Darwin's Influence

[Mordecai]

Rob:

Sorry I don't get my science from the ACLU. They are fine however when someone tries to force, by law, me or mine to believe any religion.

I don't know how many ways and times I need to tell you ID is NOT science. It is NOT a Theory. It CANNOT be falsified. ID has NO place in a science classroom.

You want to disprove Evolution? It is easy. Just find a fully formed human skeletons in undisturbed Precambrian rock

How would someone force someone to believe a religion without preaching only one-side, like your Darwinist evangelicals do?

ID can be falsified, ID has just as much place in the classroom as Darwinism. How many times do I have to tell you that?

How would you prove the precambrian rock was undisturbed? Also, what would that prove, if that were discovered? Nothing. That would support no theory at all, really. So there is only one theory, in your world view. The obvious conclusion, if there is only one theory, is that it is a true theory. Even if a human skeleton were found in undisturbed precambrian rock were found, they would be forced to logically conclude that it was planted there so expertly, that they can't prove it's a hoax. What else can you say, when only one theory exists? Through your mindlessly anti-intellectual rejection of ID, you're FORCED to conclude Darwinism is correct. You have no other choices, regardless of the evidence.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

Sorry I don't get my science from the ACLU. They are fine however when someone tries to force, by law, me or mine to believe any religion.

I don't know how many ways and times I need to tell you ID is NOT science. It is NOT a Theory. It CANNOT be falsified. ID has NO place in a science classroom.

You want to disprove Evolution? It is easy. Just find a fully formed human skeletons in undisturbed Precambrian rock

If only it were true. The ACLU has a long standing principle of promoting atheistic views such as evolution. Many of the laws trying to get passed to critique the validity of evolution the ACLU has taken attack. In most cases, religion was not even involved. The ACLU and NCSE doesn't want any competeing theories to evolution- they only want theirs in place. If they truly for what they say they are they would promote competeing theories in science and in the name of the protection of individuals personal religiuos beliefs. No, they want to outright smash a persons personal beliefs by enforcing their own belief system. They are the enemy!

Falsifying evolution has already been done, or at least is a work in progress- No life has ever been observed to have evolved into another. The fossil evidence doesn't even support evolution over and across taxa. Living fossils are a testament that even the supposed oldest animals that walked the earth havent changed at all as evolution would require.

[cinepro]

You want to disprove Evolution? It is easy. Just find a fully formed human skeletons in undisturbed Precambrian rock

That's a good point. Critics of the theory of evolution often forget that not only is the theory falsifiable, it is almost precarious in its vulnerability. Just a few clearly out of place fossils could turn the whole theory into a hash.

The most obvious feature of the fossil record is that there are a lot of fossils of clam-like species. If one focuses on the remaining fossils, it becomes clear that the fossils are sorted by geological age. Deep rock layers generally contain the remains of simple creatures; the upper layers have evidence of more complex animals. By studying the entire fossil record, one can determine in what order various species first appeared and when they apparently became extinct.

The sorting of fossils is complete. Dinosaurs have never been found in the same layer as trilobites; trilobites have never been seen together with human remains; dinosaur remains have not been found with human remains. And so on for perhaps a million other combinations. There are literally millions of pairs of species which have never been found together in the same rock layer. One simple example may clarify this. There is a thin layer of clay containing a high concentration of Iridium which was laid down between the Cretaceous and Tertiary rock layers -- apparently about 65 million years ago. Because it is found in so many places around the world, it is a very useful date marker. There are thousands of species whose fossils are only found lower in the fossil record than this layer; there are thousands of species which are only found higher. This is overwhelming proof that the rock layers, and the species they contain, were laid down over long periods of time.

Disproving the Theory of Evolution

[cinepro]

If only it were true. The ACLU has a long standing principle of promoting atheistic views such as evolution.

Wait...how can evolution be an "atheistic view" any more than gravity is, or Ohm's law?

If someone had a theory that "gravity" were in fact the power of the Priesthood holding everything together (or that the Sun were burning on the power of the Priesthood, or that the Earth itself has a sentient spirit that can talk), would you support that theory being given equal time in science class?

