Search This Blog

Sunday, April 04, 2010

Creation versus evolution: Thinking outside the box






Before we go into more detail concerning the operation of cellular reproduction and the very tiny electron microscopic level, before we get into the standard methods Darwin apologists use to try to muddy the waters and before we even look at dating methods, I would like to suggest something: Most Darwinists are afraid to think outside of the box. But the best scientists are NEVER afraid to think outside of the box.

How utterly boring to take the exit that leads to the main expressway into Darwin City! You get in the long line of cars creeping along the disinformation highway heading for the inevitable conclusions time and time again. How much so-called science is sprinkled with the words believe and think and presume and so on? If you can find two people with framed pieces of paper on the wall to agree, you can start a sentence with "Experts believe..."

Now some scientists just research and work and discover things whether evolution has anything to do with anything or not. I was reading the site where a very well done presentation on chemosynthesizing organisms is found under the name of Dr. Alissa J. Arp. Here are two excerpts from her page on the subject LIFE WITH TOXIC SULFIDE:



"Introduction

What I want to do today is talk with you about a number of animals, from three different habitats that live in the presence of a toxic gas, hydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide is a naturally occurring compound. It smells like rotten eggs. If you walk out on the mud flats, you'll smell it. It occurs in many different environments. The interesting thing about hydrogen sulfide, biologically, is that it is a highly toxic molecule. It is toxic on the same level as cyanide. It is toxic because it binds to iron. There are two important iron atoms in biological systems. One is at the center of the hemoglobin molecule. So, typically in the presence of hydrogen sulfide oxygen transport by hemoglobin is blocked and can no longer go on. The second and more ubiquitous problem with hydrogen sulfide is that it binds to the iron at the center of cytochrome molecules, Cytochromes, of course, are the basis of aerobic respiration. So any animal that is aerobically poised in their metabolism in the presence of sulfide, barring special adaptations, will be unable to utilize molecular oxygen as the basis for their metabolism.

Hydrogen Sulfide Detoxification





There are a number of animals that are tolerant of sulfide and can live in sulfide rich environments. Several strategies that could be employed for the tolerance of sulfide include:
  1. The exclusion of sulfide from the body surface, which typically is not seen in nature because sulfide is a very small molecule. It easily diffuses across membranes, particularly respiratory surfaces which are the site of toxicity.

  2. It is theoretically possible that animals could evolve sulfide insensitive cytochrome, some molecular variation of cytochrome which is insensitive. This has not been shown to date.

  3. Animals can also employ anaerobic metabolism. Now this is a very real possibility because many animals, marine invertebrates are anaerobic in their metabolism, at least part of the time, that is they can continue to respire, metabolize and be active in the absence of oxygen. If an animal is able to get by without oxygen, molecular oxygen as an energy source, then it doesn't matter if sulfide is around because their poisoning of aerobic metabolism isn't of concern.

  4. video button sound button The fourth theoretical strategy for tolerating sulfide and one which I have spent most of my career investigating is sulfide detoxification, by either binding it and removing it from harms way, or chemically converting it to another compound that is no longer a toxic molecule."





"
Alissa J. Arp, Ph.D., Director and Professor, Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, San Francisco State University presents aspects of physiology in marine invertebrates exposed to energy rich, but highly toxic, hydrogen sulfide in three different environments. Various sulfide detoxification strategiesare employed by marine animals in these sulfide environments. Some organisms contain symbiotic, chemosynthetic bacteria. These symbionts detoxify the sulfide and provide nutrition for their hosts. Others do not contain symbionts, and detoxify sulfide through physiological pathways.

In the deep-sea hydrothermal vents, chemoautotrophic endosymbiont-harboring worms, Riftia pachyptila , clams and mussels utilize sulfide to fuel bacterial metabolism while protecting their tissues from toxicity by the sulfide detoxification process of binding the sulfide to blood-borne components.

In cold seeps, chemosynthetic communities congregate around naturally seeping pools of sulfide, methane and hypersaline brine.Chemosynthetic mussels utilize methane as their inorganic energy supply. Newly discovered polychaete worms colonize mounds of frozen methane.

