ID?

"It is the First step to Atheism, see my quote from Godless, Atheists think it is great, and Atheism has been rules a religion by a federal court."

Atheism is a philosophical viewpoint; evolution is a scientific theory. That's a non-sequitur.

"If they will accept this stuff then they can just switch to the pink unicorn theory."

Nice red herring. But you never actually responded to that.

"Yes but this is #1 in the five dictionaries refenced by Dictionary.com (To borrow your methodology of Argumentum ad vercundiam) is accepted by all intelligent people as the only definition of consequence. (That how it’s done, now if you disagree you are unintelligent)"

That doesn't matter. Dictionaries seldom have accurate scientific definitions that would be pertinent to a scientific context.

"From Grade 8 Chicago public schools
CAS B.
8. Distinguish fact from opinion and science from pseudoscience (e.g., astronomy vs. astrology). (http://intranet.cps.k12.il.us/Standards/CAS/CAS_Science/Science_8th_Grade/8-SG11-Science/8-sg11-science.html) "

Correct. That's relevant how?

"I know, I’ll give you an answer even a eighth grader could understand. I’m making brownies (even if you don’t normally like brownies you do for this example) While I’m making brownies, I add some Dog Poop (now there’s lots of brownie mix, and only a teaspoon of poop) I bake them in the oven, and so all bacteria would have been killed anyway, want one?

I knew you wouldn’t.

Darwinism is like brownie mix, there are lots of good important things there mixed in with the dog poop. The problem is you expect me to swallow the whole thing."

Non-sequitur. You haven't elaborated much on the problems at all; and much of the problems you present are distortions.

"
Section 5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy

I went back and looked; I still did not see anything that was speciation I did see hybridization (even though they said the didn’t in the title) This is the same way hybrids are grown now in the Midwest, control the neighbors, control the pollination (Trust me on this one, I worked for a seed company (Corn or Maize if you prefer), they cheated on this “Proof” too.) My declaration that this site is a pant load stands."

What you saw was hybridization *after* reproductive isolation was establish to check for the compatibility between the species.

"Pick one, you can’t have it both ways (Fake but accurate…) "

Wrong. It's a theory in that it is a well-supported explanation of a broad series of related facts on the diversity of life, and it is a fact in that there is the well-supported direct and indirect observation of it and the evidence is so overwhelming that it would be "perverse to withold provisional consent." (Gould)

"Let’s just go back to the Pre- and Cambrean, shall we?
Pre- cambrean = No invertebrates, no eyes.
Cambrean = invertebrates and eyes.

The Cambrean was 5 billion years, so using accepted Genetic numbers for mutations, how long will it take to mutate an Eye from no eye? (Hint, you have a time issue)"

12-20 million years, not 5. Also, you seem to suggest that evolution works similarly to a brute-force search. No, variation is introduced and selection selects the variation and allows species to converge. Mutations are backed by not only selection, but gene flow, recombination, genetic drift, and duplication. All of these factors speed up evolution anyway and 12-20 million years is plenty of time.

"Until Darwinists can explain all the questions like these, you will have a theory that MUST accept criticism, and until you can repeat it in an independent way and tell others how to duplicate your experiment Darwinism will always be a theory."

I think I just answered them.

But none of them has a "right" to taxpayer money to try to present their crap in classrooms as though it were science.

LOL Typical evol response. I'm sure you'd get your knickers all in a twist over a sticker on the science book which says, 'Evolution is a theory.'

That's because scientists see it for what it is: baby steps into promoting creationism. Besides which, by stating that "Evolution is a theory, not a fact" misrepresents the scientific definition of a theory.

OK, lets take your pre-Siluran or more correctly pre-cambrean fossils, the cambrean explosion is so called because you have a five million year period where you go from Microbes, and simple (and small) worms to vertebrates and eyes, sockets and all.

This is false. In fact, finding a bone, any bone, in the Burgess Shale or other mid-Cambrian strata would be a falsification of the ToE. (There are chordates in the Burgess shale, but no vertebrates)

If it's going to be taught in science class, it has to be science. Anti-evo activists, whether creationists or ID-ists, will actually have to come up with a theory that allows them to make predictions, falsification criteria, research programs, etc, and then show to the satisfaction of a skeprical audience that their new thingy actually explains more than current theory does. Until all that hard work is done, they won't be taken seriously be biologists or other scientists, and are inappropriate for HS science classes.

I'm sure you'd get your knickers all in a twist over a sticker on the science book which says, 'Evolution is a theory.'

If that were all it said, it would be redundant, as the text would also call it the Theory of Evolution.

So maybe, in reality, it says something else.

I assume the sticker has the names of all the elected and appointed officials responsible for its existence.

The Cambrian Explosion lasted from 12 million to 20 million years.

“The Cambrian Period marks an important point in the history of life on earth; it is the time when most of the major groups of animals first appear in the fossil record. This event is sometimes called the "Cambrian Explosion", because of the relatively short time over which this diversity of forms appears.”

