Search This Blog

Friday, July 15, 2011

Darwinism the "Ghost that wasn't there" strikes again!!!

Hey, buddy?  Wanna buy a hypothesis real cheap?  I got the good stuff right here!

Earlier this month and more than once, in fact, I have mentioned that current Big Bang Hypotheses are mostly nothing.  Yep, nothing.  95% of the currently popular Big Bang model is made up of indiscernible Dark Matter and Dark Energy.  Dark being the operative word because these fudge factors are not detected or observed but the equations NEED them to be out there somewhere to work.  This is what Darwinists call "science." 

Now, you go ahead and believe what you like but, if the marketplace of ideas operated like the marketplace of actual goods, Big Bang Incorporated would be bankrupt by now.  Darwinism Corporation would likely be defunct as a buggy whip factory.  No one would go into an auto dealership and be satisfied with getting 5% of an Mustang for their 30 grand!  

"Sure, here is the rear axle, the tires and the trunk lid.  You cannot perceive the rest of the car but rest assured that it is there!"


Right.  


Well, the same kind of thing happens in the world of paleontology.  One of the many secrets of Darwinism is that there should be a kind of continuum of slightly changing organisms as they gradually evolved from one thing to another thing.  There should be millions of "transitional" fossils in the rocks.  In fact, most of the things you are taught about sedimentary rock layers in school are wrong.  But the lack of transitional fossils is one of the worst problems they have.  There are a handful of dubious transitional fossils that Darwinists have presented to us but frankly the whole fossil record should be full of them!  But that isn't what we see.


We see fully formed organisms, most of which are extinct now, although they very often have living relatives.  Experts in the field of physiology will tell you that the immense size of many of the extinct creatures, especially dinosaurs, would be impossible in our world today.  The atmosphere of the pre-Flood era had to have had a higher percentage of oxygen to sustain some of the largest specimens of the now extinct dinosaurs.  That is just one of many reasons dinosaurs do not apparently exist today.


After the Flood the animal populations expanded all around the world while mankind remained in the area of Babel until forcibly expelled by God by confusing their languages.  This is why dinosaurs were able to survive for well over a thousand years after the Flood because, although they were smaller than their prediluvian cousins, they were still so dangerous to mankind that they had to be killed off eventually when mankind expanded around the planet.  Pictures, carvings, statues, stories, official town records and historical documents all show us that dinosaurs existed in many areas until around the time of Columbus.  In some localities (like Southern Illinois) there were sightings that dated up to the early 18th Century.  I'm not talking about Nessie, I am talking about official records and anatomically correct drawings, carvings, statues and paintings of dinosaurs done by men and women who saw them, lived near them and eventually killed them off.  


In any event, the time had to come when animals unable to fend for themselves like the DoDo would be killed off and dinosaurs were killed off (unless there are still a few in the remote areas of the Congo) and if mankind had not decided to begin protecting the rarest wild animals it is quite likely that Tigers and perhaps Lions and the biggest Bears would have been exterminated as well.  Sperm Whales might have been exterminated if fossil fuels had not been discovered.  There was a time when Whale Oil was the popular lamp fuel.  The creatures we see today have speciated to very different appearances in a lot of cases while others have remained the same.  All organisms have genetic information that allows them to vary according to environment.  There are fish that are basically the same with the exception that some dwell in fresh waters and others in salt water.  There are some creatures that look exactly as they do in the fossil record.  Organisms can change over time due to ecological conditions, that is part of their design.  Creationists don't argue that organisms change, they simply state that kind produces kind.  Variation only takes place within kind and therefore fish didn't become rats and cows didn't become whales nor did dinosaurs (this one is kind of funny) become birds!   See that Robin over there?  Used to be T. Rex!  Pretty big comedown, huh?


