Search This Blog

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Deluded Darwinists Still Ruling Despite Evidence? Design = Blue Whale In Room!

Having just finished a five part series from a great interview of William Dembski,  it is worth pointing the reader back to those posts because Dembski and the interviewer sketch out a journey of inquiry within a world of parochial fundamentalists of various stripes.   Like playing an old mechanical pinball machine, Dembski's career has been a rolling steel ball being flipped from one place and settling into another, only to be flung out again to bounce off of things, accumulating points, avoiding going down into the hole at the bottom which would be to change careers or abandon principles.    William Dembski has steadfastly worked the flippers and remained relevant despite the obstacles.  

News that supports Intelligent Design continues to explode all around us!   Recently scientists managed to put 700 Terabytes of data on one gram of DNA!!!   Not that we can either input or transcribe DNA code at the speed of cells.   Cells are able to read and utilize DNA information hundreds of times in one second.   Nevertheless, the obvious superiority of DNA to our own binary digital information storage schemes has caused scientists to copy the Great Designer yet again.   Not that they are willing to give God any credit.   Nope, Darwinist propaganda masquerading as science remains the status quo.   But as the article below reveals, real science is paying attention to design in nature and learning from it!

Evolution is not the basis for understanding nature, Intelligent Design is the basis and it is design found in nature that is exciting and inspiring scientists to improve the lot of mankind.  

Inventors Covet Nature’s Engineering

Posted on August 16, 2012 in Biomimetics, Botany, Cell Biology, Genetics, Health, Intelligent Design, Marine Biology, Terrestrial Zoology, Uncategorized
Scientists and entrepreneurs can’t get enough of the design solutions found in the living world.
Snake-botsPhysOrg wrote about Flexible snake armor:  Biology could inspire systems in engineering with minimized abrasion.”  Snakes slither on all kinds of surfaces; their skin, therefore, is optimized to handle friction.  Scientists at Kiel University looked at electron micrographs of snake skin cross-sections and found a gradient of stiff to flexible cells from outside to inside.  “A material that has a transition from a stiff outside to a flexible inside can distribute an impacting force over a larger area, therefore decreasing the force on one single point,” a researcher explained. “Materials like this are like a flexible amour.”  How could imitating this structure help humans?  “Possible application areas can be found in the medical engineering sector, in which friction could for instance be optimized for artificial implants,” the article said.  “Furthermore, the propulsion and conveyer technique market could profit from the abrasion minimization findings, since lubrication would have to be implicated less often.”  Research on the mechanical properties of snake skin is “extremely new,” the spokesperson said.

Worm-bots:  The pulsing action used by earthworms and snails, called peristalsis, has inspired another soft robot named “Meshworm” by its inventors.  “Now researchers at MIT, Harvard University and Seoul National University have engineered a soft autonomous robot that moves via peristalsis, crawling across surfaces by contracting segments of its body, much like an earthworm,” a report on Science Daily says.  “The robot, made almost entirely of soft materials, is remarkably resilient: Even when stepped upon or bludgeoned with a hammer, the robot is able to inch away, unscathed.”  Faced with challenges of building artificial muscles and soft actuators, the teamlooked to the earthworm for design guidance.  The article explains how they did it.  A softbot using peristalsis would be useful for getting into tight places.  Have they thought about just training earthworms?

Gecko tape update:  The climbing ability of geckos with dry feet has been well studied, but how do they perform when wet?  The BBC News and Science Daily revealed the secret: they trap air bubbles between the tiny hairs on the toe pads that cling to surfaces.  Tokay geckos live in tropical rainforests where wetness is a problem.  In natural circumstances, the geckos do fairly well in wet weather, but in the lab, when the toes were soaked, they lost adhesion.  Researchers at the University of Akron hope to use what they are learning to develop a gecko tapethat works on both wet and dry surfaces.  The BBC article also discussed research in Japan with beetles that can walk underwater.  The beetles use capillary action of an oily secretion to do the trick. Inspired by this, the team created an artificial structure from silicone to mimic the adhesion and were able to successfully stick a plastic toy bulldozer to the bottom of a fish tank.