It depends on how you calculate the time, if you go strictly by the geologic formation, you end up with five million years, if you look at the fossils and some of the other surrounding strata, you conclude it was “12 to 20 million. It depends on who you want to trust. This is precisely why I used this period, people disagree over it’s length (that dog poop I was talking about, not only that but you said they all agree.)

>> Also, only simple worms, microbes and such? You mind explaining complex Ediacaran metazoa such as Cyclomedusa, Arkarua, Spriggina, or Eoporpita? Hardly.

Yep, very simple organisms, worms, and things measured in millimeters,

“These rocks, grouped under the term, Precambrian, contain only micro-fossils, principally single-celled bacteria and algae. The Cambrian rocks contain a wealth of complex fossils as indicated above. Where, then, are the intermediate forms which represent the greater part of the history of evolution? They are nowhere to be found. This is the most striking and, to evolutionists, the most perplexing gap in the fossil record.4 Darwin admitted this,5 and for over a century paleontologists have searched without success for fossils to fill the gap.”

Italicized sections taken from http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder7.htm

Then in (we’ll use your figure, because it just doesn’t matter) 20 million years we have invertebrates.

“The rocks containing the reportedly oldest assemblage of marine invertebrate species are called Cambrian rocks. The fossils are supposed to represent "simple, primitive" forms. In actuality many of the Cambrian creatures are highly organized and complex, and some are almost indistinguishable from modern forms. Furthermore, in the Cambrian rocks are found 2000 or more fossil species. They represent every major phylum or grouping of animal life, including the vertebrate fish.3 The Ediacaran rock formation in Australia, supposedly a little older than Cambrian rocks, contains an assortment of strange invertebrate fossil forms for the most part unrelated to the Cambrian fossils. However, this does not change the lesson learned from the Cambrian rocks.
The supposedly oldest rocks containing unambiguous fossils of complex creatures composed of many cells include thousands of different complex species. Evolutionists refer to this as "the Cambrian explosion." But according to evolution one would expect a limited number of very simple kinds, if any organism can really be considered simple.”

All the suddenly “poof” you have Fish complete with eyes. How long does it take to evolve eyes? (Hint more than 20 million years, if ever)

Let’s talk about sight. Consider the need for a nerve, to carry the signal, the brain capable of using the sight, and then they eye itself before any of that becomes useful. All this from “Survival of the fittest", what’s more fit about having a brain capable of seeing if you don’t have an eye to see with? All this in 20 million years?

Two words “Get Real”.

On whether “A biogenesis” is part of Darwin’s’ theory…

>>Wrong; that's akin to saying that meteorologists have to account for the universal origin of water and air. It's a fallacious argument.

You are fallacious in your argument.

If you have no life, you have nothing to evolve. If life did not happen with out a super intelligence, than why did this Super intelligence leave it to evolution to work slowly and without help (Cambrian Explosion = ID?)

Speciation:

>>>> "It was a hybrid."

>>There's an entire section of plant speciation *not* involving hybridization.

Yep, read that, it was a hybrid they were saying was not a hybrid. They were controlling pollination, so it was not in nature, and it was a hybrid.

Calling a hybrid “Not a hybrid” doesn’t make it so; any more than putting lipstick on a pig makes it Helen Thomas (close though).

>> Let me make this simple for you, Abiogenesis life occurring naturally from chemicals, anything else (ergo not forming naturally) is ID. If you are saying ID is not true, you must support Abiogenesis.

I am specifically not saying. I am waiting for you to prove Evolution happened and should be a law, and no more theories need to be heard. You might have noticed the title of this thread is that “Critics of Evolution Can’t be silenced” Not I can make their theories look as stupid as mine is. You say these critics can be silenced (The bit about denying Darwin is like sticking you fingers in your ears and yelling that you can’t hear), so without me trying to promote anything, silence my criticism (your not doing so well, maybe you should call for help)

>> Explain:

>>A) Multiple identical ERV insertion at identical sites in human and chimp genomes
>>B) Confirmed prediction of chromosomal fusion in humans with sub-telomeric duplications
>>C) Confirmed prediction of oxygen isotope ratios of early cetaceans matching those of modern dolphins
>>D) 98.5% of our genome consists of noncoding DNA, ERVs, and pseudogenes
>>E) The existence of protein functional redundancy and redundant pseudogenes
>>F) Humans and chimps genomes are 98% identical
>>G) Et cetra...

Etcetera, meaning more of the same: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Etcetera (Grin, same what? Remember, I am not saying I have an answer just that you don’t either.)

I am not a proponent here, I am not stating an opinion one way or another just analyzing your attempts to show Evolution should not have to face competition are not well founded

>> It's a scientific theory. A course in the philosophy of science might be in order.

You are the one who was using “Theory” and “Law” interchangeably. “The Theory of Gravity, “The Theory of the Atomic Nature of Matter

>>There is no proof in science nor any measures of absolute truth.

