Reconciling Evolution With The Scriptures

[J.S. Mill]

If you expect macroevolution to occur in a laboratory then you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

[e=mc2]

littlechildWhere in science do we find any experiments, let alone proof, that any species underwent or CAN undergo, a series of simultaneous changes to transform from a dino to a canary? The intermediate steps have to happen on multiple levels, simultaneously, they have to all provide a benefit to the organism, and they have to be functional.

Your Intelligent Design non-science is showing.......... you obviously don't read Darwin's own materials and evidences do you........ why not? There is no better source. He would inform you correctly, except that your ID heroes here want you understanding skewed information about evolution. That's sad!

If you expect macroevolution to occur in a laboratory then you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Man you can say THAT again!!!!

[J.S. Mill]

Hi, ThePhy.

This doesn't fly. It doesn't meet the real test. Skin cells staying alive? So ? That's nothing I don't already believe in myself.

Here's the thing. If dinosaurs became birds, they would have to develop wings and feathers. They would have to do more than keep their skins cells alive. Where in science do we find any experiments, let alone proof, that any species underwent or CAN undergo, a series of simultaneous changes to transform from a dino to a canary? The intermediate steps have to happen on multiple levels, simultaneously, they have to all provide a benefit to the organism, and they have to be functional.

We have no evidence of this anywhere in the fossil record. We have no science which shows that it CAN POSSIBLY be done. We have only the hope, the dream, the speculation that it could possibly have occurred somewhere. But the claims of evolution are that this sort of thing is ubiquitous amongst all living beings. And that it accounts for how we became separate species. All living things are supposedly related one to another, and this is supposedly ultimately mapped out in the correct Darwin's Tree of Life. So, today we have more phylogenetic trees than ever before, and they keep multiplying, and they keep getting more complex, but not a single one of them has any more scientific weight or authority than any other one. Do you see any problems with this ? I do.

Uhh, have you SEEN the fossil record? I doubt you'd be mocking the idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs if you saw fossil evidence of dinosaurs with feathers and talons. Also, your idea that every morphological change has to happen simultaneously is wrong. "What good is half a wing?" the IDers ask. I reply: "Ask a flying squirrel."

[littlechild]

I can't help it.....I simply don't believe you. Will you please share with me (even in a private email is fine) WHO you have done this with so I can talk to them? Miller, Dawkins, Gould, Eldridge, Asimov, Alters, Mayr, Isaak, Johnson (not the ID lawyer Philip either), Giberson. Pennock, Pigliucci, etc., have all shown the beneficial morphological changes that have occurred in evolution. I just cannot fathom you actually ignore the evidences.Ahhhhhhh, thank you. Why just one sided? Are you really interested in learning about evolution, or about the weird and wild interpretations these folks give it? Your reading is extremely biased and unbalanced. Now I know why you come to such illogical and unsupported claims. Thanks for sharing.

OK, then, if you have seen the beneficial morphological changes we are talking about - then reveal them here and now. And they better live up to the claim.

And I encounter both sides of the argument so it doesn't matter which books I actually own. I converse with people like you and ask them for evidence. They continue to say they have the evidence. Yet when I hear what the evidence amounts to - it never rises to the level of BENEFICIAL - MORPHOLOGICAL - CHANGE. In other words. Dinosaurs don't become canaries. There is a huge credibility gap that neo-Darwinism is not addressing here. They say that random undirected evolution generates a variety of species - yet there is no single case of that ever happening.

Hello, the ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES - what does that mean ? Darwin says the answer is common ancestry through natural selection and beneficial morphological changes over time (Darwinian evolution) Where is the evidence of that? NOWHERE to be found.

[J.S. Mill]

No neo-Darwinist worth his or her salt would tell you that macroevolution of complex organisms can take place in a human lifespan. What they probably have told you, is that the process can occur (and has occurred) over hundreds of thousands of years, or millions of years. Unless you're going to give them hundreds of millennia in the laboratory to prove their point, you should probably stop whining.