Ironically, a Darwinist named Sagan wrote a book called "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" and yet Darwinists certainly believe in ghosts.  

credit

So I now present Ghosts in the rocks:


Ghosts in the rocks

Published: 14 July 2011(GMT+10)
Ghosts in the rocks
iStockphoto 

Contradictions between evolutionary fossil dating and the dating implied by evolutionary cladistic analyses are common. Therefore, one dating scheme must take precedence over the other. The vagaries of fossilization are well-known, with fossil ranges commonly being extended by tens and hundreds of millions of years by new discoveries.1 Consequently the ‘evolutionary history’ deduced from cladistics analyses takes precedence over fossils. This means many taxa are inferred to be much older than the evolutionary fossil dating indicates. To accommodate this, evolutionists have invented ‘ghost lineages’, which are lineages that have no fossil evidence.


The irony is that this auxiliary hypothesis (a hypothesis needed to explain some first-look contradiction to a core theory, such as evolution) is needed to plug a hole in another auxiliary hypothesis—cladistics. Cladistics was designed to support evolution despite the striking paucity of clear-cut lineages in the fossil record, which Darwin originally recognised but predicted would be filled with new finds. Because these dating discrepancies are common, ghost lineages are commonly invoked:

However, it is not an explanation per se; it is inherently an argument from silence—if there was evidence, ghost lineages wouldn’t need to be invoked.
“The sequence of branching events in a morphological cladistic hypothesis is often harmonized with the fossil record of the ingroup through the creation of ‘ghost lineages’, artificial extensions of a taxon’s range beyond its observed first appearance in the fossil record (Norell 1993). This approach essentially erases any discrepancy between the observed order of appearance events and the order implied by the hypothesis. Insofar as ghost lineages explain away discrepancies between (stratigraphic) observation and (cladistic) hypothesis, they may be considered appeals to ad hoc support, analogous to the way homoplasy is invoked to explain away morphological data that are incongruent with a cladistic hypothesis”.2
Some examples include:
Ordovician/Silurian trilobites:
“Phylogenetic work in progress, however (Adrain, unpublished data), suggests that a substantial number of Silurian ‘rebound’ genera had Ordovician sister taxa—many ghost lineages (Norell 1992), undetected and undetectable by taxic paleobiology, survived the event, and the taxic description of extinction is at best an overestimate.”3
sauropod dinosaurs:
“The early Middle Jurassic low point matches a particularly poor part of the sauropod fossil record according to Upchurch and Barrett (2005), who noted that ghost ranges are high relative to observed lineages for this time interval.”4
“In each case, ichnofossil and body fossil character and temporal distributions were non-overlapping, so hypotheses of character transformation required ad hoc hypotheses of character change (homoplasy) or of stratigraphic intervals in which taxa were not sampled (ghost lineages).”5
birds:
The minimum ghost lineage separating birds from their nearest dinosaurian relative is short. Based on the presence of dromaeosaurids in the Barremian (Kirkland et al., 1993), the minimum ghost lineage is only 20.9 my long”.6
and whales:
“Ghost lineages necessitated by the phylogenetic hypothesis extend the stratigraphic range of Cetacea into the middle Paleocene (Torrejonian), ten million years earlier than the oldest cetacean fossil currently known.”7

Long-lived ghosts

Severely out-of-place fossils are sometimes cited as evidence that would falsify evolution. But ghost lineages were invented to explain this very problem! So, is the issue the size of the age discrepancy? This raises the rather obvious question of what exactly constitutes a ‘large’ gap, since ‘large’ is a relative term.
How about 25 million years?
Captorhinus laticeps (the earliest member of the Saurorictus sister group) is Leonardian in age (Heaton, 1979), the Tatarian age of the Karoo captorhinid is suggestive of an extensive (approximately 25 million year long) ghost lineage for Saurorictus.”8
Still not long enough? What about 50 million years?
“It is not surprising that the relationships of post-Jurassic plesiosaurs cannot be better resolved considering the large gap in the Lower Cretaceous record (almost 50 million years), indicating a long ghost lineage leading to the Callawayasaurus, Libonectes, Hydrotherosaurus, and Aristonectes clade”.9
Or 60 million years for the supposed ‘dinobird’ fossil Mahakala omnogovae:
“The extant fossils for Mahakala are ‘dated’ at 80 Ma, but the split between dramaeosauridae and paraves supposedly occurred about 140 Ma. Moreover, there are many dramaeosaurs that fill in that chronological gap, but they are all ‘more advanced’ in their morphology than Mahakala. This is a ghost lineage 60 million years in the making!”10
These changes span numerous geologic ‘epochs’, while some even span times longer than whole geological periods! It seems that the scope of ghost lineages to explain time gaps is almost limitless.