So, you can’t prove your point, Got it. (If you don’t believe anything can be proven, why are you arguing a point of view? You could be doing something like observing a sunset without asserting it to be beautiful (can’t prove it anyway)

Let me give you an absolute truth. You Exist. OK, I proved that one wrong too. (If you are going to argue that you don’t exist, well, Grin good luck (If you don’t exist, who’s making the argument, but if you …)

>>This allows science to change because scientists understand that the results of their research may not see the whole picture and may be inaccurate.

Yep, “Science” is a history filled with “we were wrong” not a good indicator for accuracy now, or in the future. (Trust us we’ve proven ourselves wrong 1,234,256 times so we must be right this time, we’re due!)

(Please not in t truly statistical universe everything possible must happen, there for ID must be true some percentage of the time and Some present Evolution, and Aliens, and Pink unicorns…) Boy am I glad we don’t live in a truly statistical universe.

Your stuff in quotes””
“We've got: “(Brownies)
“A) fossil evidence “(With Gaps – and time frames that don’t match the geologic record, or Dog poop)
“B) comparative genomics” (coincidence, or design as evidence – Dog Poop)
“C) morphological/embryological/molecular phylogenies” (pseudo science passed as science {have you seen where that embryo stuff came from, hint it was a hoax}– Dog Poop)
“D) identical ERV insertions with chimps” (so God, aliens {pink unicorns not excluded} or evolution(chance) did that – Dog poop)
“E) chromosomal fusion in #2 chromosome” (see the response from D)
“F) Et cetra.” (more dog poop)

Sorry, can’t swallow that, too much poop there for my taste.

>> I see plenty of evidence for evolution. You have any for ID?

Um, you ARE almost making a better argument for ID than for evolution, but I’m not promoting ID, or any other theory, remember?

>>>>"It is the First step to Atheism, see my quote from Godless, Atheists think it is great, and Atheism has been ruled a religion by a federal court."

>>Atheism is a philosophical viewpoint; evolution is a scientific theory.

Not according the government, Atheists are allowed to practice their religion in prison by not being confronted by crosses; they have to have an empty room available for their worship (or non worship). (I read about this on Free Republic so you know it’s true) / Humor

>>That's a non-sequitur.
Now you’re an English teacher wow you are evolving right before my eyes, um keyboard.

>> That doesn't matter. Dictionaries seldom have accurate scientific definitions that would be pertinent to a scientific context.

So, when you and the dictionary, or geologic record, or logic disagrees, I should pick you right? (In your dreams)

>> Non-sequitur. You haven't elaborated much on the problems at all; and much of the problems you present are distortions.

I’m not trying to give alternate explanations, although some of the material I am using does, I am just pointing out problems with your theory, which is why it has no right to demand competing theories not be taught.

So instead of addressing the points made by my analogy, you tell me it’s off topic. OK, not at all persuasive, but hey present the case for Darwin however you think best.

>>you seem to suggest that evolution works similarly to a brute-force search.

Let’s see, slow, huge numbers, unpredictable results, yep it does bear a resemblance!

>>No, variation is introduced and selection selects the variation and allows species to converge.

Survival of the fittest is true because the fittest survive, how do we know what was most fit, easy it’s the one that survives. (My dad taught me that something that can’t be proven wrong, usually is) Tautology http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Tautology

>>Mutations are backed by not only selection, but gene flow, recombination, genetic drift, and duplication.

Selection by whom…
Gene flow (is statistically non existent, Random mutations are random, or they are ID),
Recombination and Duplication are anti evolutionary forces.

All of these factors speed up evolution anyway and 12-20 million years is plenty of time.

Ha Ha Ha! Exactly how many “Steps” are there in the formation of an eye from a creature with no eye? (The answer has lots of zeros, but no one is sure)

>> "Until Darwinists can explain all the questions like these, you will have a theory that MUST accept criticism, and until you can repeat it in an independent way and tell others how to duplicate your experiment Darwinism will always be a theory."

>> I think I just answered them.

“You’d like to think that wouldn’t you!” (Have you seen the movie “Princess Bride”? If not you won’t get this quote.)

It’s not whether or not you think you answered the question. I am not arguing, just poking logical arguments in your statements. The true measure of whether or not you have proved your point is do I (the person you are explaining it to) think so, sadly, no you have not made an unimpeachable case, or even a good case for that matter.

Let me make a real simple point, from the KISS school of thought.

The second law of thermodynamics can be stated as Entropy in a closed system must always increase to its maximum.

(Yes Talk Origins tries to cover the issue at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html)

But the simple fact is that energy that is not directed only increases entropy by adding energy to the system.

Back to my Bicycle analogy

Bicycles rust, rust never turns into bicycles.

If you add heat to the system from the outside, but just heat, you end up with melted rust (and a melted bicycle) and you have not created a bicycle from rust, but you can destroy an existing bicycle.

This is about as basic as it gets, (A bicycle in its most complex form is simpler than the simplest cell).

