Search This Blog

Friday, June 11, 2010

Darwinists? I ask you to do just two things...


"It is a cardinal error to theorize before you have all the facts." -- Sherlock Holmes

I noted with great glee that one of our most Darwinist of commenters  used this line in a comment thread from this post.   Unintended irony is the best kind, don't you think?  For of course Darwin knew little or nothing of the composition of the cell as he wrote his most famed books,  thinking it to be some kind of protoplasm.  In his last years he became more aware of cellular complexity but not to any great extent, nor did he allow such awareness to enter into the private room of his Great Hypothesis, the idea that all life came from one common ancestor!

Darwin not only theorized before he knew all the facts, he theorized while being entirely wrong about everything happening "under the hood" of organisms.  He was aware of Mendelian genetics and certainly had to know of Pasteur's findings concerning biogenesis or abiogenesis as you may prefer.  He was determined to do what his grandfather could not, and that was to cobble together a cohesive theory of evolution that had a cause and an effect that could be observed and understood.  Lamack had to be tossed aside (although from the solemn intonations of narrators who clutter up video of animals and plants in action I am not entirely sure that shade-tree Darwinists entirely understand this) but natural selection with the help of good old mutation stepped up to save the day.   So Darwin thought and so many believe to this day.

Tubeworms depending upon sulfides that they provide to specialized bacteria


Those of us who are not hoodwinked into the Darwinist camp have seen quite clearly that the evidence a Darwinist holds up for inspection always turns out to be speciation.  Organisms change, but they change by rearrangement of already existing information (occasionally) or by the LOSS of information (usually) and this process is in fact built in to the organism.  In fact, the organism is so wonderfully complex and brilliantly designed that scientists keep learning more about how "simple" reproduction works and continually have to revise their Evolution Fairy stories in an attempt to keep up.  Meanwhile, real scientists study nature and apply the lessons to produce more efficient engines and better flying machines.

Is it tragic or comedic that we spend millions to turn our electronic eyes and ears to outer space looking for any tiny hint of design (SETI) and blithely ignore it when it presents itself over and over again in nature?   In any event, here is what I am asking Darwinists today:


In my fifty-seven years on the planet a great deal of my time has been spent observing nature (animals, plants, rock formations, bodies of water, stars, etc.) and thinking about what I see.   I have read literally thousands of books and hundreds of them were devoted to science and philosophy.  (I also have a weakness for the occasional brain candy of James Patterson or Michael Crichton now that I have read all the Michener and Dickens and White and other classic authors too dead to publish new stuff).   I have spent many hours two-tracking with my laptop while watching nature shows on Animal Planet or Discovery or History Channel and etc.   I observe and I think.

Last night for probably the third time I watched a Blue Planet episode that included footage of the odd creatures found at the bottom of the ocean.  I do not mean deep-sea creatures like the Vampire Squid or the various cold jellyfish that look like neon signs ripped from Vegas casinos.   The cold seeps (methane) and 170 degree hot vents (sulfides) found deep in oceans are both bacterial-dependent ecosystems of organisms that could not survive independently.   Both have a large contingent of tube worms and arthropods and mussels of various kinds.  The mussels and or tube worms are designed to bring nutrients to the bacteria, upon which they depend to live and then other creatures live off of or alongside of them.   We have only explored perhaps two percent of the ocean's bottom.   What else is there?   How many other colonies of intricate interdependencies are there to be found amongst the funnels and vents and cracks and crevices of the mysterious deep?

You have to watch these shows with your propaganda filters turned on.   For instance, the narrator at one point talks of how tube worms that can only survive in 170 degree temperatures at the bottom of the ocean on the sides of smokers because they provide a home for specialized bacteria that can only survive within creatures that present them with the sulfides and other nutrients that they then convert into food that allow the tube worms to subsist at the bottom of the ocean completely separate from any energy from the Sun and therefore not part of the normal carbon-based Sun-driven food chain that is familiar to us land based life forms was evidence of evolution.  Was the narrator even listening to himself?  Such creatures cannot survive in shallow water nor would they be found on land and they certainly would not belong in the family tree of the sea life we find in tide pools along the shorelines.

Mussels depending upon methane on "shore" of an inner brine sea deep below the surface of the ocean


One entire ecosystem depending upon methane.  One entirely based on sulfides.  This is supposed to be evidence for the beginning of life on Earth?!   Can anyone imagine which came first, the bacteria or the tubeworm and what poofed either of them into existence?  My head hurts imagining Woolf making some effort to explain the fifty gazillion steps needed to wonderously transform hot emissions from within the planet into these intricate and varied creatures.