In estuarine mudflats at low tides, the non-chemosynthetic, echiuran worm, Urechis caupo, is exposed to toxic sulfide. The animal tolerates moderate sulfide levels through physiological adaptations that protect the body tissues and internal fluids."

Facing the facts with a modicum of common sense

Now knowing the prevailing paradigm it is unlikely that Dr. Arp would agree with me, but these discoveries of previously unknown means of sustenance for life have stacked the odds against evolution far higher than ever! That photosynthesis would ever have happened by a series of chance events has always seemed preposterous to me anyway. Now when you read very much about the Riftia Pachyptila you realize that this has to be yet another evolutionary pathway, another life form that had to have just luckily appeared apart from any that depended upon the energy of the sun for their life cycle. These tube worms do not have stomachs or mouths but rather they depend upon the bacteria living within their bodies for sustenance. Now how do you suppose that such a miraculous and extraordinary symbiotic relationship might have evolved? What baby steps might an organism take to get to the point that they could survive and thrive on frozen methane?


We are now, speaking of mankind, truly just beginning to explore the depths of the oceans. We have only looked carefully at a few of the thousands of sea mounts in the world's oceans. We've discovered the Dumbo Octopus and the Vampire Squid and deep cold water coral that do not depend on sunlight to survive and in fact probably outnumber the population of the "normal" reef colonies we knew. Not only have we found far, far more organisms as we explore the depths of the ocean and the most unexplored jungles we have also found more and more "Lazarus" specimens, being organisms found in the fossil records thought to be:

1) Ancestors of "modern" kinds of organisms


2) Long extinct


So all these living fossils, as their numbers pile up, begin to help falsify the Darwinist supposition that the sedimentary rock records are evidence of millions upon millions of years of evolution. It is about time!
People, it really does not make sense that every fifty million years or so some kind of catastrophic event captured a snapshot of the world's ecosystem when the Noahic Flood is a far far better explanation for the rock records. Now that we know that all the sedimentary rocks are catastrophic in nature the time for clinging to the last shreds of uniformitarianism should be gone. I intend to present a great deal of evidence concerning dating methods and the possible age of the Earth but first I appeal to your brains. I ask you to put aside the childish fairy tales of Darwinists and realize that all aspects of that hypothesis have been falsified by the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record and the remarkable and complex design of organisms.

The very existence of Mensa stands in mute testimony to the fact that intelligent people can be fooled and foolish. If you are actually exceedingly intelligent you do not need to belong to a club to prove it. Mensa membership, if you qualify, requires a payment. If you pay someone to tell you that you are smart, are you actually smart?


Darwinism stands in mute testimony to the reluctance of supposedly highly intelligent scientists to think outside of the box.
Any ordinary person would come upon a new Subaru Forester sitting in their driveway and recognize that a great deal of engineering had gone into the manufacturing process of the vehicle. Having been involved in the automobile industry, I promise you that the design process of a vehicle begins several years in advance of production, as engineers work on various ways to improve gas mileage and reduce costs, streamline production and etc. New automobiles do not just happen to go *poof* and appear before your eyes.

Darwinists continue to claim that organisms somehow came to life from non-life and developed all their systems and instincts and processes and came to contain so much detailed information by a series of lucky breaks. The evolution fairy did it!



I am going to be honest with my readers, I think that anyone who believes this preposterous concept just cannot stand the thought of the existence of a God, because no one with any common sense at all could study these things carefully and for a moment conceive that all this complex design and brilliant coding came about by accident! Just wait until my next post on DNA and cellular function during reproduction. Hopefully I will kill off the weak arguments and continual evasions of the Darwinist commenters thereby...but I will not hold my breath.


To those of you who have not sold out to notGod as of yet, I ask you to study this situation very carefully and I ask you to ignore the opinions about the evidence and all the spin and all the propaganda and simply begin studying the actual evidence. Do not take anything for granted, because Darwinists have so brainwashed the average person that they take millions of years for granted as if both long ages and Darwinism are proven facts. In fact they are unproven hypotheses that I hope to keep smashing until that ridiculous pinata of an idea is broken and all the pixies and fairies and hobbits and dwarves and elves spill out onto the ground.