Ghosts of ghosts

Usually, a ghost lineage is assumed to have undergone ‘evolutionary stasis’ during the period for which there is no fossil evidence for its existence. But evolutionary stasis is itself a vacuous oxymoron seemingly designed just to keep people thinking that evolution explains all change, including no change.11
 
Sometimes, however, some gaps are so large that filling it with one species is not enough. Though the concept of ‘ghost lineages’ is kept, the ‘evolutionary stasis’ assumption is thrown out. This constitutes inventing a whole ghost cladogram of unobserved species out of thin air when evolutionists think it is necessary:
“Short of extending the stratigraphic range of T. neglectus across this stretch of time, it is more likely that the gap represents a ghost lineage partitioned by successive, but yet undiscovered species. Given the species longevity values calculated by Dodson (1990) it is clear that there must be considerable species diversity masked by the ghost lineage leading to T. neglectus, perhaps much more than the known diversity of the entire hypsilophodontid clade as presently recognized [emphasis added]!”12
They seem to call not just for evidence of a taxa extending back millions of years, but the wholesale invention of species that supposedly lived and died that never left a trace in the fossil record. This shows that there need be little restraint on the use of ghost lineages to make cladistics analyses fit the stratigraphic record. As Geiger, et al said:
Any cladogram can be placed in a temporal framework that agrees with the stratigraphic record if sufficient ghost lineages are invoked [emphases added].”13

Auxiliary hypotheses and the need for evidence

Auxiliary hypotheses, a concept coined by philosopher of science Imre Lakatos, are an integral part of almost any core theory, such as evolution.14 They are used to explain evidence that at first blush appears contradictory to the core theory. Evolution, as a core theory, relies on many such auxiliary hypotheses to maintain its validity. This is not necessarily a problem, but one needs to look at the evidential validity of the auxiliary hypotheses to see if the core theory can survive the claim of contradiction.

Fossil patterns can’t give a history because they offer no description of themselves.

Ghost lineages (that is, lack of fossil evidence for lineages that evolutionists believe existed) are typically explained as resulting from the vagaries of fossilization and evolutionary stasis. Nobody denies that fossilization is fickle, and the fossils may create more gaps in our understanding of biology than they close. But we’ve seen that ghost lineages can be applied to essentially any discrepancy between the cladistics and stratigraphic ‘timelines’. Therefore, it is not an explanation per se; it is inherently an argument from silence—if there was evidence, ghost lineages wouldn’t need to be invoked. ‘Ghost lineages’ are nothing more than an ad hoc band-aid designed to deflect criticism of evolution.

Conclusions

Paleontology seeks to describe the distribution pattern of fossils observed in the rocks, both spatially and temporally. The spatial relationships can be described directly—it is observational science. However, the temporal distribution of fossils is inescapably tied up with the presuppositions one brings to the historical investigation. One’s axioms determine what types of evidence are relevant and thus admissible to the paleontological discussion. Fossil patterns can’t give a history because they offer no description of themselves.15 Within paleontology, molecules-to-man evolution is not a scientific theory but an axiom that guides and therefore constrains investigation. It’s not that evolution does explain everything; it’s that it can explain anything because the axiom dictates that it must. It is the only game allowed.
‘Ghost lineages’ are one of the more blatant examples of this problem. They are an ad hoc attempt to resolve incongruities between fossil dates and dates for evolutionary events derived from cladistics analyses. They explain away the problems by positing evolutionary stasis (yet another auxiliary hypothesis) for which they have no positive evidence. No single ghost lineage can be falsified as such, but it emphasizes how, in ReMine’s poignant words, evolution “adapts to data like a fog adapts to landscape.”16