[Jeff K.]

Wait...how can evolution be an "atheistic view" any more than gravity is, or Ohm's law?

If someone had a theory that "gravity" were in fact the power of the Priesthood holding everything together (or that the Sun were burning on the power of the Priesthood, or that the Earth itself has a sentient spirit that can talk), would you support that theory being given equal time in science class?

In a sense I agree. I personally would rephrase and say the ACLU in its effort to increase atheism uses evolution as a cover in order to create a false dichotomy.

[Rob Osborn]

Wait...how can evolution be an "atheistic view" any more than gravity is, or Ohm's law?

If someone had a theory that "gravity" were in fact the power of the Priesthood holding everything together (or that the Sun were burning on the power of the Priesthood, or that the Earth itself has a sentient spirit that can talk), would you support that theory being given equal time in science class?

"Gravity" doesn't attempt to explain the purpose of my existence! Evolution deals with theories that undermine or discredit deeply felt religious beliefs. Evolution denounces order, purpose, and design in the origins of life. Further, evolution teaches that we are mere animals that have evolved from a long line of monkey-like creatures.

Gravity on the other hand can explain why Jesus "hung" on the cross. They are different.

[Mordecai]

Wait...how can evolution be an "atheistic view" any more than gravity is, or Ohm's law?

If someone had a theory that "gravity" were in fact the power of the Priesthood holding everything together (or that the Sun were burning on the power of the Priesthood, or that the Earth itself has a sentient spirit that can talk), would you support that theory being given equal time in science class?

While evolution is strongly supported, as in change over time, that hardly explains how change took place, at least as far as speciation and increases in complexity. That's the only issue anyone is debating (well, anyone interested in science, at least).

[HiJolly]

How would someone force someone to believe a religion without preaching only one-side, like your Darwinist evangelicals do?

ID can be falsified, ID has just as much place in the classroom as Darwinism. How many times do I have to tell you that?

How would you prove the precambrian rock was undisturbed? Also, what would that prove, if that were discovered? Nothing. That would support no theory at all, really. So there is only one theory, in your world view. The obvious conclusion, if there is only one theory, is that it is a true theory. Even if a human skeleton were found in undisturbed precambrian rock were found, they would be forced to logically conclude that it was planted there so expertly, that they can't prove it's a hoax. What else can you say, when only one theory exists? Through your mindlessly anti-intellectual rejection of ID, you're FORCED to conclude Darwinism is correct. You have no other choices, regardless of the evidence.

Rob and Mordecai deserve one another. These posts are pure nonsense.

HiJolly

[Tsuzuki]

I would just like to bear my testimony of the truth of the theory of evolution via natural selection. I know that the theory is true as surely as I know that God lives and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is His Church. I have studied it out in my mind and asked God, and He has confirmed the truth of the theory of evolution to me through the power of the Holy Ghost.

[Mordecai]

Rob and Mordecai deserve one another. These posts are pure nonsense.

HiJolly

Well, if you only have one theory and since nature abhors a vacuum, no one is going to accept believing NOTHING. Science MUST accept Darwinian processes or nothing at all, as there is no competing theory. You know that it is brainwashing to only present one side of things? Yet, Darwinism is hardly proven nor is it a theory, as far as being an explanation for the origin of species (obviously, it is observable in microevolution... but not a single observed mutation represents an increase in complexity, which precludes it from being an adequate scientific creation story). For those who have read Berlinski's essay, "The Deniable Darwin", you might also like Dembski's"The Myth's of Darwinism," the introduction to the book in which I first read "The Deniable Darwin."

So I keep hearing that this Darwinism thing explains how increases in complexity occurred. But I never see any good evidence. In fact, I keep hearing that no computer model shows it's even possible to increase complexity in DNA. Anyone got any good evidence that Darwinism is correct? I get a lot of condescending insults, though. I kinda get tired of them. I keep making these arguments for ID like showing a list of predictions it makes, explaining how it is disprovable and how it's based on objective observation and logical inference.