41 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

Now when you read very much about the Riftia Pachyptila you realize that this has to be yet another evolutionary pathway, another life form that had to have just luckily appeared apart from any that depended upon the energy of the sun for their life cycle.

What's "lucky" about it? Chemosynthesis is an older form of food-synthesis than photosynthesis is. The methanogenic bacteria that the tubeworms depend on are among the oldest forms of life on Earth.

These tube worms do not have stomachs or mouths but rather they depend upon the bacteria living within their bodies for sustenance. Now how do you suppose that such a miraculous and extraordinary symbiotic relationship might have evolved?

"Extraordinary?" What's extraordinary about a deep-sea equivalent of cows and termites? You did know, didn't you, that both ruminants and termites depend on internal bacteria to digest their food? Why do any of them require symbiotes to do something as simple and vital as eat? Why wouldn't your Designer just give them the ability to do it themselves?

Not only have we found far, far more organisms as we explore the depths of the ocean and the most unexplored jungles we have also found more and more "Lazarus" specimens, being organisms found in the fossil records thought to be:

1) Ancestors of "modern" kinds of organisms

2) Long extinct


Examples? Evidence, cites?

Radar, your writing style really needs some work. You quote extensive passages that don't have anything to do with your intended argument. Then when you do get to the crux of your argument, you scribble a long sequence of unsupported assertions and declare the matter closed. That's not the way a scientific discussion works, lad, nor is it the best way to argue in a constricted venue like this. Focus, focus, focus. Evidence, evidence, evidence. If something isn't directly relevant, leave it out. If something is directly relevant, make sure it's in there.

People, it really does not make sense that every fifty million years or so some kind of catastrophic event captured a snapshot of the world's ecosystem

I hope you don't really think this is what uniformitarian geology says!

Darwinism stands in mute testimony to the reluctance of supposedly highly intelligent scientists to think outside of the box.

This, from someone who obstinately refuses to think outside his own box and consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the scientists who support evolutionary theory are smarter and better informed than his creationist masters say they are.

Hawkeye® said...

19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools...

--Romans 1:19-22

creeper said...

Jon, good points all. The logical sleight-of-hand (and I'm not saying Radar made this one up - he may be as deluded by it as well) is the false dichotomy of evolution vs. God. It's been pointed out to him to no end that significant shares of major religions (in many cases majorities) take the theory of evolution on board, hence fundamentally disproving such a false dichotomy from the get-go.

Radar has never been able to address this, which is hardly surprising. And yet he keeps trying this line of argument, pretending it's an either/or proposition and that the theory of evolution necessitates the absence of God (instead of simply accepting the truth – that the theory of evolution merely doesn't necessitate the existence of God). By pretending this, he is hoping to appeal to those who believe in God and are not too informed about the theory of evolution - and as far as we know from what we've seen on his blog, Radar falls solidly in this category himself: he has a lot attached to his faith, thinks the theory of evolution stands in opposition to that, and doesn't know a whole lot about the subjects he argues against, as we see in one blog post after another - hence the occasional appeals to fear that Radar feels compelled to sling around when he realizes that he has painted himself into a corner on yet another subject.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

From Monty Python Sings:

"All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spikey urchin,
Who made the sharks, He did.

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
AMEN."

scohen said...

Hawkeye, don't you think verse 23 is important for context here?:

22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Is that what they're doing here?
Not at all --it's just as easy to believe that the glory of god is revealed *through* the process of evolution. No one here is worshiping idols or professing that anyone do so --quite the opposite, actually.

Indeed, as creeper and everyone else has said many times before: The god/evolution dichotomy is totally false.

highboy said...

I wonder if you guys could take a quick respite from the evolution/God thing so radar can cheer me up. He knows why.

radar: we traded him away. someone open up my heart and scrap out the pain.

Jon Woolf said...

scohen: it's just as easy to believe that the glory of god is revealed *through* the process of evolution.

Which is, in fact, what Darwin himself believed.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
-- Charles Darwin, ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, 6th ed., p. 429

Indeed.

radar said...

Tim, if it helps I think they made a real bonehead move?