So far the Pink unicorn looks more rational than Evolution, when do we start teaching it in school?

"It depends on how you calculate the time, if you go strictly by the geologic formation, you end up with five million years, if you look at the fossils and some of the other surrounding strata, you conclude it was “12 to 20 million. It depends on who you want to trust. This is precisely why I used this period, people disagree over it’s length (that dog poop I was talking about, not only that but you said they all agree.)"

Correct. The length of it is ambiguous. However, most agree on circa 12 MYA.

"Yep, very simple organisms, worms, and things measured in millimeters,

"These rocks, grouped under the term, Precambrian, contain only micro-fossils, principally single-celled bacteria and algae. The Cambrian rocks contain a wealth of complex fossils as indicated above. Where, then, are the intermediate forms which represent the greater part of the history of evolution? They are nowhere to be found. This is the most striking and, to evolutionists, the most perplexing gap in the fossil record.4 Darwin admitted this,5 and for over a century paleontologists have searched without success for fossils to fill the gap....

"The rocks containing the reportedly oldest assemblage of marine invertebrate species are called Cambrian rocks. The fossils are supposed to represent 'simple, primitive' forms. In actuality many of the Cambrian creatures are highly organized and complex, and some are almost indistinguishable from modern forms. Furthermore, in the Cambrian rocks are found 2000 or more fossil species. They represent every major phylum or grouping of animal life, including the vertebrate fish.3 The Ediacaran rock formation in Australia, supposedly a little older than Cambrian rocks, contains an assortment of strange invertebrate fossil forms for the most part unrelated to the Cambrian fossils. However, this does not change the lesson learned from the Cambrian rocks.
The supposedly oldest rocks containing unambiguous fossils of complex creatures composed of many cells include thousands of different complex species. Evolutionists refer to this as 'the Cambrian explosion.' But according to evolution one would expect a limited number of very simple kinds, if any organism can really be considered simple.'"

Hardly. For example, Cyclomedusas have been found that are about a meter in diameter. Hardly "millimeters."

No ancestral ties of Ediacaran biota to Cambrian biota? Please, don't be dishonest:

Conway Morris, S. (1993): Ediacaran-like fossils from the Cambrian Burgess Shale type faunas of North America. Palaeontology 36: 593-635.

Crimes, T.P.; Insole, A.; Williams, B.P.J. 1995: A rigid-bodied Ediacaran biota from Upper Cambrian strata in Co. Wexford, Eire. Geological Journal 30: 89-109.

Gehling, James G. 1991: The case for Ediacaran fossil roots to the metazoan tree. Geological Society of India Memoir 20: 181-224.

Glaessner, Martin F.; Wade, Mary 1966: The late Precambrian fossils from Ediacara, South Australia. Palaeontology 9 (4), pp. 599-628.

Jensen, Sören; Gehling, James G.; Droser, Mary L. 1998: Ediacara-Type Fossils in Cambrian Sediments. Nature 393: 567-569.

Pickerill, R.K. 1982: Cambrian Medusoids from the St. John Group, southwestern New Brunswick. In Current Research, Part B. Geological Survey of Canada 82-1B: 71-76.

Runnegar, B.; Fedonkin, M.A. 1992: Proterozoic metazoan body fossils. In Schopf, J.W.; Klein, C. (eds.) 1992: The Proterozoic biosphere: A Multidisciplinary Study. Cambridge, v. 1: 369-388.

Shu, D.-G.; Conway Morris, S.; Han, J. 2006 in Shu, D-G.; Conway Morris, S.; Han, J.; Li, Y.; Zhang, X.-L.; Hua, H.; Zhang, Z.-F.; Liu, J.-N.; Guo, J.-F.; Yao, Y.; Yasui, K. 2006: Lower Cambrian vendobionts from China and early diploblast evolution. Science 312: 731-734.

The above papers show Cambrian descendants of Ediacaran biota. Also, of the 20 metazoa phyla found in the Cambrian, 9 appeared before the Cambrian. The Ediacaran biota were also complex; to assert otherwise is dishonesty.

"You are fallacious in your argument.

If you have no life, you have nothing to evolve. If life did not happen with out a super intelligence, than why did this Super intelligence leave it to evolution to work slowly and without help (Cambrian Explosion = ID?)"

No, it isn't. Evolution operates on an axiom of life - that life existed. How life came about is the research of abiogenesis and other origin of life hypotheses. Since the Designer proposed in ID is non-naturalistic, there are no manners by which to test for it much less test for the Designer's intentions.

"Yep, read that, it was a hybrid they were saying was not a hybrid. They were controlling pollination, so it was not in nature, and it was a hybrid.

Calling a hybrid 'Not a hybrid' doesn’t make it so; any more than putting lipstick on a pig makes it Helen Thomas (close though)."

"5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis

Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.
5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)

Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain.
5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)

At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes."

You mind explaining how hybridization was used in order to generate species, *not* to test for compatability?