But people repeat the myth that it makes no predictions, that is not disprovable and is based on religion, and then they don't counter me with any substantive evidence that Darwinism explains increases in complexity. So care to stop with condescending insults and actually make an argument? If it's true, then the evidence should support it. Feel free to show how Darwinism explains, for example, how spiders acquired through selective pressures and random mutations, their web-spinning behavior. Maybe explain how a bird acquired the ability to fly by the stars through the lens of Darwinism. I'd be interested in someone explaining how Darwinism could produce a sparrow (which appears in the fossil record with no predecessors/transitional forms).

It's easy to mock people for their lack of faith in your dogma, but I have always been open to hearing new evidence. I've looked at it, and it's pretty much crap. It's not convincing at all. If it was, I would have adopted it by now.

[ERayR]

Rob:

You want to disprove Evolution? It is easy. Just find a fully formed human skeletons in undisturbed Precambrian rock

Not necessarily true. Who is to say that "fully formed human" beings were around in precambrian times. Just because they wern't does not prove evolution. If you really want to prove evolution find the missing links.

[HiJolly]

Well, if you only have one theory and since nature abhors a vacuum, no one is going to accept believing NOTHING. Science MUST accept Darwinian processes or nothing at all, as there is no competing theory. You know that it is brainwashing to only present one side of things? Yet, Darwinism is hardly proven nor is it a theory, as far as being an explanation for the origin of species (obviously, it is observable in microevolution... but not a single observed mutation represents an increase in complexity, which precludes it from being an adequate scientific creation story). For those who have read Berlinski's essay, "The Deniable Darwin", you might also like Dembski's"The Myth's of Darwinism," the introduction to the book in which I first read "The Deniable Darwin."

So I keep hearing that this Darwinism thing explains how increases in complexity occurred. But I never see any good evidence. In fact, I keep hearing that no computer model shows it's even possible to increase complexity in DNA. Anyone got any good evidence that Darwinism is correct? I get a lot of condescending insults, though. I kinda get tired of them. I keep making these arguments for ID like showing a list of predictions it makes, explaining how it is disprovable and how it's based on objective observation and logical inference.

But people repeat the myth that it makes no predictions, that is not disprovable and is based on religion, and then they don't counter me with any substantive evidence that Darwinism explains increases in complexity. So care to stop with condescending insults and actually make an argument? If it's true, then the evidence should support it. Feel free to show how Darwinism explains, for example, how spiders acquired through selective pressures and random mutations, their web-spinning behavior. Maybe explain how a bird acquired the ability to fly by the stars through the lens of Darwinism. I'd be interested in someone explaining how Darwinism could produce a sparrow (which appears in the fossil record with no predecessors/transitional forms).

It's easy to mock people for their lack of faith in your dogma, but I have always been open to hearing new evidence. I've looked at it, and it's pretty much crap. It's not convincing at all. If it was, I would have adopted it by now.

>sigh<

It's not the evidence that is the problem.

Controversy equalizes fools and wise men

[Mordecai]

>sigh<

It's not the evidence that is the problem.

Controversy equalizes fools and wise men

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

The ACLU is thoroughly on the side of religious freedom

http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/aclu-and-freedom-religion-and-belief.

The ACLU and Freedom of Religion and Belief

November 3, 2006

Religious freedom is a fundamental human right that is guaranteed by the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment clauses.[1] It encompasses not only the right to believe (or not to believe), but also the right to express and to manifest religious beliefs. These rights are fundamental and should not be subject to political process and majority votes. Thus the ACLU, along with almost every religious and civil rights group in America that has taken a position on the subject, rejects the Supreme Court's notorious decision of Employment Division v. Smith. In Smith, Justice Scalia wrote that the accommodation of religion should be left "to the political process" where government officials and political majorities may abridge the rights of free exercise of religion.[2]

While most religious and civil liberties groups have rightly criticized the Smith decision's leaving the free exercise of religion "to the political process," the ACLU is in a select group that has (more consistently) argued that other issues involving government endorsement and sponsorship of religion also should not be left to government officials and political majorities (under the Establishment Clause). The question whether a religious monument should be erected on public property or whether religious activities should be subsidized is not one to be made by the politically influential or by local majorities. The Constitution does not endorse any religious creed, and it does not recognize any power of government to decide theological questions. Beliefs about the nature of God is a proper subject for individuals, families, religious communities, and theologians, but not for government bodies such as the U.S. Congress or a local school board.