"My Creationist masters?!" hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Woolf, are you serious. Your comments are full of darwinspeak without much evidence to back them up. Do you have Darwinist masters? What the heck is a Creationist master?

Creeper, you love to make false charges and really it cannot be that you are not smart enough to figure things out, you just want to try fooling the other readers. I am happy running on my record, so to speak, versus yours.

As to Charles Darwin, he never intended to bring any glory to God. He was married to a woman who at least intended to have a belief in God and for the sake of his wife and society he sometimes said something God-friendly.

But in fact his atheistic grandfather and hypocritical father who belonged to a church to "be respectable" helped make Darwin an anti-theist. Darwin wanted to find a way to dismiss God, this was his life's work.

No doubt the death of his beloved daughter Annie at the age of ten from probably scarlet fever cast the die - Darwin was anti-God and would do what he could to fight God by coming up with an alternate explanation for the world around him. His explanation could be considered a rational alternative with the level of knowledge we had about organisms in the 19th century but it is laughable now.

creeper said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
creeper said...

"Creeper, you love to make false charges and really it cannot be that you are not smart enough to figure things out, you just want to try fooling the other readers."

You get to call them false charges after you've demonstrated that they are false. But so far you're striking out on that, and this is just your usual unfounded bluster.

Is it false to point out the false dichotomy you keep flogging here? Perhaps you do it unwittingly, but doesn't it get awfully tiring to have to plead ignorance all the time in order to avoid being stuck with the L-word?

"I am happy running on my record, so to speak, versus yours."

It's all yours, Radar. Thinking that the theory of evolution is falsified because bacteria didn't turn into something other than bacteria in a lab experiment, being unable to grasp the fallacy of division after lecturing us about it, complaining that a website allegedly spread lies and then unapologetically endorsing another one that actually does that, "addressing" inconvenient dendrochronology by dismissing any and all classification of plant "kinds" (poor Linnaeus...), telling us you have a study that showed that many, "perhaps hundreds" of ice core layers can be deposited in a single year, then (rather unsurprisingly) being unable to come up with such a study, now claiming that Creationists have devised a number of dating methods (one for every dating method used by mainstream science, apparently...) that indicate a young Earth (looking forward to see you talking your way out of that one, btw)...

The list goes on and on.

A proud record indeed. And it's all yours.

-- creeper

radar said...

Yes, creeper, I have a proud record on this blog. A record of making strong posts with actual evidence based on research by scientists. Another one will appear tomorrow,

"Poor" Linnaeus believed he was working on a way of separating and classifying the kinds created by God. He would reject your evolution claims out of hand.

I also already posted on proof of multiple layers being created within a year's time on the subject of ice cores and readers are invited to use the search tool to read them all.

But also I am planning a follow up post to the concepts of both ice layers and tree rings that should be of use to readers while failing to impress creeper because we know that creeper does not particularly concern himself with any evidence that does not agree with his viewpoint. Therefore creeper serves as a foil to my posts and while his constant broken-record refrains get old at times I think it simply builds and refines my resolve. So I should say thanks for being creeper, creeper!

Woolf, you have no idea and no proof that Riftia is an old life form or a new one or anything in between. Chemosynthesis is not well known or taught in schools. In fact many schools teach that all life on Earth is dependant upon the Sun.

Woolf, did you know that YOU depend on several forms of bacteria to help YOU digest food? That is not the point, the point is that we have found creatures that ingest sulfides or methane rather than food derived from the Sun-plant-animal food cycle.

Also geologists really have a hard time with rock layers now that uniformitarianism has been dismissed. Paleontologists continue to use index fossils and predated layers to give long ages to rock formations and fossil, a system developed back when uniformitarianism was believed. Adjustments have not been made to the system.

A world-wide flood and evidence of rapid subduction of thousands of miles of crust make a very good explanation for the massive rock layering including formations that cross continents. How do Darwinists explain that and then all the layers in the wrong order and the other aspects I have previously pointed out that you commenters never answer?

radar said...

False dichotomy? Yes, Darwinists do try to get Christians to believe in Darwinism. I am comfortable debating the point but sadly the blog does not allow for real time discussions. It just so happens that Darwinists have a game plan to fool Christians into accepting Darwinism and then they begin to attack and tear down other areas of the faith until the Christian, like the frog in the pot, has been boiled in propaganda.