We saw fantastic footage of Manta Rays feeding on the eggs of breeding fish and various schools of fish going all hive mind on predators by making themselves into rapidly moving and cohesive balls and funnels far larger than the individual predators and somehow moving in concert to let hungry mouths close on just-opened nothingness in the middle of a million fins and scales.  How do sardines all move together or dance into myriad formations in instantaneous ways to avoid Marlin mouths?   How do birds know to fly in formations that allow them to go where they should not have enough stored energy to get to, how do sharks and sunfish know when and where to go to access fish that will pick the unwanted parasites from their skins and how do these fish know when it is safe and wise to approach a shark?  What came first, the shark or the remora?  Who taught terns to "walk on water" in order to pick morsels of food off the surface of the sea?

Sardines form a moving ball-shape mass to evade death by shark


How do Salmon get spawned in fresh water, live in salt water and then know to go back to their birthplace to spawn in fresh water...and then die?  Why do mayflies even bother to live and die?  By what strange steps would seventeen-year cicadas evolve such a strange life and how could that possibly be an evolutionary advantage?  How can the ridiculous duck-billed platypus be understood to have been at the end of a series of evolutionary choices?  How do you explain the skull and tongue of the woodpecker, the explosive systems of the bombadier beetle, the unwavering and amazing skill of the mounds of the brush turkey...?

I quote from the Bible.  

Proverbs 30

Sayings of Agur
 1 The sayings of Agur son of Jakeh—an oracle  :
       This man declared to Ithiel,
       to Ithiel and to Ucal:  2 "I am the most ignorant of men;
       I do not have a man's understanding. 

 3 I have not learned wisdom,
       nor have I knowledge of the Holy One.
 4 Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
       Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands?
       Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak?
       Who has established all the ends of the earth?
       What is his name, and the name of his son?
       Tell me if you know! 

 5 "Every word of God is flawless;
       he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
 6 Do not add to his words,
       or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar. 

 7 "Two things I ask of you, O LORD;
       do not refuse me before I die:
 8 Keep falsehood and lies far from me;
       give me neither poverty nor riches,
       but give me only my daily bread. 

 9 Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you
       and say, 'Who is the LORD ?'
       Or I may become poor and steal,
       and so dishonor the name of my God.


It is all too obvious that the cell is designed, that the millions of different varieties of living things are so numerous and complex and wonderful and strange and different to have simply happened.   When you lift the hood of Darwinism you find this:  By some remarkable chance existence poofed into being and it was JUST RIGHT for the Sun and Earth Moon and the Solar System to exist to be JUST RIGHT for life to JUST POOF INTO EXISTENCE SOMEHOW and by unexplained and unobservable ways.   Then, in a statistically impossible series of events (just as all these other events are statistically impossible) not just one thing but a broad spectrum of all sorts of different living things of all shapes and colors and sizes are found in the four corners of the Earth.  We find life at five miles above sea level and on the floor of the ocean's deep and everywhere in between.   We find it in cold and hot, big and small, useful to man and a pestilence to him, dangerous and peaceful, sedentary and swift, carnivorous and omnivorous and herbivorous and, heck, some things that say bring on those yummy hot sulfides, baby!

Pilot fish hang out with sharks and turtles and rays.  Heck, you have things living in you and on you that are too small for you to see but most of them help you live.  You think you would be able to digest all that stuff you eat without hundreds of different bacteria living inside of you?  You have any idea what a mess the world would be without carrion eaters and dust mites?

THINK!  For Darwin to be right is not plausible in any way, shape or form.  To believe in Darwin is to throw away all logic and reasoning altogether for the sake of avoiding one subject:  A Creator God.   A Creator God who did what the Bible says He did explains the flora and fauna and the rock layers and what we know of human history and human nature and morality.  If you were not running away from God so fast you would stop and realize how ludicrous Darwinism really is...and in the end, how evil.  For it is an evil man who takes the detour sign away from the washed-out bridge and who sets up traps to injure and kill others.   You who teach Darwinism to children and turn them from God have done more than simply been mistaken yourselves, you have taken part in the destruction of lives that could have been redeemed.

What does the Book of Romans say?