[e=mc2]

littlechild

We have no science which shows that it CAN POSSIBLY be done.

FINALLY! As an IDer, you have finally spoken the truth! You IDers have no scientific standing whatsoever, let alone evidence, because it has been proven in court your stance is not science. Dover court case demonstrates this absolutely. It's public knowledge. Karl W. Giberson, Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, HarperOne (2008) shows the complete debacle that ID underwent. Behe was decimated at Dover. He admitted himself that he has NO SCIENTIFIC BACKING of anything in his poorly scientifically reasoned book Darwin's Black Box. He confessed on the witness stand that he has NO SCIENCE to back his assertions of irreducible complexity. It is false. Ken Miller who testified first, before Behe, absolutely dismantled Behe's so-called science. Behe never refuted Miller. He fell completely apart. Read Giberson if you think I bluff. It was proven in court, and the judge handed down the verdict that Intelligent design is religion, NOT science. You seriously need to update yourself my friend. I mean seriously.

[e=mc2]

littlechild

OK, then, if you have seen the beneficial morphological changes we are talking about - then reveal them here and now. And they better live up to the claim.

Piece of cake........ your ears..... your eyes....... your hands....... your feet........ your ability to stand on two legs........ your big toe............ your brain.......... ALL beneficial changes, for us anyway...... Anything else silly one?

[littlechild]

Uhh, have you SEEN the fossil record? I doubt you'd be mocking the idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs if you saw fossil evidence of dinosaurs with feathers and talons. Also, your idea that every morphological change has to happen simultaneously is wrong. "What good is half a wing?" the IDers ask. I reply: "Ask a flying squirrel."

And I say, prove the relationship between the flying squirrel and any other species. If not in actual photographic evidence, in microbiological evidence, that shows that complex morphological changes can happen even as an experiment. And just because you draw the flying squirrel into the Darwin tree at a certain point, doesn't mean some other biologist won't draw it in somewhere else. The whole messy geneaology of earthly life forms according to Darwinian theory is not a nice clean map, but just a bunch of spaghetti in a heap with each biologist having his own version.

Dr. Seelke's work has demonstrated that after 40,000 generations, of bacterial 'evolution', (equivalent to about a million years of human lifespan) there has been no observed case where more than one change happened at a time, and the majority of changes that do happen are not beneficial but detrimental. Multiple changes have to happen simultaneously, in order for bacteria to become anything other than a bacteria, this is a fundamental requirement of Darwinist thought.

[e=mc2]

littlechildAnd I say, prove the relationship between the flying squirrel and any other species. If not in actual photographic evidence, in microbiological evidence, that shows that complex morphological changes can happen even as an experiment.

Prove an intelligent designer produced this.......littlechild

Multiple changes have to happen simultaneously, in order for bacteria to become anything other than a bacteria, this is a fundamental requirement of Darwinist thought.

Ken Miller has the more scientific understanding of this. BUT woops, that darn dude be a evolutionist, him no good. Him must be replace with the disproven Behe......

[littlechild]

littlechild

Piece of cake........ your ears..... your eyes....... your hands....... your feet........ your ability to stand on two legs........ your big toe............ your brain.......... ALL beneficial changes, for us anyway...... Anything else silly one?

Yes, you prove my point one more time. Do you just not understand what Darwinist evolution is claiming? They are saying that when one creature evolves into another it happens by natural selection. Where in you rebuttal do you demonstrate that any of my body's components demonstrate A) that I was a creature of a different form before I became what I am, or that any of these components are going to help me become a new life form?

[ThePhy]

Hi, ThePhy.

This doesn't fly. It doesn't meet the real test. Skin cells staying alive? So ? That's nothing I don't already believe in myself.

Sorry, I didnâ??t realize you already believed that a random mutation could turn an otherwise doomed biological organism into a thriving reproducing one.