"I am specifically not saying. I am waiting for you to prove Evolution happened and should be a law, and no more theories need to be heard. You might have noticed the title of this thread is that 'Critics of Evolution Can’t be silenced' Not I can make their theories look as stupid as mine is. You say these critics can be silenced (The bit about denying Darwin is like sticking you fingers in your ears and yelling that you can’t hear), so without me trying to promote anything, silence my criticism (your not doing so well, maybe you should call for help)"

I just gave you links to evidence for common descent and I also supplied how comparative genomics provides overwhelming evidence for evolution. Your avoiding them does not help you.

"I am not a proponent here, I am not stating an opinion one way or another just analyzing your attempts to show Evolution should not have to face competition are not well founded"

Excellent dodge. You didn't even the address the given evidence.

"So, you can’t prove your point, Got it. (If you don’t believe anything can be proven, why are you arguing a point of view? You could be doing something like observing a sunset without asserting it to be beautiful (can’t prove it anyway)

Let me give you an absolute truth. You Exist. OK, I proved that one wrong too. (If you are going to argue that you don’t exist, well, Grin good luck (If you don’t exist, who’s making the argument, but if you …)"

Wrong. You cannot make that statement about others; only about yourself. Of course, this is why science does not address philosophical issues because they are not falsifiable.

If you don't understand why absolute truth doesn't exist in science and how this keeps science tentative, then you simply do not understand a key component foundation for scientific objectivity.

"Yep, “Science” is a history filled with “we were wrong” not a good indicator for accuracy now, or in the future. (Trust us we’ve proven ourselves wrong 1,234,256 times so we must be right this time, we’re due!)"

Sure, we've been inaccurate. That's why science is tentative. However, new theories must encompass existing theories that are accurate to explain why the existent theory was accurate. When quantum mechanics and relativity encompassed Newtonian physics, it explained that the effects of relativity are not readily observable except at speeds exceeding 10% of the speed of light and that quantum mechanics was not readily observable on a macro-level. ID does not do that.

"With Gaps – and time frames that don’t match the geologic record"

Fossilization is a rare event. The fossil record is necessarily incomplete and we should expect to not have complete transitions. However, paleontologists do indeed find rather excellent transitions, such as reptile-bird transitions. What do you mean by that it doesn't "match the geologic record?"

"coincidence, or design as evidence"

Evolution is not random and the more you assert this, the more stupid you look. There is no parsimonious inference for design and even that argument is destroyed by the fact that 98.5% of our genome consists of noncoding DNA, ERVs, and pseudogenes.

"pseudo science passed as science"

Bald assertions.

"have you seen where that embryo stuff came from, hint it was a hoax"

My, aren't you the archetypal creationist. It still doesn't change the fact that vertebrate embryos are similar.

Your Haeckal-comments are addressed in detail here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

"so God, aliens {pink unicorns not excluded} or evolution(chance) did that"

So, is God an idiot for introducing useless ERV insertions , pseudogenes, and noncoding DNA into our genome? Evolution isn't chance, but includes random components.

"see the response from D"

What's the point of a chromosomal fusion? Is the Designer now a *random* idiot?

"Not according the government, Atheists are allowed to practice their religion in prison by not being confronted by crosses; they have to have an empty room available for their worship (or non worship). (I read about this on Free Republic so you know it’s true) / Humor"

And religions are also philosophical viewpoints. Your point?

"So, when you and the dictionary, or geologic record, or logic disagrees, I should pick you right? (In your dreams)"

There are multiple definitions of species. You think that the summary of all human work in speciation can be correctly addressed from a one-line definition? Hardly.

And how does the geologic record or logic disagree?

"I’m not trying to give alternate explanations, although some of the material I am using does, I am just pointing out problems with your theory, which is why it has no right to demand competing theories not be taught.

So instead of addressing the points made by my analogy, you tell me it’s off topic. OK, not at all persuasive, but hey present the case for Darwin however you think best."

No. You're posting exact claims made here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

"Let’s see, slow, huge numbers, unpredictable results, yep it does bear a resemblance!"

What "huge" numbers? Selection precisely makes improbable events happen with ease.

"Ha Ha Ha! Exactly how many 'Steps' are there in the formation of an eye from a creature with no eye? (The answer has lots of zeros, but no one is sure)"

See here:

Nilsson, D.-E. and Pelger, S., 1994. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences. 256, 53-58.

Salvini-Plawen, S. V. and Mayr, E., 1977. On the evolution of photoreceptors and eyes. Evolutionary Biology. 10, 207-263.

Goldsmith, T. H., 1990. Optimization, constraint, and history in the evolution of eyes. Quarterly Review of Biology. 65(3), 281-322.

Arendt, Detlev, 2003. Evolution of eyes and photoreceptor cell types. International Journal of Developmental Biology. 47, 563-571.

Oakley, T.H. 2003. The eye as a replicating and diverging, modular developmental unit. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 18(12), 623-627.