Religion in the Public Square

Religion is pervasive in the public square in the United States - and it is constitutionally protected. The ACLU has long defended individuals, families, and religious communities who wish to manifest their religion in public. (Learn More) Particularly when compared to other industrialized democracies, religion plays a prominent role in American public life. Churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, cathedrals, and Gurdwaras are plainly visible in the public sphere and their right to display religious symbols and to construct religious edifices is protected by the Constitution and by statutes.[3] The ACLU has supported the right of people to preach their religion in public places and to go door-to-door to spread their religious messages. The Constitution properly protects the right of religious figures to preach their messages over the public airwaves. Religious books, magazines, and newspapers are freely published and delivered through the U.S. Postal System. No other industrialized democracy has as much religion in the public square as does the United States.

Some people, however, mistakenly use the word "public" when they really mean "governmental. "This can be seen, for example, with Ten Commandments monuments. The right of churches and families to erect such monuments on their own property is constitutionally protected, regardless of whether it is public or private and regardless of whether someone is offended or not. A Christian cross that is fully visible from a public sidewalk is constitutionally protected when placed in front of a church. But if that same cross were moved across the street and placed in front of city hall, it would violate the Constitution. The issue is not "religion in the public square" - as the rhetoric misleadingly suggests - but whether the government should be deciding whose sacred texts and symbols should be placed on government property and whose should be rejected.

Religion in the Public Schools

One of the most hotly disputed - and most frequently misunderstood - issues involving religion in America is the role of religion in public schools. The airwaves are filled with rhetoric suggesting that the Supreme Court (or secular humanists!) took prayer, God, or religion out of the public schools. To clear up some of this confusion we should start with identifying what is constitutionally protected, and then look at what is constitutionally suspect.

First, children are free to pray in public schools either as individuals or in groups. In addition, whenever a teacher opens up an assignment topic for the children's choice (such as which book to read, what to discuss in a talk to the class, or which song to sing), students may choose religious themes - and the ACLU has protected their right to do so. (Learn More) In addition, schools may offer courses about religion or about the Bible or other religious works.

There are, however, two difficulties to which all should be aware. First, public schools themselves should not be in the business of promoting particular religious beliefs or religious activities. While it is permissible for public schools to teach about religion, it is not permissible to promote particular religious beliefs. Although public schools should not be leading children in prayers or religious ceremonies, they should also be respectful of the religious beliefs of students. Second, public schools should protect children from being coerced by others to accept religious (or anti-religious!) beliefs. Public schools should seek to create an environment conducive to learning by all students and not act as vehicles proselytizing for religious or anti-religious beliefs.

The ACLU believes that the religious education of children should be directed primarily by parents, families, and religious communities - and not the public schools. They are, in fact, public schools and not Sunday schools.

American History and Government-Funded Religion

Some of the early European settlers in America came in pursuit of religious freedom. But many others came to create their own religious establishments that were designed to link religion and the state and to exclude those whose religious beliefs differed from the majority. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries witnessed several different approaches to religion. In retrospect, we look back to the early experiments in the colonies of Rhode Island (led by the Baptist Roger Williams who had been expelled from Massachusetts) and Pennsylvania (by the Quaker William Penn) as promoting what would ultimately become the American model of separating religion and the state. In the American model it was believed that both religion and the political community prospered best when the state refrained from involving itself in religious matters and where religions did not vie with each other for government revenues and support. The early experiments in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania were revolutionary at the time, and a far cry from Europe where both religions and governments struggled to control the other.