Related articles

Further reading

References

  1. E.g. Oard, M.J., Further expansion of evolutionary fossil time ranges, Journal of Creation 24(3):5–7, 2010. Return to text.
  2. Finarelli, J.A. and Clyde, W.C., Reassessing hominoid phylogeny: evaluating congruence in the morphological and temporal data, Paleobiology 30(4):614–651, 2004. Return to text.
  3. Adrain, J.M. and Westrop, S.R., Paleobiodiversity: we need new data, Paleobiology 29(1):22–25, 2003. Return to text.
  4. Mannion, P.D. and Upchurch, P., Completeness metrics and the quality of the sauropodomorph fossil record through geological and historical time, Paleobiology 36(2):283–302, 2010. Return to text.
  5. Wilson, J.A., Integrating ichnofossil and body fossil records to estimate locomotor posture and spatiotemporal distribution of early sauropod dinosaurs: a stratocladistic approach, Paleobiology 31(3):400–423, 2005. Return to text.
  6. Brochu, C.A. and Norell, M.A., Temporal congruence and the origin of birds, J. Vert. Paleontol. 20(1):197–200, 2000. Return to text.
  7. O’Leary, M.A and Uhen, M.D., The time of origin of whales and the role of behavioral changes in the terrestrial-aquatic transition, Paleobiology 25(4):534–556, 1999 Return to text.
  8. Modesto, S. and Smith, R.M.H., A new Late Permian captorhinid reptile: a first record from the South African Karoo, J. Vert. Paleontol. 21(3):405–409. 2001. Return to text.
  9. Gasparini, Z., Bardet, N., Martin, J.E. and Fernandez, M., The elasmosaurid plesiosaur Aristonectes cabrera from the latest Cretaceous of South America and Antarctica, J. Vert. Paleontol. 23(1):104–115, 2003. Return to text.
  10. Doyle, S., Cladistics, evolution and the fossils, J. Creation 25(2), in press, 2011. See also: Turner, A.H., Pol, D., Clarke, J.A., Erickson, G.M. and Norell M.A., A basal dromaeosaurid and size evolution preceding avian flight, Science 317:1378–1381, 7 September 2007. Return to text.
  11. Doyle, S., Oldest fossil shrimp? J. Creation 25(1):3–4, 2011. Return to text.
  12. Weishampel, D.B, Fossils, phylogeny, and discovery: a cladistic study of the history of tree topologies and ghost lineage durations, J. Vert. Paleontol. 16(2):191–197, 1996; p. 196. Return to text.
  13. Geiger, D.L., Fitzhugh, K. and Thacker, C.E., Timeless Characters: a response to Vermeij (1999), Paleobiology 27(1):177–178, 2001. Return to text.
  14. Lakatos, I., Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes; in: Lakatos I. & Musgrave A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1970. Return to text.
  15. Reed, J.K., Cuvier’s analogy and its consequences: forensics vs testimony as historical evidence, J. Creation 22(3):115–120, 2008. Return to text.
  16. ReMine, W., The Biotic Message: Evolution versus Message Theory, St Paul Science, St Paul, MN, p.350, 1993. Return to text.



24 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Earlier this month and more than once, in fact, I have mentioned that current Big Bang Hypotheses are mostly nothing. Yep, nothing. 95% of the currently popular Big Bang model is made up of indiscernible Dark Matter and Dark Energy."

That's so funny you should bring up that it's mostly nothing. I was just thinking the other day that the "fudge factor" of creationism is not one iota short of 100%. You're filling in the vacuum of what is unknown and simply say, okay, that's where God is.

"Dark being the operative word because these fudge factors are not detected or observed but the equations NEED them to be out there somewhere to work."

Why would you mock this logic? Your own is not far from it. To rephrase the above:

"Dark being the operative word because God is not detected or observed but creationists NEED God to be out there somewhere for their hypothesis to work."

Anonymous said...

"One of the many secrets of Darwinism is that there should be a kind of continuum of slightly changing organisms as they gradually evolved from one thing to another thing."

Which there are.

"There should be millions of "transitional" fossils in the rocks."