"Survival of the fittest is true because the fittest survive, how do we know what was most fit, easy it’s the one that survives. (My dad taught me that something that can’t be proven wrong, usually is) Tautology"

Survival of the fittest is a term invented by Spencer. It isn't a biological term anyway, so nice strawman.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html

"(Have you seen the movie “Princess Bride”? If not you won’t get this quote.)"

No. I've read the book however. Excellent book. "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father, prepare to die." Classic line!

"It’s not whether or not you think you answered the question. I am not arguing, just poking logical arguments in your statements. The true measure of whether or not you have proved your point is do I (the person you are explaining it to) think so, sadly, no you have not made an unimpeachable case, or even a good case for that matter."

How? I just gave evidence of "plagiarized errors," comparative genomics, speciation, etc. You however distort them.

"But the simple fact is that energy that is not directed only increases entropy by adding energy to the system."

I guess you haven't heard of Gibbs free energy.

"Bicycles rust, rust never turns into bicycles.

If you add heat to the system from the outside, but just heat, you end up with melted rust (and a melted bicycle) and you have not created a bicycle from rust, but you can destroy an existing bicycle."

Except bicycles aren't a) living b) subject to random variation c) subject to selection d) not subject to selection pressures

If it's going to be taught in science class, it has to be science.

Scientifically speaking, evolution is a theory. I wonder why the evols got their panties in a bunch.

If that were all it said, it would be redundant, as the text would also call it the Theory of Evolution.

That's all it said. But the evols screamed as if their firstborn were being murdered.

I assume the sticker has the names of all the elected and appointed officials responsible for its existence.

Was this supposed to be clever, or did you really mean to show your closed-minded biases?

That's because scientists see it for what it is

We see evolutionists who whine about a sticker which merely states a fact as being rabid evangelicals for their religion.

"Scientifically speaking, evolution is a theory. I wonder why the evols got their panties in a bunch."

As I aforementioned, "Besides which, by stating that 'Evolution is a theory, not a fact' misrepresents the scientific definition of a theory." The problem is that the school boards try to misrepresent the definiton of a scientific theory as "conjecture" or a "guess." The definition of scientific theory is any well-support explanation of a broad range of related phenomena, observed directly or indirectly. Theories include things like gravitation, atomic theory, relativity, quantum mechanics, heliocentricism, cell theory, germ theory, evolutionary theory, Alvarez theory, et cetra.

"That's all it said. But the evols screamed as if their firstborn were being murdered."

Correct to the first sentence. But the reason parents and teachers complained was due to the misrepresentation of the definition of a theory and the dishonest way the sticker tried to convey to the students that evolution was a "theory in crisis." Everyone knew that the intent was to start getting students looking towards Creationism.

"We see evolutionists who whine about a sticker which merely states a fact as being rabid evangelicals for their religion."

See above.

Me: I assume the sticker has the names of all the elected and appointed officials responsible for its existence.

You: Was this supposed to be clever, or did you really mean to show your closed-minded biases?

The latter. I'm biased toward people taking responsibility for their actions.

The latter. I'm biased toward people taking responsibility for their actions.

LOL So in essence, you are saying that you do not believe evolution is a theory.

Thank you for making my point beautifully.

You may now unbunch your panties. Have a nice day.

The problem is that the school boards try to misrepresent the definiton of a scientific theory as "conjecture" or a "guess."

No, the problem is that evols get all bent out of shape when they feel the least bit of threat to their system of belief.

Evolution is a theory. Why saying that gets evols all bent out of shape is beyond me. But you've helped to make my point.

Thank you and have a great day.

Evolution is not a belief. A belief, as summarized in Coyoteman's famous list, is any cognitive perception held to be true. However, science does not hold any scientific entity to be true; at no point are scientists absolutely certain of something. They have confidence levels, in which there are increasing degrees of certainty at the accuracy of the theory, but at no point is it held to be infalliable. This allows science to remain tentative and subject to change and self-correction. That it does not hold itself to be absolutely true makes it, by definition, not a belief.

Evolution is a scientific theory, a well-supported explanation of a broad range of related phenomena, observed either directly or indirectly.

In your post 183, you said ‘- there is so much evidence for evolution and considering observed speciation, it's laughable to deny it. It's equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes, and shouting, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" ‘
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1684487/posts?page=183#183

>>You also said ‘As for competing theories however, there isn't any evidence that really supports anything else. Lamarckian evolution's gone, spontaneous generation's gone, along with everything else. They couldn't withstand the scientific scrutiny, but evolution did.’

These are pretty bold statements, you also said ‘While common descent is universally accepted by biologists, it is how evolution occurred where the rub is.’ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1684487/posts?page=299#299

So I simply challenged you to live up to your statement that this was obvious and irrefutable, I have quoted from the “opponents" of this view, and I have Googled for most of the information on opposing views. (If I can find one biologist who disagrees with you, you are wrong, I found them and you question my honesty. Interesting, not attractive, but interesting.)