 16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,  just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

Martin Luther read this passage in a format much like this:

Habakkuk 2:4 (King James Version)

 4Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

Martin Luther read this passage, understood it, and it changed Christianity in Europe.   Jesus taught it, of course. Christians are not justified by our works, no, but by our Salvation through Christ attained by faith.  Our works are the result of our faith and not the content of it!

 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 

 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 

 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 

 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

God has given each of us an ability to reason and understand.   Each and every one of you can see plainly that life is no accident.   Will you admit it or will you defy all reason and logic for the sake of you atheistic naturalistic materialistic worldview?


radar said...

What will come first, the transitional form argument or the God is mean argument? Can't hardly wait...

Anonymous said...

Double Facepalm

radar said...

Apparently that means BOTH.

radar said...

I did admire that visual.

Anonymous said...

Please tell me this is a parody blog.

Jon Woolf said...

Don't hold your breath... [snicker.wav]

Darwin not only theorized before he knew all the facts, he theorized while being entirely wrong about everything happening "under the hood" of organisms.

Nope. Darwin proposed his theory of organic evolution using only facts. Two in particular: first, that individual organisms do vary within a population; second, that available resources are limited, and thus there will be a struggle for survival among those individuals. From this he drew the conclusion that those individual variations would affect an individual's chances of survival -- a conclusion so obvious that even creationists no longer try to contest it. Genetics, biochemistry, even the majority of the fossil record -- all that came later, and yet not a single item of evidence has ever been found that clearly contradicts Darwin's theory of evolution.

It's also useful to note that the theory of evolution wasn't Darwin's only contribution to science. Far from it. Charles Darwin was no dilettante; on the contrary, he was one of the last great self-educated naturalists, and built a well-deserved reputation for extreme care and thoroughness in his work. His theory on the formation of coral atolls is still accepted in its essentials today. His huge work on barnacles is still a valuable reference today. Likewise his studies of orchids.

He was aware of Mendelian genetics and certainly had to know of Pasteur's findings concerning biogenesis or abiogenesis as you may prefer.

Hard to see how. Mendel reported on his genetics experiments in 1865. Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, six years earlier. Mendel's paper was promptly and widely ignored until the 1890s, years after both he and Darwin were dead. Pasteur published his experiment disproving spontaneous generation in 1859, the same year the Origin was published. On top of that, the Origin used ideas Darwin had been developing for twenty years prior.


Jon Woolf said...

Regarding the tubeworms: yes, they are evidence for evolution. Here's why: the tubeworms and other exotic deepwater-vent organisms are clearly related to more conventional forms of life. Both hot-vent tubeworms and hydrocarbon-vent tubeworms fit neatly into Phylum Annelida, Class Polychaeta, family Siboglinidae (beard worms). This family includes both exotic species like the vent tubeworms and more ordinary species that belong to conventional sun-based food chains. The vent tubeworms' physiology is clearly a variant on the conventional tubeworms' body plan. It's entirely possible to envision a sequence of events by which the tubeworms' ancestors started as conventional organisms and evolved into the specialized creatures they are today.

Well, it's possible for me. Don't know if it's possible for you...

What came first, the shark or the remora?

Well, given that the sharks are chondrichthyans, among the oldest known vertebrates, while the remora is a bony fish, and those didn't appear til much later...

Who taught terns to "walk on water" in order to pick morsels of food off the surface of the sea?

Terns don't do this. Terns are fish-eaters. It's storm-petrels that patter across the water picking up bits of plankton and edible detritus. (hmm, did I ever mention that I'm an experienced birder on land and sea, and last year had an article published on terns in the Gulf of Maine...? Don't think so. Well, now I did.)

THINK! For Darwin to be right is not plausible in any way, shape or form.

There are a lot of implausible-but-still-true things in the Universe. Like the use of mathematical logic to prove that logic can't prove everything. It can't even prove itself.

Jon Woolf said...

(afternote: that first line was aimed at Radar's initial comment, not Anonymous' comment right above mine.)

radar said...

Mendelian genetics were known to scientists before Darwin wrote the 1865 book. Ever hear of animal husbandry? For that matter natural selection had been discussed before Darwin himself presented it. James Hutton certainly introduced the concept decades before Darwin's book popularized it. Some believe that Edward Blyth's version of natural selection as published years earlier was Darwin's main inspiration for writing rather than the beaks of birds. Furthermore Pasteur's biogenesis proofs were widely accepted before they were officially presented and accepted by peers as a "law" which of course Darwinists do not accept.