I am aware of the game plan and will discuss that this week too.

Jon Woolf said...

Woolf, you have no idea and no proof that Riftia is an old life form or a new one or anything in between.

I didn't say Riftia was an ancient lifeform. I said the bacteria it depends on for food are an ancient lifeform.

Chemosynthesis is not well known or taught in schools. In fact many schools teach that all life on Earth is dependant upon the Sun.

So what? A lot of things taught in school are wrong to some extent. Look at what civics classes teach about the way our government works.

Woolf, did you know that YOU depend on several forms of bacteria to help YOU digest food?

Humans have many kinds of symbiotic bacteria, which serve many purposes. For example, some of our gut bacteria produce a large chunk of the vitamin K that we need for proper blood clotting. Without those bacteria we'd all be hemophiliacs.

That is not the point, the point is that ...

... your Intelligent Designer seems to have designed a number of insanely stupid systems here. Why does Riftia require symbiotic bacteria to provide food for it? Why can't it just synthesize food itself from the smoker-vent minerals? Evolution can answer this; creationism can't. Why do we humans have to have a large microbial flora in our guts in order to live? Evolution can answer this; creationism can't.

Also geologists really have a hard time with rock layers now that uniformitarianism has been dismissed.

Who told you that uniformitarianism has been dismissed? There have been a bunch of changes and improvements over the centuries, but the principles first devised by James Hutton and Charles Lyell are still taught to every geologist and used as the basis of the science of geology.

A world-wide flood and evidence of rapid subduction of thousands of miles of crust make a very good explanation for the massive rock layering including formations that cross continents.

As long as you ignore all the layers that must have formed in air, like lithified sand dunes. And all the layers that must have formed under miles of very quiet water, like chalks, fine shales, and inorganic limestones. And all the layers that aren't sedimentary, like flood basalts. And all the layers that show complicated histories, like the rocks of the Colorado Plateau and the Canadian Shield and the Cascades Range and coastal New England and ...

How do Darwinists explain that and then all the layers in the wrong order and the other aspects I have previously pointed out that you commenters never answer?

For my part, I've never answered them because I haven't seen any posts on such topics in the time I've been reading your blog. And I refuse to go back to old posts with long-dead comment threads, and try to revive them.

Anyway, based on recent experience I rather suspect creeper, scohen, Canucklehead, and others actually do provide good answers to your claims, and you ignore them or handwave them aside.

highboy said...

"your Intelligent Designer seems to have designed a number of insanely stupid systems here. Why does Riftia require symbiotic bacteria to provide food for it? Why can't it just synthesize food itself from the smoker-vent minerals? Evolution can answer this; creationism can't. Why do we humans have to have a large microbial flora in our guts in order to live? Evolution can answer this; creationism can't."

Evolution has an answer as to why these systems work the way they do as opposed to the systems you proposed? And you see this as some sort of evidence against a designer? So if we don't agree with the design, we remove the designer option from the table? Its funny that commenters keep trying to explain to radar that evolution isn't evidence against God and then prove his point by repeatedly comparing the theory with intelligent design.

Jon Woolf said...

highboy, are you familiar with the concept of a reductio ad absurdum argument?

scohen said...

Tim,
Evolution is not evidence against god, but it is evidence against creationism.

Oh, and despite not liking sports, I understood the reference above. You're an eagles fan? I thought you'd be more of a Pittsburgh guy. Live and learn.

highboy said...

"Evolution is not evidence against god, but it is evidence against creationism.

Oh, and despite not liking sports, I understood the reference above. You're an eagles fan? I thought you'd be more of a Pittsburgh guy. Live and learn."

1. Evolution is not evidence against creationism. It might be evidence against young earth creationism. Is that what you meant? Either way, its inconsistent to keep pointing out that God and evolution are not incompatible and then compare the two ideas as if one trumps the other.

2. You've said some hurtful things to me over the years scohen, and I you, but to suggest that I'm a Steelers fan is just heinous. I'd sooner piss glass. I'm an Eagles fan for life who just lost his qb, though I admit I'm excited about Kolb.

scohen said...

