The Central Flaw of Evolution

This message is hidden because AboveAlpha is on your ignore list.


[And for good reason.]

 

Show everyone present what you are good at, sdelsolray. I have seen nothing from you worthy of note. I quoted evolutionary biologists, and the best you can do to refute them is smear ME? Your ad hominem attacks are juvenile and anti-intellectual. Now write something truly intellectual.
Show that you are educated and analytical. I look forward to something substantive from you. How about your analysis of polypeptide synthesis from *selection*? We're not talking creationism here, lad. We're talking science. Proceed with science, if you can.

 

You have not posted anything scientific. You just quote creationist lines and do not even credit your sources. When people call you out, you ignore them.

 

The thing is if he was smart he could logically post that he believes a GOD used the processes of both Quantum and Biological Evolution to create the Universe and Multiverse and all life within and no one could prove him wrong even if no one could prove him right either.

BUT.....that ain't happening!!

AA

- - - Updated - - -

sdelsolray has posted about REALITY!!

I can't say the same for you.

AA

 

And sdelsolray was silent, utterly failing to take up the challenge of putting his brains where his mouth is. No surprise there.

Again, the central flaw of evolution is that it is a scientific fraud, a tautology, which originated before Charles Darwin, and was revived by the communists in the 1920's and on as a materialist basis for their world system. They virtually raised Darwin to sainthood. Karl Marx had no real basis for his atheism until he read Darwin and offered to dedicate his book, Das Kapital, to Darwin.

America's founders penned and signed the Declaration of Independence, acknowledging "the blessings of Nature and of Nature's God."

 

What would qualify as an instance of macro-evolution???

 

Hey ChemEngineer,

Could you put me on your ignore list too? Please, please please? Then I can respond to some of your silly posts without you knowing and having to deal with your infantile replies. That, and your blood pressure won't go through the roof.

 

Bearing false witness again?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002_2.html

 

Listen carefully. False witness means I was aware of the truth but chose not to tell the truth. THAT is "false witness." I cited a passage from a book, not the website you showed. I know how much you Darwinists despise anything remotely connected with the word "creation," but you really do abuse facts and thinking. Criticism of Darwinism is just that. It is not dependent on the Bible, or creation websites or organizations. A great many evolutionary biologists and paleontologists and biochemists and mathematicians and physicians to name but a few professionals, reject Darwinism NOT on the basis of the Bible but on the basis of science and the failure of Darwinism to adequately explain common descent.

Whether or not Marx offered to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin does not minimize the fact that communists seized upon Darwinism and popularized it for the most nefarious and vile reasons. Not that you care one bit.

 

The facts are there is no credible scientific evidence that refutes the theory of evolution;
and the "stories" you have posted concerning Darwin either have a spin on them or are patently false.

Theory does not mean speculation, hypothesis, unsupported, vague idea, or something that is particularly doubtful.
The ToE has been tested and scrutinized for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
Evolution,as a process, can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or resistant to it.

~fini~

 

The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins

“Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design” - the subtitle

[Dawkins plays word games, as do all of his acolytes. Anyone who denies the countless profound fortuitous interdependencies, from the submicroscopic to the supermacroscopic, is simply denying the patently obvious, solely to support their godless faith.]

page 14: "...everything is extraordinarily simple."

[Ah yes, all the physics books, chemistry books, astronomy books, biochemistry, all so "extraordinarily simple." ]

page 43: "“We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.”

[Without design, with design. Only from the hateful mind of someone like Dawkins. "Anyone who does not believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked." - Richard Dawkins]

page 41: “A simple, rudimentary, half-cocked eye/ear/echolocation system, etc is better than none at all.”

[Tell that to Stevie Wonder. He has been blind since birth, and has far more than a simple, rudimentary, half-cocked eye.]

page 46: “I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare.”

[What utter nonsense. 1/50 keys x 1/50 keys x 1/50 keys... just 50 times is hopelessly more impossible than the "impossible" Dawkins defines as 1 chance in 10^40th power. Spin that to your heart's content. I'm sure you will do just that. Spinning is your version of "science."]

Enough to prove my point that Dawkins is almost as anti-scientific as most of his followers here.