Thanks for clearing up the petrels versus terns thing, I stand corrected.

Now that all that is cleared up, how about getting down to science. I have published articles that disprove Darwin's thesis. The structure of the cell and the structure of DNA tell us Darwin was offline. He correctly observed speciation. He did not correctly understand what it could and could not do.

radar said...

As to tubeworms, Annelida is a form of life found extensively in the fossil record. In fact you will find pretty much every kind of animal in the fossil records. We find salamanders then and now, lizards then and now, fish then and now, flies then and now. Many organisms once placed neatly into a tree of evolution have kind of ruined the party by turning up still alive. Many of the varieties are extinct but that happens even today occasionally. It is easy to understand it in the light of a world wide flood event.

We do not find Darwinist "transitional forms", a problem he himself had some concerns about since the fossils he knew of did not fit the bill.

Creationists not only do not fight the idea of speciation, we embrace it. Speciation has proven to be quite rapid, thus giving us the time to have a flood event a few thousand years ago. Clearly you do not understand that speciation is a design feature of the creature.

radar said...

Woolf, I noticed that you failed to mention Darwins huge contributions to Eugnenics and Hitler's final solution? You do not wish to leave that out...

radar said...

For those who were not aware...much as Bill Gates took the work of others and successfully ran with it, so did Darwin use the very words of others to produce his own book. Not that it matters much now. Speciation remains information loss or transfer rather than gain and thus Darwinism dies on the vine.

Jon Woolf said...

It really is fun to watch you step in these bear-traps time after time, Radar.

Mendelian genetics were known to scientists before Darwin wrote the 1865 book. Ever hear of animal husbandry?

Livestock farmers and naturalists both knew of heredity for time out of mind. But they didn't know anything about what we today call "genetics." Up to the early 1900s, the dominant concept of heredity was called blending inheritance. Under this theory, breeding of animals or plants tended to produce an offspring that was a blend of the two parents' physical features. Which is in fact what happens most of the time. Traits that follow Mendel's pattern of simple autosomal dominance are quite rare. Most phenotypic traits are influenced by a number of genes, and the interplay between those genes does produce more of a blending inheritance pattern than the straightforward either-or pattern that Mendel discovered. Did you know that Mendel more or less gave up on his genetic experiments after he tried to carry over his successes with pea plants to other organisms, like honeybees, and discovered that he couldn't reproduce his pea plant results in other species?

Now that all that is cleared up, how about getting down to science.


I have published articles that disprove Darwin's thesis.

No, you've parrotted creationist doubletalk that tries to obfuscate and deceive, in a desperate attempt to cover up how right Darwin and his intellectual successors were and are.

Many organisms once placed neatly into a tree of evolution have kind of ruined the party by turning up still alive.

Still you fail to understand. The Tree of Life is not affected by Lazarus taxa.

We do not find Darwinist "transitional forms",

On the contrary, we can and do find what Darwin thought of as "transitional forms." Frequently. The problem you're having is that what Darwin actually meant by "transitional form" is nothing at all like what you think he meant by that term.

Creationists not only do not fight the idea of speciation, we embrace it.

[snort] As little as ten years ago, creationists were still arguing that speciation was a type of macroevolution, and therefore impossible, never observed, unthinkable, a contradiction of the Bible. I've seen creationists spend kilobytes arguing that all fourteen species of Galapagos finches were actually only one species. All just to avoid admitting that evolution happens.

As for eugenics and racism, they existed long before Darwin and long after. Darwin himself was not in favor of either one. He was also anti-slavery and anti-colonialism, for on the voyage of the Beagle he saw the consequences of both and found them revolting.

Anonymous said...

Darwinism was the basis for Eugenics and an inspiration for Hitler. You are aware of what Eugenics is and what was done in the name of "family planning and genetics" in the first part of the 20th Century in the United States, yes?

As to genetics, I was hoping you would jump on that one, Woolf, because I could come back with the truth about Darwin. He stole and borrowed his hypothesis from others not for the sake of science, but as a way to show his contempt for God. He has his reward. Mendelian genetics were understood and natural selection was understood long before there was a Darwin, but it was Darwin who was able to provide a vehicle for the advance of atheism in the guise of science.

But sure, let's play on your field for a minute. Give me a transitional form and defend and explain how it is transitional. One.


Jon Woolf said...