"Evolution is not evidence against creationism. It might be evidence against young earth creationism. Is that what you meant? "

Actually, it's an argument against old earth creationism as well (for example, why don't we see fossils from different eras together if they were all created at the same time?). It's also an argument against explicit design, but that's even more subtle. That said, evolution destroys YEC, as does pretty much every other science (even linguistics, if you can believe that.).
Maybe a better way to put it is that it argues against a literal interpretation of the Bible.

"but to suggest that I'm a Steelers fan is just heinous"

Hey, I'm just guessing based on geography here. Altoona is abaout halfway between pitsburgh and philly, so I figured that I had a 50/50 shot. Keep in mind I'm from Cleveland, so I'm relieved to find out you're not a steelers fan. No harm intended.
At least you're not a michigan fan, then we'd have trouble.

IAMB said...

Chemosynthesis is not well known or taught in schools.

Pardon my French here, but this is outright bullshit. It is both extensively studied and taught in microbiology courses.

The argument could be made that sulfate reducing bacteria aren't well-known (simply because they're very difficult to culture/study), but chemoheterotrophic bacteria are quite well known and studied as they are one of the primary drivers of geochemical cycles.

Jon Woolf said...

IAMB, are you talking about public school or college-level courses? When I see a statement like radar's, that "subject X is not well known or taught in schools," I assume it refers to public schools, grades 1-12. I don't recall encountering the idea of chemoautotrophs outside of undergrad-college level books.

scohen said...

"Either way, its inconsistent to keep pointing out that God and evolution are not incompatible and then compare the two ideas as if one trumps the other"

I don't think I've ever said that one trumps the other, instead what I have said is that it's quite possible to hold both ideas simultaneously.
God could very well be the *who* and evolution the *how*. Lots of people see it that way.

And I have no problem with that. I'm not here to tell you (or radar) that there is no god and that Jesus is a fraud and you should enter into the wonderful world of atheism. Far from it.

What I have a problem with is when someone holds a belief which isn't necessary which causes that person to compromise their perceptions and opinions and, dare I say it, their honesty to defend this belief. Look above how radar smears Darwin. Then ask yourself how Darwin's grandfather's beliefs are relevant to what Darwin came up with when he thought up evolution. Heck, ask yourself how even Darwin's beliefs are relevant to the veracity of the theory of evolution. Thomas Jefferson kept *slaves* but had great ideas about freedom. Why do you think does radar do this? How does his behavior differ from how the 9th commandment says he should act?

Also, what's an ad hominem attack and why is it relevant here?

Slactivist has several great posts on this, and how important the 9th commandment is.

highboy said...

"I don't think I've ever said that one trumps the other, instead what I have said is that it's quite possible to hold both ideas simultaneously.
God could very well be the *who* and evolution the *how*. Lots of people see it that way."

You didn't, Jon was. But point of fact, evolution in no way argues against design, there's no way it could. Its an assumption to say there is no design simply because we don't agree with the way it was designed, not to mention evolution itself, a system with a clear purpose, better indicates that there is a design.

"Hey, I'm just guessing based on geography here. Altoona is abaout halfway between pitsburgh and philly, so I figured that I had a 50/50 shot."

Altoona is about 2 hours away from Pittsburgh and 5 hours away from Philly, where ironically, I've never been, but I've been an Eagles fan since the age of 4.

creeper said...

"Either way, its inconsistent to keep pointing out that God and evolution are not incompatible and then compare the two ideas as if one trumps the other"

That would be incompatible, but that line of argument seems to be Radar's, not that of the "Darwinist" (whatever that means this week) commenters on this blog.

I don't think any one of us has ever argued that evolution trumps God. Evolution (along with other areas of science) does trump, as scohen said, YEC, which itself happens to be a particularly (and unnecessarily) narrow and literal interpretation of a part of the Bible, no more.

I've actually said more than once on this blog that if Radar wants to conclude that abiogenesis is impossible without God having done it, then he's free to believe that, and he won't get an argument from me. Where Radar then quickly goes wrong is that he assumes that that would make even the slightest dent in the theory of evolution.

