The bottom line is that the evolutionary process works in the real world. We can watch it; we can predict it; we can see its evidence in the rocks and organisms around us. That should tell you that we've got the basics of the theory pretty well right ... and you don't."
Is there an argument in there somewhere? I have explained both facilitated variation and genetic redundancy in great detail and thus far no coherent arguments have been made in reply. Notice the highlighted falsehoods?
1) We can watch it. Nope. Never has macroevolution been observed.
2) We can predict it. Nope. Again, it has never happened so there has been nothing to predict. And you cannot trust a great percentage of Darwinists anyway, as they have made outright frauds such as the Haeckel Embryos and the Peppered Moths glued to trees and ridiculous fairytale errors like Pakecitus and Nebraska Man and still you will find falsified Horse Evolution and Man Evolution charts used in schools.
Figure 1. Types of Stratification (cross-section view, one-half actual size). These types of stratification which are very common in sedimentary rocks provide evidence of rapid deposition and can be easily understood in terms of the Flood.
3) Evidence in the rocks. Nope. I have spent years pointing out that the sedimentary rocks are a tale of a world-wide catastrophe and not gradualism. All basic kinds of organisms appear fully formed in the fossil record and no transitional forms are found. The so-called Cambrian Explosion is simply the bottom layer of the world-wide flood. There are inumerable paraconformities and polystrates in the rocks, many kinds of rock types that are not formed under normal conditions (Dolostone and Chert and Graywacke, for instance)
The rock record is a great example of a complete Darwinist canard in which evidences of flood deposits are ignored, a consistent global geological column is fancifully claimed to exist and the dating methods used are laughable at best and deliberately fixed at worst.
4) Organisms around us. Nope. We see fixity of kinds and variation by speciation just as organisms are designed to display. Speciation is seen and in fact very rapid speciation, which is a bulwark to the idea that great varieties of vertebrates could have arisen from a few parent kinds released from the Ark. The bad news for Darwinism is that facilitated variation and genetic redundancy are both barriers to macroevolution and evidence of intentional design.
Nope. You have not been paying attention. The mother sets the framework for the child. Now that we have seen deep within the reproduction process we see that the cell is designed to conserve the kind but allow for variation within kind. Perhaps you have not understood the science behind the actual working of reproduction as discovered by today's scientists, but not only is the kind preserved but one big falsehood of Darwinism has been exposed and falsified - Junk DNA. Not only have we found that DNA throughout the length of the code has multiple purposes but that there are redundancies that cannot be explained by an evolutionary process but can only be there by design. The cell has built in spare parts! Beyond that, there are switching mechanisms within the cell that are turned on or off by the most common copying errors or mutations that cells experience.
Now you are running away from science itself? Darwinism is 99.9 per cent hat and maybe 0.1 per cent cattle, so I understand that observations are not a strong suit for Darwinists. But I hate to tell you this but no new information has EVER been observed to enter the genetic pool of any organism by any scientist or boy scout or grandmother or lawyer in the recorded history of mankind.
Hmmm. Have we missed the point much? That IS the point! If we allowed random mutation and natural selection to be the drivers for a population like E. Coli then by now it would have gone extinct...if the Darwinist evolution model was true, that is. The program was written to be true to the assertions of current Neo-Darwinist scientists. But just as scientists have tried in vain to get bacteria to show any evidence of macroevolution, millions of generations of E. Coli have successfully reproduced because of the design features of the organism that include coding for contingencies and redundancies.
We could write a whole series on E. Coli alone. Did you know that the organic motors that power the flagellum of E. Coli are designed to repair on the fly? You know any aircraft engine designers who have found a way to replace parts of a turbine while operational? Yet E. Coli has been found to have a mechanism that makes new parts and inserts them into the motor assembly while it is operating!
- Self assembly and repair
- Water-cooled rotary engine
- Proton motive force drive system
- Forward and reverse gears
- Operating speeds of up to 100,000 rpm
- Direction reversing capability within 1/4 of a turn
- Hard-wired signal transduction system with short-term memory
- Clutch to disconnect filament from motor when required
In point of fact, so many of the designs we humans are quite proud of are taken from nature. God is a great designer (I am of course now making a metaphysical as well as a scientific assertion) and nano-engineers study organisms to learn how to make miniature machines as a kind of proof. Consider this list of Design Isomorphs.
There is a good book available entitled, well, What Darwin Didn't Know. Among the things discussed (this is just a tiny hint of the content):
Darwin might have thought twice about publishing his theories if he'd had access to today's medical and microbiological discoveries. Drawing on years of research, Dr. Simmons demonstrates that the almost infinite complexity of the human anatomy simply could not have developed by chance. For example:
- the body runs on "battery power"...from the hundreds of mitochondria in each cell
- the two sexes-evolutionary theory cannot explain why they exist
- every cell is its own pharmacist, chemist, and metallurgist
- The brain resembles a continent swept by electrical hurricanes and chemical tidal waves that somehow make sense out of reality
- A fertilized egg makes a journey as complex as the path of a golf ball that rolls 30 miles and lands precisely in the 18th hole of a course it's never seen.