Mendelian genetics were understood and natural selection was understood long before there was a Darwin,

This is flatly false, Radar. I already proved that to the satisfaction of any rational individual.

And why do you insist on calling me by my last name?

radar said...

James Hutton proposed natural selection in 1794. Edward Blyth had a paper prepared that Darwin basically stole and used as a basis for his work. Lamarck had proposed the same process but his means was not acceptable. We have documentation that Darwin was simply looking for a means that would defend his hypothesis which was based upon a distaste for a God rather than science. He wrestled with more than one scenario before settling upon Blyth's and promptly hustled to publish and beat Blyth to the punch.

The Bible in the Book of Genesis refers to animal husbandry so if the children of Israel had knowledge of this thousands of years ago I think we can credit Darwin with as much understanding as them. Animal husbandry utilized genetics before Mendel published his papers and continue to do so to this day. Mendel did not invent the concept, he simply put it down on paper with tested hypothesis and results posted in order to satisfy the scientific mind. Please do not insult the readers and contend that this is not so.

William Wells and Patrick Mathew also observed and remarked upon natural selection. To say that Mendel "discovered" genetics is as silly as maintaining that Abner Doubleday invented baseball or that Darwin discovered natural selection. Compris?

Would you prefer that I call you Jon? Are you not glad that I allow comments to go uncensored other than language and give you your soapbox? I do not require anyone to call me any particular name and by what pretense do we deal with such minutiae? Are you preparing to withdraw from the game, defeated?

radar said...

Furthermore, for as long as I have been around YEC have divided microevolution (testable and repeatable speciation) from Darwinist macroevolution (thus far never detected in any experiment and unverifiable). Apparently you are not familiar with John Whitcomb or Henry Morris but they were discussing these things before you probably graduated high school.

radar said...

Nevertheless, my posted explanations for the way DNA and the cell accomplish reproduction and the presence of multiple redundancies in the genetic code which could not be in an evolutionist world put the lie to macroevolution at the cellular level. You can mock the science but it will stand and eventually atheists will have to find another way to avoid God other than Darwinism.

Now be free to be an atheist or an agnostic or whatever you will but the time for screwing with the evidence and promoting fakes is over. No more peppered moths glued to tree trunks or imaginary embryo charts or human footprints destroyed by tire irons or Neanderthal skulls manipulated to look ape-like or Nebraska man-pigs or Darwin-Day Lemur hoaxes or God only knows what else has gone on. From Piltdown man to today the Anything But God crowd has been willing to lie and cheat to promote their so-called science. Come on down to the cellular level and fight like a man or go ahead and present a transitional form or explain polystrate REEDS going through supposed millions of years of rock. Bring it on.

Jon Woolf said...

Radar, you can babble all you want, but the facts demonstrate how wrong you are.

To say that ancient breeders understood and used what we today call "genetics" is akin to claiming that ancient metalsmiths knew and understood modern metallurgy. They didn't. They had a Stone Age understanding of inheritance, they worked by trial and error, and combinations which worked were guarded as jealously as the crown jewels.

for as long as I have been around YEC have divided microevolution (testable and repeatable speciation) from Darwinist macroevolution (thus far never detected in any experiment and unverifiable).

You are wrong, Radar. Flatly, demonstrably, verifiably wrong. Repeat the above statement and I will call you a liar. For time out of mind Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and other leading creationists argued that speciation was macroevolution and therefore impossible. Their own words confirm this:

"Not only could Darwin not cite a single example of a new species originating, but neither has anyone else, in all the subsequent century of evolutionary study."

There are many other examples, but all the ones I have are in printed books which I don't have the time to transcribe. The fact of the matter is that for more than a century, creationists said that a "kind" was equivalent to a species; that taxonomists were using phony definitions of "species" in order to make evolution look more plausible; and that multiple closely-related species, such as the Galapagos finches, were not true biological species at all but rather variants within a single "kind."

my posted explanations for the way DNA and the cell accomplish reproduction and the presence of multiple redundancies in the genetic code which could not be in an evolutionist world

Very arrogant of you, saying with such certainty what is and isn't possible. And in a Universe that allows the likes of Myrtle Corbin and the Hensel twins, no less!

If you understood cellular biology half as well as you think you do, you wouldn't make such absurd claims. The cell can be loosely described as a biological machine run by computer -- a computer that can rewrite its own programs, and does so continuously. As you'll know if you've ever programmed in C, when the program can write over any bit in the entire system, the possibilities for mischief are literally without limit.