Bamboo construction:  The wood of bamboo decays in UV light and has poor fire resistance; otherwise, it has desirable properties for construction, PhysOrgs aid in “Bamboo: The new super construction material.”  Those properties are its fast growth and a strength like steel.  If they can overcome the undesirable properties, researchers at the University of Bath believe bamboo holds promise.  They are experimenting with composites that boost its UV and fire resistance.  “Possible applications of the resulting novel composites developed through this research programme include incorporation in architectural structures, particularly in critical areas such as joints and load bearing elements of buildings.”

Octobot camouflage “…inspired by the squid and octopus,” PhysOrg wrote, Harvard scientists have “devised a rubbery robot … which can crawl, camouflage itself and hide from infrared cameras.”  With “dynamic coloration,” this robot could someday help surgeons and search-and-rescue teams.  “One of the fascinating characteristics of these animals,” a researcher said, “is their ability to control their appearance, and that inspired us to take this idea further and explore dynamic coloration.  Just as the animals can hide from predators or signal friends, the new robots could camouflage themselves or signal their positions to other robots.  The progress was reported in Science Magazine (Morin et al., “Camouflage and Display for Soft Machines,” Science 7 August 2012: Vol. 337 no. 6096 pp. 828–832, DOI: 10.1126/science.1222149).  The paper begins,Synthetic systems cannot easily mimic the color-changing abilities of animals such as cephalopods.”  They hope their soft-bots can mimic some of the functions, if not the anatomy, of squid and octopus.

Flower power:  How to get more energy from sunlight?  Follow the sun, like sunflowers do. A field of young sunflowers will slowly rotate from east to west during the course of a sunny day, each leaf seeking out as much sunlight as possible as the sun moves across the sky through an adaptation called heliotropism,” began an article on PhysOrg.  It’s a clever bit of natural engineering that inspired imitation from a UW-Madison electrical and computer engineer, who has found a way to "mimic the passive heliotropism seen in sunflowers for use in the next crop of solar power systems.”  The article includes a video clip about Hongrui Jiang’s invention using passive heliotropism that improved solar panel light harvesting by 10%.  “But eventually, Jiang hopes to see huge industrial solar farms where fields of photovoltaic solar panels shift effortlessly along with the sunflowers that inspired him,” becauseThis is exactly what nature does.

Ultimate hard driveScience Now called DNA the “ultimate hard drive” for information storage.  How about some “wow” stats?  “When it comes to storing information, hard drives don’t hold a candle to DNA,”  John Bohannon wrote. Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram. A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare.”  He reported, “researchers stored an entire genetics textbook in less than a picogram of DNA—one trillionth of a gram—an advance that could revolutionize our ability to save data.  It’s not practical for personal computers yet, but just wait; an engineer at the Craig Venter Institute said, “the field is moving fast and the technology will soon be cheaper, faster, and smaller.”  Synthetic DNA – no cells required – has been put on rewritable devices: “an inkjet printer embeds short fragments of chemically synthesized DNA onto the surface of a tiny glass chip.”  The researchers boast, “DNA chips are now the storage medium with the highest known information density.”  New Scientist’s coverage of this achievement added even more “wow” factoids about DNA:


DNA is one of the most dense and stable media for storing information known. In theory, DNA can encode two bits per nucleotide. That’s 455 exabytes – roughly the capacity of 100 billion DVDs – per gram of single-stranded DNA, making it five or six orders denser than currently available digital media, such as flash memory. Information stored in DNA can also be read thousands of years after it was first laid down.

Researcher George Church even wrote his latest book in DNA, illustrations and all, said Science Daily.    Another good thing about DNA encoding is that the molecule is stable at room temperature.

Fixing what happens:  This is not exactly a biomimetics story, but it deals with a biological reality which, if handled better, would hold great promise for world health.  The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, according to PhysOrg, sponsored a “Reinvent the Toilet Challenge” since much of the world lacks access to good sanitation (see YouTube video about the challenge).  Cranfield University, one of the competitors, has come up with a human-powered device that extracts the water from refuse and concentrates it into briquets that can be used for fuel or fertilizer – and it’s not just for poor countries, too.  The sanitary reapplication of digestive waste could go a long way to conserving water and preventing disease.  As side benefits, new sources of energy and even fresh water could result when nature calls.