Given the extreme rarity of an event like fossilization, no, we wouldn't expect to find more fossils than we're currently finding.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Darwinism the "Ghost that wasn't there""...

... this from a Christian?

You're kidding, right? If not, I guess in psychology terms this would be called a massive case of projection.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Given the extreme rarity of an event like fossilization, no, we wouldn't expect to find more fossils than we're currently finding."

On the other hand, if the Noah's flood scenario were true, we would be finding a ton more fossils than we're currently finding, and they would virtually ALL exhibit signs of rapid burial.

Jon Woolf said...

"One of the many secrets of Darwinism is that there should be a kind of continuum of slightly changing organisms as they gradually evolved from one thing to another thing."

There is.

"In fact, most of the things you are taught about sedimentary rock layers in school are wrong."

Such as?

"The atmosphere of the pre-Flood era had to have had a higher percentage of oxygen to sustain some of the largest specimens of the now extinct dinosaurs."

Even if this was true, which it isn't, why don't any of the organisms that were around then and are still around now show any sign of it?

(I won't bother pointing out that when you start using Ted Holden arguments, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel...)

"See that Robin over there? Used to be T. Rex! Pretty big comedown, huh?"

Apparently creationists believe this too, since your analysis methods assign the "dinosaur" Deinonychus and the "bird" Archaeopteryx to the same "kind."

AmericanVet said...

So many comments on these threads are addressed with articles on my blog. Just because Woolf asserts the Peppered Moth story is true you should not believe him, you should do research for yourself. It is striking that the proponents had to glue specimens to a tree trunk because the moths do not land on tree trunks habitually. I mean, I have seen a Falcon sitting on a train track once, but you will be very unlikely to see it happen. The very hypothesis underlying the Peppered Moth story was completely wrong.

Biogenesis proved that ALL life forms both complex and simple come from life forms, period. They tested for microorganisms as well as more advanced creature. There is no way that the components of DNA could form naturally and we know this because Darwinists have been trying to make it happen in labs and failing time and time again.

Evolution hasn't been proven at all, when someone says that grab for your intellectual wallet.

As to fossils, we have found billions of them! I have seen huge formations of sandstone packed full of typical sea-bottom fossils like molluscs and crinoids. No local flood produces millions of tons of sedimentary rock full of millions of fossils and yet we have rock layers like that all over the world from valleys to mountain tops.

The reason Darwinists can make such claims as they do is because they control the funding, the research and the news media. Propagandists and the propagandized rule the secular establishment. It is much like the "church"-run establishment faced by men like Copernicus. The world of science and government in those days were in lockstep. It took courage and evidence and years of trying to convince people that the Earth really did revolve around the Sun.

My next post will deal with some of this stuff by using more evidence, something commenters for Darwin rarely use.

Anonymous said...

"No local flood produces millions of tons of sedimentary rock full of millions of fossils and yet we have rock layers like that all over the world from valleys to mountain tops."

True, those would have been formed by oceans having been there in the past, not local or global floods.

Anonymous said...

"Biogenesis proved that ALL life forms both complex and simple come from life forms, period."

Well, no. The Law of Biogenesis was in relation to complex life forms, not simple ones, and it had nothing to do with non-life becoming life on a molecular level, which is the focus of present-day research into abiogenesis by natural means. Any work done on the Law of Biogenesis centuries ago is simply unrelated to current abiogenesis research and tells us nothing about the possibility or impossibility of that research.

radar said...

I found nine comments (one by me!) made in the last ten days that were called spam and released them.

radar said...

See, this is why science and Darwinism are at odds. Once Biogenesis was established at the microorganism level (by Pasteur) and acclaimed as a law by scientists around the world, Darwinists have no business claiming it is even possible without evidence. You guys have no evidence that abiogenesis is possible and no one has ever falsified Biogenesis. Therefore the only reason you claim it is possible is because you WANT it to be possible despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Once Biogenesis was established at the microorganism level (by Pasteur) and acclaimed as a law by scientists around the world, Darwinists have no business claiming it is even possible without evidence."