[J.S. Mill]

And I say, prove the relationship between the flying squirrel and any other species. If not in actual photographic evidence, in microbiological evidence, that shows that complex morphological changes can happen even as an experiment. And just because you draw the flying squirrel into the Darwin tree at a certain point, doesn't mean some other biologist won't draw it in somewhere else. The whole messy geneaology of earthly life forms according to Darwinian theory is not a nice clean map, but just a bunch of spaghetti in a heap with each biologist having his own version.

Dr. Seelke's work has demonstrated that after 40,000 generations, of bacterial 'evolution', (equivalent to about a million years of human lifespan) there has been no observed case where more than one change happened at a time, and the majority of changes that do happen are not beneficial but detrimental. Multiple changes have to happen simultaneously, in order for bacteria to become anything other than a bacteria, this is a fundamental requirement of Darwinist thought.

You're completely missing my point (surprise, surprise!), which is that a half a wing IS useful under a lot of circumstances.

[e=mc2]

littlechildWhere in you rebuttal do you demonstrate that any of my body's components demonstrate A) that I was a creature of a different form before I became what I am, or that any of these components are going to help me become a new life form?

Ah so now you change the question on me eh? You asked specifically for morphological changes that are beneficial, and I absolutely delivered. Of course, since you love to ignore the real meaning of the fossils, you will claim otherwise. Your ignorance is not my liability however.

You're completely missing my point (surprise, surprise!), which is that a half a wing IS useful under a lot of circumstances.

As is half an eye also! True story! Or half an arm, etc. this lazy and nonscientific objection against evolution is so lame, it is amazing it is still resorted to.

[e=mc2]

littlechild

Do you just not understand what Darwinist evolution is claiming?

You? Who does not even read Darwin, nor Darwinists, but instead read only ID literature presume to lecture me on what evolution is all about?! HOWLING LAUGHTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[J.S. Mill]

Whatever. Everyone knows that fossils aren't real anyway, and is just God's way of playing tricks on us.

[thesometimesaint]

Littlechild:

You wanted a Christian scientist that supported the theory of Evolution. I gave you a location where to find them.

[e=mc2]

littlechild

Where in you rebuttal do you demonstrate that any of my body's components demonstrate A) that I was a creature of a different form before I became what I am, or that any of these components are going to help me become a new life form?

I didn't, Darwin already has. It's a book I know you are unfamiliar with, Origin of Species. You wanted to know where the evidence is, I deliver. Read Darwin's book.

[littlechild]

Prove an intelligent designer produced this.......littlechildKen Miller has the more scientific understanding of this. BUT woops, that darn dude be a evolutionist, him no good. Him must be replace with the disproven Behe......

It is not necessary to prove intelligent design in order to defeat evolution theory. It is only necessary to require scientific evidence that evolution has even a possibility of occurring - which you like all your sympathizers have yet to do at the level you claim must absolutely happen in order for your theory to be justified.

But I didn't expect you to answer with rational real evidence - why should you be any different from the other multi-level marketing scientists who like to enjoy the fruits of labors not undertaken?

[e=mc2]

Whatever. Everyone knows that fossils aren't real anyway, and is just God's way of playing tricks on us.

I read in Ken Miller's book today Finding Darwin's God about just this astonishingly naive and idiotic argument used by the Scientific Creationists. It is such a pathetic affair for them to persue this worthless course of action and belief. It not only destroys science, it destroys their very God they believe they worship in truth. The God who creates deceptive appearances in order to make life and the earth look older than it really is has no truth in Him. Whata desperate attempt to refute evolution. They shoot themselves in the head with it, not just the foot.

[thesometimesaint]

That old trickster. Trying to trick His children with discredited science the shame of it all.

[Bee Eff]

OK, then Darwinism is a naturalistic philosophy that tries to hide that it is a naturalistic philosophy. I can lead you to water, but I can't make you drink.