The BBC News joked that Gates is flushing his money down the toilet, but quickly explained that the initiative could prevent many deaths: for example, 1.5 million children die each year from diarrheal disease.  “The project challenged inventors to come up with a toilet that operated without running water, electricity or a septic system. It needed to operate at a cost of no more than five cents (3p) a day and would ideally capture energy or other resources.”  In a short video clip in the article, Gates described problems with current toilet designs.  “Traditional flush toilets waste tons of drinking water and are often impractical in many areas of the developing world.”  They use, in fact, 10 times more water than people drink.  At a recent Reinvent the Toilet Fair, “In total 28 designs were shown off at the fair and the winner was a team from the California Institute of Technology” (see picture at Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation website).  “Led by Prof Michael Hoffman, the toilet they designed was solar-powered and generated hydrogen gas and electricity. They won a $100,000 prize.”

Isn’t it refreshing to see science done for human good and environmental stewardship?  Evolution was almost a no-show in these stories, just appearing in bit parts with no speeches.  The Bill Gates challenge story is also a lesson about how wealth creation through capitalism can benefit the poorest of the poor.  Gates built his fortune without government or U.N. help, starting in a garage.  His mega-company, Microsoft, created thousands of jobs and made computing easier for the entire civilized world.  Now, through some of the wealth created (not stolen from the poor), he is encouraging engineers to save millions of lives and promote  environmental stewardship with a simple challenge that is long overdue: doing better with doo.  Leftist redistributionist Marxists, are you paying attention?  What has Darwin crap done for the world lately?

Other recent posts of interest from Creation-Evolution Headlines:

(To view actual evidence about the Solar System and stars I would access Spike Psarris's site)

Honestly, any real discussion of what Darwinism asserts brings to mind the kid you lent five bucks to back in junior high school.   He'll never give it back and in fact you will not likely ever see him again.    Darwinists are always telling us that an evidence check is in the mail while talking in circles and making up stories.   Darwinism taken to the logical end is Determinism, so that you cannot even reason for yourself or have free will, you have evolved to do what you do.   Check it out!

How many decades now have Darwinists glossed over the total lack of evidence for their primary premises?   One guy (Outing the Moronocracy) identified thirty scientific incompetencies at the National Academy of Sciences.   Take a look at the excerpts and ask yourself if Darwinism has actually added any positive thing to the world of science at all?  Thanks to Karl Priest for the link!

The National Academy of Sciences currently presents its position that we humans are the product of chance reptile descent in a book entitled Science, Evolution, and Creationism (The National Academies Press, 2008). Published in response to continuing challenges to Darwinism, the book targets “school board members, science teachers and other education leaders, policy makers, legal scholars, and others in the community who are committed to providing students with quality science education” (pp. xi - xii). The content appears over the signature of Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences; Harvey V. Fineberg, President, Institute of Medicine; and Francisco J. Ayala, the book committee chair. The seventeen members of the Council of the National Academy of Sciences and the twenty-two members of the Council of the Institute of Medicine “approved this document.” The book committee consisted of fourteen individuals in addition to Ayala. Cicerone, Fineberg, and Ayala thanked twenty-six additional persons by name “for their review of this report.”

I direct the following open letter directly to Cicerone in that he is the one ultimately responsible for the content of the book.

Dear Mr. Cicerone,

In that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was created by an act of Congress in 1863 to “investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art,” I, and the rest of the citizens of the United States, have a right to expect that you, as president of that organization, will present your findings logically, straightforwardly, and competently. Indeed, we trust you to do so. As the leading advocate for the teaching of Darwinian evolution in our public school science classrooms, you have violated that trust, and egregiously so. Your promotion of Darwinian evolution is fraught with illogic, deception, and incompetence.
To demonstrate your illogic, deception, and incompetence, I cite thirty specific examples of scientific incompetence below, referring almost entirely to the book published over your signature entitled, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, directed to school boards, science teachers, and the general public. I also cite a book written by your book committee chair, Francisco J. Ayala, and reference the recorded remarks of Neil deGrasse Tyson, one of your fifteen book committee members.