- The immune system contains multiple defenses that confine trillions of microorganisms to your skin.
Okay. You are the one who thinks science is contained to the material world. I have demonstrated to you that information is not material in form. How do YOU explain THAT? We are all waiting...
"2. Why do you think life is not material in nature or form? It is a bunch of interconnected chemical/physical/biological processes. All of which are material processes. Again, it's not a matter of WEIGHT being lost or added, it's the processes. Once the interconnected organisms fail in some way, the system breaks down, and that's the end of that organism's life."
You are not defining life, you are observing whether an organism is alive or dead. A child can do that. "In some way" is the best that Darwinists do with the questions of where life came from and what does life consist of - in other words you have NO materialistic way to define life itself. You have not been able to quantify it, you simply observe that it either is there or not there. Not terribly sophisticated.
"3. "Some people like to think that nothing made itself into a Universe that is fine-tuned for life on Earth and situated so that the Universe itself can be observed and understood by the inhabitants of Earth."
Re. the "nothing made itself into a Universe" part: NONSENSE. You've been called on this over and over, but for some reason you're incapable of taking in any of the comments on your own blog. Who are these "some people"?"
You, for instance. Unless you are now dropping your apparent support of the Big Bang. So are you admitting that God created the Universe now? If you are still a Banger then go ahead and define the singularity at the start of the Big Bang. What did it consist of and how could it become a controlled explosion of time and matter? Why is it that no Big Bang theory even comes close to describing the known Universe? Oh, let's go back a step. If there was nothing before there was everything you think that nothing made everything.
"Re. the "situated so that the Universe itself can be observed and understood by the inhabitants of Earth" part: say what?! If the inhabitants of Earth are capable of observing, then no matter where they are, they can "observe the Universe"... or rather some infinitesimally tiny portion of it.
But what on Earth makes you think that we can understand the Universe? Do YOU think you can understand the Universe?"
The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery is a brilliant tome written by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards and also is available as a DVD. In this book he emphasizes how the Universe and the Solar System and the Earth are all fine-tuned for life and especially for man because we are ideally located to observe the Universe and try to understand how it works.
Guillermo lost his shot at tenure at Iowa State University because he dared to suggest that perhaps the Universe is designed!
Typical ruling paradigm behavior. Galileo was threatened by the leaders of the church-state of his day for being in agreement with Copernicus who was in agreement with Archimedes that the idea of an Earth-Centric Solar System was incorrect. We should give Tycho Brahe and several others some credit for finally getting the Western World and the leaders thereof to adjust their belief systems. This is in part because Western Culture embraced an Aristotlean view of science and math, perhaps, but largely due to worldview. Michael Behe sought to change the paradigm and found himself having ludicrous discussions with other scientists about whether or not a more reducible mousetrap could be devised (!) rather than discussing the science itself they sought to tear down the analogy.
Now to try to sum up a large part of the nonsense and drivel in the comments threads that can barely be comprehended without a long history with the commenters. For instance, I answered Woolf about whether data transmission needed both a sender and a receiver and yet he asked it again. Woolf asked me for a polystrate example and I devoted a post to it and he still pretends I did not answer. Asking the same questions over and over does not make you look smart. Using the search feature on this blog yields several posts on polystrates and examples thereof. You can find posts on dating methods and ice layers and paraconformities and in fact I doubt there is any question that a commenter has asked concerning Darwinism I have not devoted a post to at one point.
"Or will you just cut and paste more endless articles from lying websites like AiG and CMI?"
I will put Jonathan Sarfati and Ken Ham up against any Darwinist you can name. So far as I know Richard Dawkins has still refused to debate Jonathan Sarfati (although Sarfati ripped Dawkin's latest book to shreds with his own book in response) or any other Creationist of substance since he lost the Boteach-Dawkins debate. If you are determined to access a lying site, I would recommend talkorigins. Here is an example of their lies. Talk origins does not care if what they post is true. I contacted them and pointed out the absolutely farcical nature of DiPeso's so-called investigation versus real investigations by scientists and also by novelist Earl Stanley Gardner. Here is a small part of the information shared with talk origins:
Sample No. 1
(I-3842) 3590 + - 100 (C.1640 BC)
Sample No. 2
(I-4015) 6480 + - 170 (C. 4530 BC)
Sample No. 3
(I-4031)3060 + - 120 (C. 1110 BC)