Grow up, taxonomy. And stop being so hateful and pretentious. It's the metier of all Left-wing conversation.

 

This one is definitely not worth the time. It would be wasted time.

And his entertainment value is now approaching zero...he's already beginning to repeat his creationist website sources again and again.

And his added political nonsense is sooooo predictable.

Out to lunch, irrational and boring.

 

“It is a well known fact that reality has liberal bias.” ― Stephen Colbert

http://www.umass.edu/molvis/tutorials/hemoglobin/heme.htm

 

I looked ahead a few pages and it seems Maccabee- who argues first and foremost from scripture according to his signature - isn't willing to define his term "information", so I'll assume Maccabee means "information" equals "positive mutation" and go with CCR5-delta 32.

 

Good post, except for your last line-science only cares about the how. The why it leaves for religion.
Evolution answers both- even crazy sexual selection.

 

Oh please, countless hundreds of thousands if not millions of experts in their fields continue to challenge the tautology of Darwinian silliness: "They're successful because they produce more offspring, and they produce more offspring because they're successful." It really proves nothing whatsoever.
Evidence AGAINST Darwinism continues to mount, but it is constantly excused away by people with their ancient agenda to uphold. Old ideas die very hard, and the nonsense prattled in defense of this tautology is truly pathetic. "We need another theory if it is to be abandoned." Well, no, that is not how science works. If it fails, it must be rejected. End of story.

"Sex was invented." - Carl Sagan

Information Theory Experts have calculated that the sum total creative ability of the known universe to generate information is around 500 bits.
A small cell contains 10^12 bits of information. Random mutation is an impossible source of life and common descent. Impossible.
Read about the Wistar Symposium, and the University of Paris' efforts to simulate evolution on computers. All they did was jam, because... wait for it....
no information was produced! Just like in reality.

 

You claim,"Evidence AGAINST Darwinism continues to mount"
What prevents you from presenting this... "evidence" ?

 

Dragonflies are older than dinosaurs and have not needed to evolve.

 

And yet 97% of scientists support evolution (2009 Pew Research poll). Obviously evolution is not being rejected by scientists. Just because you say something fails, doesn't mean it has.

 

Biologists, like the climate science cabal, have their noses shoved so deeply into the government research funding trough that neither of them would publish anything remotely alien to what you call "consensus." It is intellectual pride compounded by greed. Dissenters of either orthodoxy (religion) are blackballed and refused tenure, promotions, publication of their papers, and government grants. Disgraceful and anti-scientific.
Since you have nothing to add to discussions, I'll increase my Ignore List by one.

~ciao

 

Thank you! I've been wanting to get on that list. It really is like a badge of honor.

One thing though, if you put everyone who disagrees with you on your ignore list, you won't have anyone to debate, but maybe that's what you want, just a bunch of people to agree with you. In that case, you are on the wrong site.

 

At this rate by Christmas he is going to need a log book just to document all those he placed on ignore! LOL!!

HEY!! Maybe all of us on his..."NAUGHTY LIST"....can chip in and buy him the Log Book!??

AA

 

There are a number of life forms that have evolved to a point of perfection for this environment and condition such as the Dragonfly and Shark as well as Crocks and Alligators.

But that doesn't mean that their environment and condition might not change and if so they will evolve accordingly.

AA

 

Speaking of books, I have a feeling the closest he's come to critiquing something in print is the menu at his local burger joint.

 

Explain how the probabilities of flipping a coin very, very rapidly change when you flip that same coin only once every fifty years.
Explain how information theorists are wrong when they state that the capacity of the entire universe to create information from random mutations is ~500 bits, whereas the information contained in the simplest single cell organism is 10^12 bits.

Intermediate life forms must, by definition, survive and reproduce. Your attempt to compare chemical reactions and their speed, with transitions among species is tortured and absurd. It is unscientific in the extreme, and you know it.

That is not what prompted Stephen Jay Gould to propose punctuated equilibrium. He did so to try to explain away the utter lack of fossil evidence for gradualism. Paleontologists have stated that this lack of evidence is so profound and the number of fossils found in the past 150 years is so great that the gaps will never be filled, as has so long been promised by Darwin's faithful.

I have never read anything that made less sense than what you wrote.