You assert nine times in your book that Darwinian evolution (molecules-to-man evolution) is a fact(pp. xii, xiii, 1, 11, 12, 39, 49, 51, and 52). Yet a careful reading of your book shows that you admit that you have no plausible hypothesis for the origin of life: Constructing a plausible hypothesis for life’s origins will require that many questions be answered(p. 22).

Competent scientists do not assert that their theory is a fact while at the same time admitting that they lack a plausible hypothesis for the very foundation of it.


You further acknowledge that you have no evidence for the alleged evolution of the sexes or for what you call speciation (the alleged evolution of one specific species into another): Of course, there remain many interesting questions about evolution, such as the evolutionary origin of sex or different mechanisms of speciation (p. 52). These mechanisms that allegedly lead to one specific species allegedly evolving into another species through an addition of essential genetic information, remain unknown—questions about evolution without answers. No mechanism in nature has been discovered that can develop the genetic data of a certain species and cause it to become another species. Out of the two million or so species on this planet, you cannot pick a single one (a pine tree, anchovy, garden spider, whale, potato, snail, human, eagle, firefly, bumblebee, etc.) and identify, with empirical evidence, the species from which it allegedly evolved. Neither can you produce any empirical evidence for the alleged evolution of the sexes.

Absent this crucial evidence for your “theory,” you yet proclaim to our school children that their lives are the product of chance human reptile descent: “[M]ammals evolved from different lineages of ancient reptiles (p. 8).

Competent scientists do not insist that their theory is a fact while lacking the empirical evidence for two essential elements of it; neither do they pretend that mechanisms for speciationexist when no such alleged mechanisms can be found in the natural world. For intentionally misleading our children into believing that they are descended from reptiles by chance, you should be deeply ashamed.


You ignore the proverbial “elephant in the room”: the question of the origin and purpose of the enormous amount of language-based specified and complex encoded information within the DNA of each living cell that functions as intelligently expressed operating instructions.

Codes always originate from an intelligent source. There is no known process, no known law of nature, and no known sequence of events that can lead to information coming into being by itself. That is why, in your book, you do not attempt to explain the origin and operation of the symbols, grammar, instructions and meaning that are part of the complex information codes within each living cell.

You mention the genetic code or encoding only once, referring to the gene that encodes the hormone leptin(p. 31). You offer no explanation for the origin of the encoding, because an encoding system always involves a non-material intellectual process, prima facie proof of design, and thus of a Designer. You touch on the subject one other time, writing that Genes . . . orchestrate the development of a single-celled egg into a multicellular organism (p. 4), but you fail to point out to your readers that orchestration requires a composer or conductor with intelligence and purpose.

Competent scientists do not avoid examination and discussion of phenomena that contradict their worldview.


Absent a “plausible hypothesis” for the origin of life, absent empirical evidence for the alleged evolutionary origin of the sexes, for the alleged evolution of one specific species into another, and absent any explanation for the origin of the complex encoded instructions within each living cell:

You call upon on the opinions of religious leaders, apostate and otherwise, in an attempt to bolster your unfounded evolutionist belief in chance human reptile descent. You use an atheist professor named Michael Zimmerman to supervise what he calls “The Clergy Letter Project.” Zimmerman has rounded up more than 12,000 apostate Christian ministers to sign a letter, an edited version of which you include on a full page in your book. The Clergy Letter includes this phrase: the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth (p.14). You devote three and a half pages of your book (pp. 12 – 15) to document the support you receive from these apostate ministers, and from other religious sects as well. Why do you covet the approval of religious leaders? What qualifies them to validate your opinions in the field of science? What empirical evidence have they contributed to validate their statement that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth”?

Competent scientists do not need to organize religious leaders, apostate or otherwise, in support of their “theories.” Can you imagine Albert Einstein, as part of his Special Theory of Relativity, writing: “Energy equals mass times the velocity of light squared, and hundreds of pastors from the United Church of Christ totally agree with me on this”? No. In this instance also, you demonstrate your incompetence as a scientist.