Even a microorganism is a form of complex life. Current abiogenesis deals with the molecular level, to which Pasteur's work is simply irrelevant since that's not what he was exploring. You're talking about two different areas.

"You guys have no evidence that abiogenesis is possible and no one has ever falsified Biogenesis."

There's no evidence that it is impossible, and there are some plausible pathways by which it is possible that are currently being explored. Why should scientific work in a related but different field indicate that this would be impossible? Your logic doesn't add up.

"Therefore the only reason you claim it is possible is because you WANT it to be possible despite all the evidence to the contrary."

No, the reason one can claim that it's possible is because there is actual reason to believe that it is possible on a molecular level. You've been presented with information about this before.

Incidentally, YEC has been falsified all over the place, so it's good to see you acknowledge that wishful thinking can be a factor.

radar said...

Come on, whatsit, abiogenesis has no chance. Chemistry dictates that the components of DNA cannot form in the wild and besides that, they'd have to be coded to work anyhow. You cannot pour a box of Alpha-Bits on the floor and get the Gettysburg Address, you get gibberish. DNA is not just components, it is very complex code packed with information, it has to work in tandem with RNA, it has to be within the cell and the cell must be powered by ATP which is built by the coding in DNA. You cannot have the cell without DNA and you cannot have DNA without the cell.

Don't you understand? After Miller-Urey the Darwinist scientists really saw that there were big barriers to a natural occurrence for life and every attempt to come up with a logical scenario fails. I am just talking about getting the components formed here. It cannot happen. That is why nobody is able to perform an experiment that produces DNA naturally.

So I have not seen anyone falsifying YEC lately. YEC has a better explanation for the formation of the Universe, the Solar System, life and information than does Darwinism. Pretty much everything Darwinists used against YEC has been a failure.

Fossils are better evidence for the Flood than anything else. Dating methods are great for brainwashing kids, but in fact every dating method Darwinists use has problems, big problems. Plus we have found many fossils that are supposedly millions of years old with actual flesh and blood still in existence. We found a squid that still had usable ink! You guys have a nice story down pat, it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Darwinism reminds me of communism in the Soviet Union in the 50's and 60's. Nikita Khrushchev would pound a table and exclaim that "We will bury you!" Russian leaders would tell their people that they invented all the major new techological advances and extol the virtues of the commmunist system. But it was a disaster from the start. Soon the obvious disconnect between propaganda and reality made the people begin finding ways to get around the system while the government was bankrupting itself. (Maybe the Obama Administration should take history lessons?) The Iron Curtain fell because the system itself was unsustainable.

Darwinism cannot persist because we will continue to see no signs of Darwinist evolution taking place, we will see more design and information within organisms, more people will learn about the makeup of the planets and their moons and realize they are quite young, more people will realize the Big Bang is mostly nothing at all...

I am counting on education and critical thinking to cause scientists of all ages to begin to look critically at Darwinist claims and see if they actually have merit. This is the beginning of the end of Darwinism.

Anonymous said...

"Nikita Khrushchev would pound a table and exclaim that "We will bury you!""

You really don't see the irony in you pointing out this image and just a couple of paragraphs later saying this:

Darwinism cannot persist because we will continue to see no signs of Darwinist evolution taking place, we will see more design and information within organisms, more people will learn about the makeup of the planets and their moons and realize they are quite young, more people will realize the Big Bang is mostly nothing at all... This is the beginning of the end of Darwinism.

??

"Russian leaders would tell their people that they invented all the major new techological advances"

Not a million miles from your repeated claims that Christians invented science, so they should own the joint, is it?

"and extol the virtues of the commmunist system."

How is that different from your claims that your worldview is superior because it gets you to a (speculative) heaven?

"But it was a disaster from the start. Soon the obvious disconnect between propaganda and reality made the people begin finding ways to get around the system while the government was bankrupting itself."

Indeed. How many years have creationists been doing science? According to you, longer than the so-called Darwinists. And still not a single testable claim to support the creationist notions.

Anonymous said...

"So I have not seen anyone falsifying YEC lately."

Tree ring data go back further than the time claimed by YEC. YEC has no explanation for this.