I've also said more than once that if one believes in God and the scientific evidence and study of nature indicates evolution, is it then not perfectly natural and logical to conclude that God used the mechanism of evolution? If God created nature, then isn't natural selection his handiwork?

I have no beef with those who find comfort in believing in God. What I do have a beef with, well, scohen expressed that very eloquently in his most recent comment above, so I'm happy to just second that:

"What I have a problem with is when someone holds a belief which isn't necessary which causes that person to compromise their perceptions and opinions and, dare I say it, their honesty to defend this belief."

-- creeper

creeper said...

"But point of fact, evolution in no way argues against design, there's no way it could. Its an assumption to say there is no design simply because we don't agree with the way it was designed, not to mention evolution itself, a system with a clear purpose, better indicates that there is a design."

I think it's confusing to use the word "design" like this in this context. We can use it to mean "arrangement" or "functional arrangement" or "function", but the same word can mean "something that was designed by a designer" - and they are hardly synonymous.

The thing is, the theory of evolution is capable of explaining the former, and so the appearance of "function" - which is often what is meant when one uses "design" in this context - does not automatically indicate a designer.

What would incontrovertibly indicate a designer, for example, would be something that is "specific and complex" that has no actual function. Say, a Bible verse encoded in DNA... now that would be a signature in a cell, huh?

But as long as it's just a function, that by itself really doesn't necessitate a designer.

I was a little confused by the latter part of what I quoted from your comment here, highboy. Do you see evolution as a system with a purpose, and therefore necessarily designed?

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

You didn't, Jon was.

No, I wasn't. As creeper said, my argument is not that evolution trumps God. It never has been. My point in reference to this post by Radar is this: there are many examples of bad design in Nature which, taken together, disprove the rigid creationist picture of God as an involved, intelligent Designer who had a good reason for everything he did. The Krebs cycle, the blood-clotting cascade, the tubeworms' need for symbiotic autotrophic bacteria, the need of cattle and termites for gut bacteria that digest cellulose for them -- all point to a very stupid "designer," not a smart one. Give me carte blanche to change things any way I want, and I could design a better digestive system for ruminants than the one they have now. Are you suggesting that I'm smarter than your God is?

scohen said...

Whoa, what happened to the comments? Hawkeye's comment has been deleted as well as Jon's first commeents and a couple of Radar's replies.

Jon Woolf said...

scohen: I think the Blogger server stuttered on you. I can still see all the comments I've posted, and Hawkeye's Bible-quote too. I see one "deleted comment" note, on a comment from creeper timed 11:53PM PDT last night.

creeper said...

The deleted comment was me, since I wanted to edit my comment after posting. So I deleted my own comment and then re-posted it with minor edits.

-- creeper

scohen said...

Creeper,Jon,
That's not what I was talking about --up until about five minutes ago, I was not seeing the first two comments.

No accusations or anything, I suspected it was blogger.

WomanHonorThyself said...

yet again u hit it out of the park!

scohen said...

"yet again u hit it out of the park!"

What game is she watching?

"“Hussein the Horrible” Obama is nothing more than a mulatto mixed-breed Muslim. That’s right. I said it."

Oh, that game.

*backs away slowly*

radar said...

Chemosynthesis as the BASIS for a lifeform was not known until recently. Before these deep ocean lifeforms were discovered the average biology class taught that all life was carbon based and in some way drawing energy directly or indirectly from the sun.

radar said...

Also, if bacteria will not evolve and fruit flies will not evolve then just what does evolve? We have been studying life forms looking for evolution since Darwin and have NEVER observed it. Speciation, yes. Evolution, no. Variation within kind is part of the planned design structure of organisms. You must understand that someday the average person will discover that science discovered this design structure at the heart of organisms and tried to keep people from comprehending what that means. If your children do not blame you for your intentional hindrance of the advance of knowledge, your grandchildren surely will.

I personally think it is shameful that the people at the cutting edge of science KNOW that organisms are too complex for chance accidental fairy tales. Someday ordinary people will understand and they will blame you Woolfs and creepers and schohens because you would not allow your brains to look past your belief systems.

Jon Woolf said...