At the very least, intelligent design is a more adequate explanation for the existence of irreducible complexity than any neo-Darwinian explanation can attain. Darwinism has serious hurdles to overcome in that it can't prove that evolutionary forces have produced a single benefical morphological advantage at any time to any creature, nor can it agree on a single phylogenetic tree which would demonstrate that Darwin was on the right track when he said we were all descended from a common ancestor. Science should advance us to solid answers, not prolong the questions. The more we study Darwinist theory, the more questions arise, and the less able we are to come up with a reasonable Tree of Life that satisfies evolutionary claims.

Existence is complex. Complexity is not evidence of design. The most simple state regardless of complexity is not sufficient to assume ID. ID has no evidence supporting it, it is simply an unproven hypothesis with no truly testable thesis.

Evolution is not the result of adaptation, evolution is the opposite. Evolution is the result of death due to inability to survive in an environment. Evolution is the result of mutation, and most mutation is maladaptive.

[littlechild]

I didn't, Darwin already has. It's a book I know you are unfamiliar with, Origin of Species. You wanted to know where the evidence is, I deliver. Read Darwin's book.

Irrational. If you read it, then state it here and now. Not just an assumption. Not just speculation and conjecture. Honest, living proof that doesn't beg the question.

Show me the complete Darwinian tree of life that doesn't conflict with hundreds of others out there, and you might one day rise to king of the Darwinian heap. If you aren't naturally selected out.

Don't forget to quote the full title of the book:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

I guess you are part of the Favored Race because you have read the book. Maybe your theory will survive despite the lack of objective evidence or the ability to trace the genetic lines from species to species with any accuracy.

[e=mc2]

littlechild

It is not necessary to prove intelligent design in order to defeat evolution theory. It is only necessary to require scientific evidence that evolution has even a possibility of occurring - which you like all your sympathizers have yet to do at the level you claim must absolutely happen in order for your theory to be justified.

Your brainwashing of Philip Johnson's worthless lawyer talk is sad. This is how it works in law. But science is not law. You might want to seriously inform yourself about this. Um, perhaps some help from Ken Miller Finding Darwin's God will show you how woefully inadequate, and truly muddleheaded this type of thinking is for real science, not the pseudoquackery Johnson has convinced you of.I just read in it today as a matter of fact, it's fresh on my mind. Here let me help you further. Miller on pp. 81-128... absolutely destroys Johnson's legal thinking when it is used as science. Incidentally, if Johnson is so sure-fire convinced he has the legal case against evolution in his truly worthless book Darwin on Trial, why did he not even show up for court at the Dover Trial?! Here he writes as if he has THE case against Darwin, with all his slick arguments and proofs! Well why not take it to a *real* court where it actually means something and PROVE his case? Instead, he was a no-show. A no-show. That speaks more than anything he has written yet against evolution.

[littlechild]

littlechild

Whose this uninformed "we" you tout?! WE *know* they prove evolution. You appear to me to have this weird and quirky approach that ONLY beneficial morphological changes is evolution. Can you show me *anywhere* in Darwin's own writings where he said that? Not your ID heroes, who have Darwin all wrong, but from Darwin himself? Gould? Asimov? Mayr? Isaak? Pennock? Can you show me ANY real evolutionary scientist who teaches this gross incorrectness?

What's quirky about wanting evidence for the central claims of a naturalist philosphy masquerading as "FACT"? If its "FACT" then why not prove it in a way that can't be explained by other means, better?

I ask for a single case of a beneficial morphological change. One case. Darwin says they happened to all life forms. So where are they? You can't slither away into substandard species alterations like a beak size change after claiming that evolution processes can change one life form into another. That's like claiming you have found El Dorado and then taking me around the corner and showing me a picture of a wooden nickel.

The possiblity that life formed from inert materials by random chances are much greater than mathematics says is remotely likely. Why do you adhere so to such a slim possiblity?

Because of a good PR campaign ?

[J.S. Mill]

What evidence would convince you of the validity of evolution by natural selection?