It is interesting to note that quoting from a source that you referred me to by saying I was using their methodology was reviled as basically “Bad form” I posted opposing views and was almost immediately attacked with questions about my intelligence, and honesty. I have never found a subject which creates groups so willing to impute base motives to the opposition as this fight seem to engender on both sides.

The Debate is over and I have won! (An interesting strategy, try to shut down an ongoing debate, and declare victory)

The Cambrian Period, first you said everyone agreed, than later you said…

>> Correct. The length of it is ambiguous. However, most agree on circa 12 MYA.

Most is not all, under pressure, you retreat from your stated position.

If here is room for debate, you will continue to have the debate with those who disagree. Thus the sticking fingers in ears remark is shown to be a completely spurious statement and your attitude of seeming “disagree and you are an idiot” philosophy becomes less attractive as we go further into debate.

>> Hardly. For example, Cyclomedusas have been found that are about a meter in diameter. Hardly "millimeters."

Strange, neither you (I assume) nor I (I admit) have actually studied the rocks in question. Since neither of us has direct evidence, we are both going off of what we read.

>> No ancestral ties of Ediacaran biota to Cambrian biota? Please, don't be dishonest:

Accusing me of Dishonesty is hardly good debating form, and it discredits you in that you are now imputing base motives without either of us (if my assumption holds true) having empirical evidence. Since I have admitted (by sourcing my quote) that I am not the author, accusing me of dishonesty is at most a mistake, at worst slander, hardly what one would expect from an enlightened scientific mind.

You then give several off line sources that you know I will most likely not have access to.

You accuse me of Argumentum ad vercundiam. (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html)

Then in the same post you use that tactic your self to try to silence criticism.

>> Evolution operates on an axiom of life - that life existed.

>> I just gave you links to evidence for common descent and I also supplied how comparative genomics provides overwhelming evidence for evolution. Your avoiding them does not help you.

I read your links and I do not agree with your assessment that this is “overwhelming evidence” I know that you do, but the only one who can say “Wow that was overwhelming” is the person who’s argument is “being overwhelmed”, I believe that it is not for you to say when your case has been proved.

Having a knowledge of Hybridization, I have looked over your articles about the plants and concluded they would be easy to fabricate, and or simply be mistaken about. Since the “Science” of evolution is replete with fakes, and falsified evidence (Piltdown man, peppered moths, embryo drawings, etc) I hope you will understand my skepticism when presented with something I consider too pat and yet easy to fake.

>> You didn't even the address the given evidence.

Yes I did, I said it was not conclusive to me.

>>>>Let me give you an absolute truth. You Exist. OK, I proved that one wrong too.
>>>>(If you are going to argue that you don’t exist, well, Grin good luck
>>>>(If you don’t exist, who’s making the argument, but if you …)"

>>Wrong. You cannot make that statement about others; only about yourself. Of course,
>>this is why science does not address philosophical issues because they are not
>>falsifiable.

So, which is it are you a scientist, or a philosopher, degrees in both? How do you know fossils exist? They could be a figment of your imagination, or I could, or Free Republic, computers… Hey, where’d every thing go…

Descartes walks into a bar, the bartender asks hey buddy, want a beer, Descartes responds I think not (poof!)… Nothing follows /Humor

>> If you don't understand why absolute truth doesn't exist in science and how this keeps science tentative, then you simply do not understand a key component foundation for scientific objectivity.

I understand you philosophy, I once would have agreed with it, once. If you won’t admit that you exist, well, there is no point in talking to someone who does not exist, and in absence of an opposing view, I guess I have to conclude that I (being the only remaining voice) am correct. Dang, I was just asking questions, and now I am having a pointless discussion with myself. (Again /Humor)

>>>> "Yep, “Science” is a history filled with “we were wrong” not a good indicator for
>>>>accuracy now, or in the future. (Trust us we’ve proven ourselves wrong 1,234,256
>>>>times so we must be right this time, we’re due!)"

>>Sure, we've been inaccurate. That's why science is tentative. However, new theories
>>must encompass existing theories that are accurate to explain why the existent theory
>>was accurate. When quantum mechanics and relativity encompassed Newtonian
>>physics, it explained that the effects of relativity are not readily observable except at
>>speeds exceeding 10% of the speed of light and that quantum mechanics was not
>>readily observable on a macro-level. ID does not do that.

ID never said it did.

The point is saying “this is science, so you must agree” falls apart when closely followed by “but we have to keep our options open, because we’ve been wrong a lot.” (It’s just not a good argument, don’t use it.) BTW you get that I’m laughing a lot while writing this, right? (One of my friends pointed out that if he didn’t know me he wouldn’t get half of my jokes here, I should use more humor tags…)

>> Fossilization is a rare event. The fossil record is necessarily incomplete and we should
>>expect to not have complete transitions. However, paleontologists do indeed find
>>rather excellent transitions, such as reptile-bird transitions.