Absent a “plausible hypothesis” for the origin of life, absent empirical evidence for the alleged evolutionary origin of the sexes, for the alleged evolution of one specific species into another, and absent any explanation for the origin of the complex encoded instructions within each living cell:

To the long list of evolutionist “missing link” hoaxes you add a fish called Tiktaalik, named from the Inuit language of northern Canada. You make the outrageously self-serving claim that the paleontologists who discovered the Tiktaalik fossil decided to focus on northern Canada when they noticed in a textbook that the region contained sedimentary rock deposited about 375 million years ago, just when shallow-water fishes were predicted by evolutionary science to be making the transition to land(p. 2). Most of us have difficulty remembering where we left our coffee cup or eyeglasses before lunch, but your paleontologists know exactly where to look for the first fish that allegedly crawled out of the water 375 million years ago”! You have no idea what happened on this earth 375 million years ago or how such vast stretches of imagined time can be measured, much less whether the earth even existed then—or if there even was a “then.”

Having allegedly used evolutionary science to discover a missing link critically important for confirming predictions of evolution theory(p. 3), why is it that your paleontologists didn’t use the same evolutionary scienceto locate the fossils of the species from which and into which Tiktaalik alleged evolved? The answer: because they don’t exist.

Competent scientists who have discovered the fossil of an amphibian do not automatically insist that it is an “evolutionary” link between a fish and a land animal. Competent scientists also know the difference between arrant speculation and evidence.


You falsely claim that modern advances in the domestication of wheat rely on “an understanding of evolution” (p. 6). Advances in modern wheat production are a result of advances in molecular biology and genetics, and not in any way a result of your “theory” of evolution. As mentioned in Scientific Incompetence Example 27, you must make transparently fake claims about the alleged benefits to mankind of your “theory” of chance human reptile descent because your “theory” of chance human reptile descent, in reality, has never contributed a single genuine benefit to mankind.

Competent scientists do not present evolutionary “theory” as providing concrete benefits to mankind when it does no such thing.


Darwinism is not even a theory, since a theory must be able to be tested and positive results must be recorded.   Therefore it is only an hypothesis.   One of its most important doctrines involves life coming from non-life, but this idea of "spontaneous generation" was folklore that 17th Century scientists sought to disprove, such as Reddi.   In the 19th Century a number of scientists performed experiments to prove not even the very simplest form of life came from non-life.    Louis Pasteur's experiments in 1864 were so convincing that science declared the Law of Biogenesis.   Darwinists have now had 148 years since that Law was accepted to present even one experiment that refutes it and they have always failed.   Darwinism is dead before it begins because it cannot produce life.   Call it chemical evolution or abiogenesis, it is impossible and ludicrous in the extreme.   Thus Naturalism has no claim on science.   It cannot even account for life.

If you do an internet search, you will read numerous lies.  The Law of Biogenesis is downgraded to a theory and it is said to be unlike abiogenesis or chemical evolution.  Darwinists do not want to face the truth and especially don't want YOU to know the truth, which is exactly as the great Pasteur said:  " ‘Spontaneous generation is a chimera [illusion].’—Louis Pasteur, French chemist and microbiologist."—*Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations (1988), p. 193.  Chimera is a word also used for a bad dream or nightmare.

Ironically, While Pasteur was refuting a Naturalistic start to life, Darwin himself had been publishing papers and exchanging publications with various men and had taken his own ideas and observations plus those by men like Wallace, Hutton and Blyth to publish a book that described organisms evolving from simpler forms.    He had not yet challenged the role of God as Creator but eventually that is exactly what Darwinism would do and with full agreement of Darwin himself.   Yes, just as science had finally disproven the pagan and silly concept of life just popping up out of piles of rags, Darwinists were seeking to build the mythology back up again.

Meanwhile, where are the examples of organisms evolving upwards to more complex forms?   We have the reverse happening all around us, but that supports Creation of organisms armed with rich genetic information stores within their DNA, able to adjust to various environmental pressures and still survive and reproduce.  Speciation is right in line with Creationism.    Real science has identified design and codes within organisms, which is exactly what Creationists would expect to see but has nothing at all to do with evolution.   I ask you, exactly what has evolution done for humanity besides waste billions of dollars and man-hours searching in vain to find it?  If futility is science, then evolution has its place.   Darwinist scientists should receive doctorates in futility.  Ph.D F.   Otherwise?  No.



Jon W said...