Before these deep ocean lifeforms were discovered the average biology class taught that all life was carbon based and in some way drawing energy directly or indirectly from the sun.

Are you actually criticizing biologists and schools for not teaching about something that they didn't know existed?

We have been studying life forms looking for evolution since Darwin and have NEVER observed it. Speciation, yes. Evolution, no.

Speciation is an example of evolution.

Still nothing new here, Radar. You're just playing the same old game of moving the goalposts. What you mean is that we've never observed macroevolution -- evolution between "kinds." Fifty years ago, creationists defined "macroevolution" as "any significant change within a population," and swore blind that no one had ever observed such a thing. Then biologists produced examples of changes within species, and the creationists raced to move the goalposts farther downfield.

Thirty years ago, creationists swore on a stack of Bibles that a "kind" was the same as a species, the species wall was immutable, and breaching it would be macroevolution. Biologists produced examples of speciation in the wild, and hey-presto! the creationists moved the goalposts again, so fast you could see the redshift.

Today, you and your fellow creationists admit evolution within a species, admit that speciation occurs, yet still insist that there's a "kind" barrier that evolution can't breach. What will you do when the genus barrier proves as malleable as the species barrier?

Variation within kind is part of the planned design structure of organisms.

What's a kind? How do you tell if two organisms, or populations of organisms, belong to the same kind? Are all cats the same kind? all dogs? all bears? all wood warblers? woodpeckers? lizards? fish? starfish?

IAMB said...

Chemosynthesis as the BASIS for a lifeform was not known until recently. Before these deep ocean lifeforms were discovered the average biology class taught that all life was carbon based and in some way drawing energy directly or indirectly from the sun.

And???

Twenty years ago it took weeks or months to sequence a DNA fragment between one and two thousand nucleotides in length... we do it in hours now on a regular basis. Hell, we're almost to the point where we can sequence an entire bacterial genome for a thousand bucks.

There's also the little problem for you that Winogradsky first researched and proposed chemosynthesis in the late 1800s and his work was finally confirmed without a doubt in the late 1970s. We've come a long way since then.

P.S. All life as we know it is carbon-based. Some forms just use chemical energy not derived from sunlight.

Anonymous said...

Radar hilariously says,

"If your children do not blame you for your intentional hindrance of the advance of knowledge, your grandchildren surely will."

Better keep that brood of yours (especially the gay ones) AWAY from this Blog Radar. Your public shame in this regard will be (and already is, IMO) undeniable.

- Canucklehead.

creeper said...

"Also, if bacteria will not evolve and fruit flies will not evolve then just what does evolve? We have been studying life forms looking for evolution since Darwin and have NEVER observed it. Speciation, yes. Evolution, no."

Lying is like breathing to you, isn't it? Not only do bacteria and fruit flies evolve, bacteria even evolved in the experiment that you did a post about that kicked off this particularly inane claim of yours.

They just didn't evolve according to your own ridiculous standard, which itself is based on an asinine strawman argument and betrays your stunning gaps of knowledge of both basic biology and the theory of evolution.

Apparently you think the theory of evolution would (or should) predict that bacteria turn into something other than bacteria in a lab experiment spanning a few decades.

As for speciation ("n. The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.") what on Earth possesses you to claim it's not evolution? Exactly how would you like to redefine these words in this case?

You like to boast of your own intelligence, but you sure have a remarkable resistance to learning sometimes.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"What's a kind? How do you tell if two organisms, or populations of organisms, belong to the same kind? Are all cats the same kind? all dogs? all bears? all wood warblers? woodpeckers? lizards? fish? starfish?"

Jon, I seem to recall that in a discussion some time ago, Radar claimed that all plants were the same "kind". Of course, that was in a half-fast attempt to make YEC plausible in light of contrary evidence posed by dendrochronology.

-- creeper

radar said...

No I never said all plants were one kind. In fact I have posted about one or two specific kinds of plants whose genetic makeup and variation can be easily studied and from those studies both fixity of kind and rapid speciation can be deduced and observed.

Anonymous said...

I consider, that you are mistaken. Let's discuss. Write to me in PM.

Stephanie Butler said...

I believe in both God and evolution
God and Evolution