This is a common statement made by evolutionists that gives opponents a toe hold, don’t use it. To a non evolutionist, it sounds like “I can’t prove it because my proof didn’t fossilize like everything else, and give me more time, I can find my homework. All rolled into one excuse.

>>What do you mean by that it doesn't "match the geologic record?"

There is a tree that was found diagonally crossing several million years worth of strata. There is fossil with a human foot print super imposed on a dinosaur foot print there are plenty of places that there just isn’t enough time for all the mutations necessary to happen in the time they would have to (Precambrian to Cambrian since that has been brought up here). I know, I know, they did so there was, and the fittest are what survive because they are more fit and you know this because they survived… (Circular logic like this does not win you converts, but does get you laughed at.)

>>Evolution is not random and the more you assert this, the more stupid you look.

Genetic Mutation is random, and you get way more bad mutations. The more you deny it the more stupid you look. (The “you’re stupid” argument is not really relevant and actually detracts from your prior points: the more you pick your nose, the more you frown the more you smile… the more stupid you look)

>>There is no parsimonious inference for design and even that argument is destroyed by
>>the fact that 98.5% of our genome consists of noncoding DNA, ERVs, and
>>pseudogenes.

Um, ID posited that the so-called Junk DNA would have a purpose, and now we are discovering that some of it is used after all. (Some Non-Coding DNA is used by the Coding DNA kind of like a DLL is used by multiple programs as I understand it.) You assume that Non-Coding DNA proves Evolution, IDers assume that we just don’t know what everything is for yet. On this I would have to side with them since they have a chance of being proven right, while if you insist it’s junk you will not be looking, and therefore are less likely to learn anything at all about it

>>>>"pseudo science passed as science"

No, the Piltdown man… See my earlier list, Evolution has proponents who have been proven to be willing to “Manufacture evidence” to “Prove evolution is right” unfortunately, that has raised the bar on the honest scientist who would never do such a thing.

>>Bald assertions.

Hey, can you see me through this thing? (More of my sick humor)

>>My, aren't you the archetypal creationist. It still doesn't change the fact that vertebrate embryos are similar.

I have never said that I am a creationist; you have also accused me of being an IDer earlier, if you must know, I am a theist in that I believe in God, I believe that he created the heavens and earth, but did not tell us exactly how. I believe God could have set everything up, and touched off the big bang so that we evolved, or dipped his hand in periodically ID, or done it all (including fossils) in six days. I really do not have a dog in this hunt because my faith is not at risk.

Hence my quote earlier that “True Science is merely another form of theology” because we are studying what he left for us to study.

>>So, is God an idiot for introducing useless ERV insertions, pseudogenes, and
>>noncoding DNA into our genome? Evolution isn't chance, but includes random
>>components.

God has reasons; he just didn’t tell you (or me) why he does what he does, must he?

>>What's the point of a chromosomal fusion? Is the Designer now a *random* idiot?

Code reuse?

>>No. You're posting exact claims made here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Well, once you pointed me to this site, I did go look, but most of the logic presented here is mine.

>>>>"Survival of the fittest is true because the fittest survive, how do we know what was
>>>>most fit, easy it’s the one that survives. (My dad taught me that something that can’t
>>>>be proven wrong, usually is) Tautology"

>>Survival of the fittest is a term invented by Spencer. It isn't a biological term anyway,
>>so nice strawman.

“Survival of the fittest” is commonly associated with Evolution, even if you personally don't use it. To say other wise is to be intellectually dishonest. (not my straw man, he’s been around for some time)

>>just gave evidence of "plagiarized errors," comparative genomics, speciation, etc. You however distort them.

I am giving you my honest perception of what you are saying.

>>I guess you haven't heard of Gibbs free energy.

Gibbs Free energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy So that’s the amount of energy available to do work, what does that have to do with constructively doing that work? Just because energy is available, and could be used to organize does not mean it will, there is lots of free energy in a tidal wave, I have yet to see an instance of one doing something constructive.

Bicycles still rust, rust never turns into bicycles with random energy being applied.
(is that better?)

>>Except bicycles aren't a) living b) subject to random variation c) subject to selection
>>d) not subject to selection pressures

OK, your objections
a) Bicycles are not alive (hey, it’s an analogy)
b) Random Variation (There are lots of models, but, they are not random)
c) Selection, or Survival of the fittest (see above for common association)
d) Not subject to the Selection Pressures (isn’t this c?)

Why I chose this as an analogy:
1) Bicycles are an easily understandable as an organized system.
2) Rust is related to bicycles in that bicycles commonly rust.
3) Heat is used to purify most metals, including rust and manufacture bicycles.
4) Heat alone will not perform the action we desire.
Thus this is a good example why saying the earth is not a closed system doesn’t work because all you do is increase the theater of your closed system.

You have not proved Evolution to be so obvious as to be inescapable.

I have found others who dispute your theory on claims as valid as the ones you support the Theory with

My determination after being open minded, and hearing your points is: that the debate should not be closed down, we need to keep it open until we find more information add the other theories to school and let’s get new ides and thought.