Such enormous stupidity, paraded proudly before the world. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

New genes appear as a result of mutations to existing genes. And the attacks staged by creationists on conventional theory are a load of bilgewater. All your handwaving, doubletalk, illogic, and outright lying won't change that, Radar. Creationism is a lie, and its advocates are malignant fools who can only make their nonsense seem believable by lying about the evidence. Not a thing have you ever said that can change that fact, nor will you ever in the future.

radar said...

Jon, you have no evidence. You cannot have mutations without genes in the first place and Naturalism has not explained where life comes from and never will because it cannot be done.

Mutations are mistakes. You are taking the position that new cars come by taking a hammer to an older car. It is nonsensical. Darwinism is nonsensical. DNA has a mechanism to weed out mutations and usually succeeds. This is why in all these decades of trying, Darwinists have no single case of an organism gaining new information from a new gene.

Anonymous said...

What you call 'information' is actually data, Radar.

radar said...

Nope. Data is not information per se. I can count the number of rocks found in a gravel driveway and then the number can be entered as data and be converted into information. But the rocks are not information.

Data can come from information or from observation but the two are not precisely the same. Jon tried to make them the same previously but it is not so. The number of tree rings in a log is not information. If I count them and record observations about them then THAT is information.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Data can come from information or from observation but the two are not precisely the same. Jon tried to make them the same previously but it is not so."

No, you tried to make them the same by arguing that the quantity of information is equal to the size of the container. 10 MB of a physics textbook is the same quantity of information as 10 MB of random numbers. This may apply to DATA, i.e. 10 MB of data is 10 MB of data, no matter what, but they are not equal in information content.

radar said...

Incorrect! I keep saying that you cannot measure a precise quantity of information, you can only measure containers. I did not say that the container equates exactly with the information within.

We can roughly compare the length of DNA strands, we can count chromosomes, we can determine how many terabytes of data to back up and we can see how many gigs of free space versus used space is contained by a disk drive. All of this is counting the containers of information. By that rough and inexact way we can give a rough estimate of amounts of information - 588 pages in a book - but that does not reveal the quality of the information or the quantity.

In THE SHINING, the main character (played by Jack Nicholson) is an author who moves into an empty hotel with his family, providing "hotel sitting" services in the off-season while trying to overcome writer's block. He keeps working on his novel, becoming moody and unpredictable and worrying his family. The setting includes the idea that the hotel was built on Indian burial grounds and that a previous caretaker had gone crazy and killed his family.

In the movie, his son has psychic visions and soon it seems that the hotel is haunted. The spirits eventually enter the writer and madness takes over. One horrific scene where his wife, played by Shelley Duval, discovers that her husband has typed "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" over and over again in various ways is a pivotal one and the rest of the movie is primarily wife and son trying to avoid being murdered by the crazed Jack.

How much information was contained in the pages of typed paper Jack had produced? Was it the number of pages, the number of words or simply one phrase? What was the quality of that information? Do you understand that there were nuances to this in that the phrase itself was repeated inanely and that in itself transmitted information to the wife beyond the words themselves?

Look, we can see the results of what information does and we know we can transmit it in various ways including ways that do not require material being transferred at all. Will you gain weight while reading these words? No.

Try as you will, you will not succeed in finding a way to precisely measure information as material because it is not material in form or substance. That is the bottom line.

radar said...

By the way, not that this matters, but I always thought The Shining could have been better as a simple case of a man driven to madness by drinking and unmet expectations and that all the ghosts would have made better metaphors than actual presences. If Jack saw ghosts that signified the erosion of his normal personality under the stressors of failure and isolation it might have made for a better story. Instead the cheap thrills of murder written backwards and all the supposedly actual ghostly appearances and a picture of Jack appearing in a photograph dated 1921 are used.

Yes, Jack with an axe and leeringly crying out "Heeeres Johnny" makes for good suspense, as does the race between Jack and his wife and child that ends up with Jack hopelessly lost in a maze in freezing conditions while wife and child are found safe. But the other stuff detracts from the real human horror story that could have been told.

Stephen King novels translate best into films when the story has less sizzle and more steak. The Shawshank Redemption and Misery were both examples of this. Just my opinion. His novels have certainly translated into some really good stuff. On the other hand, Tim Curry probably cringes every time he sees even one second of the made-for-TV movie "IT!" Me and the kids wound up laughing rather than being horrified. "They all float down here" Haahahahaha!