Ice core data go back further than the time claimed by YEC, by a factor of about 100. YEC has no explanation for this.

The fossil record indicates organisms having evolved over a period longer than 6,000 years, to put it mildly. YEC can't explain the sorting of fossils, while the TOE and modern geology can.

The distribution of flora and fauna on the planet makes sense when taking an old Earth and the TOE into consideration, but not in a YEC scenario.

It would be nice if you could discuss these issues openly and non-defensively, but unfortunately I suspect we're just going to get more evasions and perhaps insults and rants.

radar said...

Testable claim like "life will only come from life?"

That "kind will only come from kind?"

That "information is not produced by a natural source?" or that "life is not identified as a natural force?"

How about the claim that the rock layers will represent a global flood rather than untold millions of years of gradualism? Creationists have been saying this for centuries and now Darwinists have abandoned gradualism and have substituted large numbers of local floods and catastrophic events. But since some rock layers stretch across continents that is kind of a stretch?

Naturalism was not included in the scientific method because the scientists who invented and used it were not naturalists. Yes, everybody tests the material world that is available to them at this moment now and everyone depends on history and experiments of scientists of the past. But naturalists abandoned the Bible as a history source for metaphysical reasons and creationists didn't. Naturalists abandoned God as a possible creative force and creationists didn't.

So naturalists claim that nothing exploded and became everything. They claim nothing designed organisms, nothing made the Solar System and so on and so forth. So naturalists have substituted the null set for God.

What really gets me is the idea that mutations add information! Sure, if you take a saws-all and cut the roof off of your car it becomes a convertible but you won't want to drive it in the rain. Cut a football in half and you can have a nice miniature dunce cap but it will not be useful to throw and catch.

Mutations are mistakes and copying errors. The cell has mechanisms in place to try to eliminate mutations or provide switching in advance to react to them but often mutations get through anyway and this is a problem, not a solution.

As an ISO 9000 series auditor I saw that much of the job of quality process control in a factory is to eliminate mutations, so to speak. QPC seeks to eliminate errors and to filter them out so that the products produced are within the specifications. The concept of continual improvement or Kaizen is now common practice in manufacturing. The idea is to eliminate errors (mutations) because they are destructive. Yet Darwinists claim mutation as the creative force of nature?

Jon Woolf said...

"Plus we have found many fossils that are supposedly millions of years old with actual flesh and blood still in existence."

Examples? Evidence, cites? (No, Mary Schweitzer's T-rex fossils don't qualify. She found traces of organic materials, not "flesh and blood.")

"We found a squid that still had usable ink!"

Say what??

radar said...

Yes, Mary's T-Rex does have actual remains...denial is not just a river in Egypt. But after she announced her find other flesh remains have been revealed in fossils.

Yes, the squid, I should put that one in a blog post. The T-Rex I already posted on so ignore Jon and do a search on my blog for that, please!

Jon Woolf said...

"Mary's T-Rex does have actual remains..."

She never claimed that. Her boss threw cold water on any such idea. But you, of course, being a creationist with no knowledge, training, or understanding of the subject, know better.

"But after she announced her find other flesh remains have been revealed in fossils."

Got anything to substantiate that?

radar said...

Well, Jon, I have posted evidence that substantiates that so you only have to search the blog to see it.

Anonymous said...

Here is a link to a TED talk that sheds some light on Mary Schweitzer's T-Rex fossils. Alas, no DNA and no blood, otherwise we might just be able to pick up a "dino-chicken" at the local pet store. See for yourself.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_building_a_dinosaur_from_a_chicken.html

And why should Jon have to search for evidence on this blog. It's your freaking blog. If it exists, show us. And surely if people found "flesh and blood" in a dinosaur fossil, someone outside creationist circles would be talking about it, no? More conspiracy I suppose.

-Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

"Testable claim like "life will only come from life?""

- which actually means "does complex life only come from complex life", which isn't relevant to current abiogenesis research, as it comes at the problem from a completely different angle.

"That "kind will only come from kind?""