Jon W said...

If you can't measure the amount of information in a gene, how do you know that a mutation always reduces the amount of information in a gene?

"Mutations are mistakes."

You've never made a mistake that turned out to produce a net benefit?

Radar, your claims about genetics are built entirely on sand. You need genetics to behave a certain way in order to preserve your mindlessly rigid worldview, so you blindly insist that's the way genetics behave and ignore all evidence to the contrary. But ignoring contrary evidence doesn't make that evidence go away. That's why evolutionary theory is generally accepted among scientists, and only creationists still baa and bleat about "design."

radar said...

No, evolution is not generally accepted among scientists so much as it is being both challenged and ignored by scientists. The Intelligent Design hypothesis has actually met the requirements of a valid and testable hypothesis, unlike Darwinism which has either failed or been unable to be tested depending on your viewpoint.

Research these days may have some Darwinist blather inserted in order to get NSF funding but evolution is absolutely of no use in studying organisms.

Your statement about felids is partially correct. Actually cats do eat vegetation, even big ones, but primarily eat meat. That is apparently an example of information LOSS so that cats must get most of their energy from meat and thus are more limited than dogs and bears and etc.

The enormous stupidity to me is that Darwinism is based on impossible predictions as a worldview:

No means to obtain a Universe.
No means to obtain stars and planets from scratch.
No means to obtain the ingredients for living beings.
No source of life itself.
No source of information.
No explanation for mating.
No explanation for multi-cellular organisms.
No way to explain irreducibly complex systems.
No means to explain obligate mutualism and sometimes this involves more than two different organisms.

When Darwinists are pinned down on these issues they say something like "Joe Blow has an interesting idea" or "The Insti Tute Institute is studying a concept" while actually having no clue.

Recently I asked Darwinists to give me a natural source of information. The comments thread is over 100 comments long and I finally gave up on them. Lots of irrelevant questions and when I would answer them they would twist my words or change the question but it was always off topic. You guys have absolutely NO IDEA where information comes from.

You, for instance, Jon. You talk about mutations building organisms but where did you get the organisms and the coding mechanisms in the first place? *Poof* did it?

God did it is the default setting that Newton believed and Maxwell believed and pretty much all the great scientists of the past believed. Darwinism swept through science like a virus, infecting the world of scientists and academics and of course the government agencies and media with an assault of marketing and faked charts and disproved assertions. Now they still have control of the secular science world but gradually people are realizing there is "no there there."

Anonymous said...

"No, evolution is not generally accepted among scientists so much as it is being both challenged and ignored by scientists."

Project Steve itself should lay this little lie to rest.

"The Intelligent Design hypothesis has actually met the requirements of a valid and testable hypothesis, unlike Darwinism which has either failed or been unable to be tested depending on your viewpoint."

What is the valid and testable hypothesis for Intelligent Design, and how is it tested?

Since you won't be able to answer this question, let me save you the time and rest your case for you right here. There is no valid and testable hypothesis for ID.

Check for yourself.

Anonymous said...

"Recently I asked Darwinists to give me a natural source of information. The comments thread is over 100 comments long and I finally gave up on them."

While you still owed answers to very simple questions.

Nothing impressive about that. You could smell the defeat and you ran for the hills. Thanks for reminding us.

1. If you have a book with a certain amount of information in it and you buy another copy of the same exact book, you haven't gained any information. If you buy five copies of the same book and then buy another fifty copies of that same book, you haven't gained any information.


2. It's fair to say that five editions of a book (even though each book still only has five chapters) collectively contain more information than five copies of any one edition. (see above example and details)

Do you agree?

3. Which contains more information: the DNA of four lion cubs from the same litter, or the DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together? Consider what instructions the DNA contains, and what the result of those instructions would be.

Jon W said...

" The Intelligent Design hypothesis has actually met the requirements of a valid and testable hypothesis,"

A hypothesis is testable if and only if an experiment can be done, or an observation made, which all observers agree will prove that the hypothesis is false.

This can be done for evolutionary theory. Can it be done for ID? What experiment or observation would you accept as falsifying ID?