Seeing as this apparently only focuses on the relationship of a single generation to the generation before or after it AND includes a term for which no scientific definition or delineation exists, it's (a) not a testable claim and (b) wouldn't tell us much if it were, since it's based on a strawman distortion of evolution.

"That "information is not produced by a natural source?" "

To the extent that it is testable, it is confirmed that information can be produced by a natural source. We have observed this in the field as well as modeled it.

"or that "life is not identified as a natural force?""

This is just your own cartoonish distortion of current understanding of biology, which of course doesn't claim that life is a "natural force".

Anonymous said...

"How about the claim that the rock layers will represent a global flood rather than untold millions of years of gradualism?"

Indeed, how would you go about testing this claim?

"Creationists have been saying this for centuries and now Darwinists have abandoned gradualism and have substituted large numbers of local floods and catastrophic events. But since some rock layers stretch across continents that is kind of a stretch?"

Your own distortions have landed you in a mire of confusion. Darwinists have not abandoned gradualism lock, stock and barrel. You've managed to confuse

"Naturalism was not included in the scientific method because the scientists who invented and used it were not naturalists."

Again, the same distortion that you always bring to the table. Let me rephrase it for you:

Metaphysical naturalism was not included in the scientific method, which uses methodological naturalism, because the scientists who invented and used it were not metaphysical naturalists.

I honestly don't understand why this distinction is so difficult for you to comprehend. Your worldview won't suddenly implode if you understand this, honest.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, everybody tests the material world that is available to them at this moment now and everyone depends on history and experiments of scientists of the past. But naturalists abandoned the Bible as a history source for metaphysical reasons and creationists didn't."

Which metaphysical naturalists are you talking about specifically?

To the extent that scientists (just about all of which since the dawn of the scientific method have been methodological naturalists) abandoned the Bible as a universally reliable history source because it was contradicted increasingly by observable evidence. To insist that the Bible is a universally reliable history source because some parts of it line up with observable evidence (say, the mention of certain archaeological sites) is simply to engage in a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of composition.

"Naturalists abandoned God as a possible creative force and creationists didn't."

Metaphysical naturalists by definition would not include God as a possible creative force - but there were certainly more than just metaphysical naturalists and creationists. You're leaving out the methodological naturalists who are not creationists or complete metaphysical naturalists. This is a false dilemma that you keep presenting for propaganda purposes, but that doesn't correspond to the truth.

"So naturalists claim that nothing exploded and became everything."

Wrong. As has been pointed out to you countless times. It's hard to qualify this as anything other than a brazen lie and propaganda at this point.

"They claim nothing designed organisms, nothing made the Solar System and so on and so forth. So naturalists have substituted the null set for God."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You're either knowingly engaging in misrepresentations or are simply whistling past the graveyard with regard to large chunks of modern science.

Anonymous said...

"What really gets me is the idea that mutations add information! Sure, if you take a saws-all and cut the roof off of your car it becomes a convertible but you won't want to drive it in the rain. Cut a football in half and you can have a nice miniature dunce cap but it will not be useful to throw and catch."

But it will be useful as a cap, which it wasn't before. So in this case you'd have an added functionality that didn't previously exist, which could represent new information.

"Mutations are mistakes and copying errors. The cell has mechanisms in place to try to eliminate mutations or provide switching in advance to react to them but often mutations get through anyway and this is a problem, not a solution."

But if a mutation happens to be useful, if an element of DNA in a different position happens to result in a beneficial effect, then there is a chance that it will be preserved by natural selection, and that represents new information.

"As an ISO 9000 series auditor I saw that much of the job of quality process control in a factory is to eliminate mutations, so to speak. QPC seeks to eliminate errors and to filter them out so that the products produced are within the specifications. The concept of continual improvement or Kaizen is now common practice in manufacturing. The idea is to eliminate errors (mutations) because they are destructive. Yet Darwinists claim mutation as the creative force of nature?"

Mutation PLUS natural selection.

Not that your analogy is perfect, but in such an operation, is it impossible for someone to do something other than what was planned and for that "mistake" to represent an improvement, e.g. a shortcut?