One of the most important developments in American religious liberty came in response to a draft law proposed in the Virginia House of Delegates in 1785. "A Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion" would have taxed Virginia landowners to pay for Christian pastors. After meeting with the Baptists of Virginia, who were strongly opposed to the bill, James Madison led the fight against Henry's state-funded religion bill. In his famous Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison criticized the funding bill, which he repeatedly decried for its "establishing" religion and for interfering with freedom of conscience. (Learn More) The Memorial and Remonstrance is now recognized as one of the great classics in religious freedom and the American approach to protecting this right. Madison argued that religion prospers best when it relies on its own ingenuity and does not attempt to use the state to support its activities. Many of the heated religious conflicts in Europe, according to Madison, came from the church seeking political power at the same time that the state sought to manipulate religious believers by offering them money.[4] Madison brought those same insights and sentiments into his work as the principal drafter and legislative sponsor of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Time has shown the wisdom of Madison's analysis. There is more religious freedom in the United States than in the European countries that continue to mix religion, money, and government far more pervasively than does the United States. In France, the state subsidizes private religious instruction. Do we wish to adopt the French approach of having the state pay for private religious instruction?In Germany and Spain, the state is involved in promoting sectarian religious education in public schools. Is this what we want?The Church of England in the United Kingdom has symbolic if not actual primacy. In Scandinavian countries, the state has long been involved in financing religious activities. (They are now moving to disestablish their churches, just as Americans did 200 years ago.) In all of these countries, religion receives more financial support from the state than it does in the United States and, at the same time, religious activity is much lower. Does government funding of religion make religion lazier?Madison thought so and the European experience would seem to bear this out. It is difficult to understand why people might want to replace the successful American approach that has fostered religious freedom and adopt instead European models that appear to have been far less successful.

Curiously, in most areas of the economy, the trend in the United States has been to reduce government subsidies and involvement in matters such as utilities, the postal service, telecommunications, and private enterprise. Increasingly the trend has been to "privatize" prisons, public education, and other public services. There is one startling exception to this general rule: many Americans are increasingly urging the government to invest its money in - of all things - religion. While people sharply disagree about whether privatization generally is a good idea, there is no apparent reason to have government funding of religion be a major exception.

A Final Thought

The first great Supreme Court freedom of religion case was decided in the middle of World War II in West Virginia v. Barnette. In one of the Court's most frequently quoted passages it said:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.[5]

In the Barnette decision, the Jehovah's Witnesses asserted that it was against their religious beliefs to pledge allegiance to a flag; they believed that their allegiance should be pledged solely to God. Because of their deeply held religious beliefs, Jehovah's Witnesses children who declined to recite the pledge in unison with others were expelled from schools. Their parents were thrown in jail and attacked and beaten on the streets in America. In the Barnette case, the Supreme Court finally sided with the ACLU and came down squarely in support of religious freedom and the freedom of conscience of religious believers.[6]

Whether we think of Madison's Memorial, or the Supreme Court's Barnette decision, we should constantly remind ourselves that religion is a fundamental right that needs to be protected for individuals, families, and religious communities. The government has no business telling any American what to believe in religious matters or deciding which side to support - symbolically or financially - in religious questions.

[1] The First Amendment of the Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

[Mordecai]

I use recognized scientists and scientific organizations.

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=NEWS_letter_president_03042005_BA_evolution

From nasonline.org... "In my response to the Times, I pointed out that, while my words are reflected correctly in Behe's column, he completely misrepresents the intent of my statement. This is a common tactic among those who are attempting to introduce religious views of the origins of life into the public schools -- or who are trying to undermine the teaching of evolution because of purported "weaknesses" in the theory."

So Behe misrepresents the INTENT???? What difference does intent make, if he still correctly understood what was said? Just because it wasn't INTENDED to show Darwinism has weaknesses, it still does. Who cares what the intent was. This "common tactic" is perfectly legitimate. However, the suggestion that Behe is somehow dishonest for ignoring his intent (seeing as intent is subjective and has nothing to do with the truth), is what is dishonest. Just an example of the Darwinists spinning things in their favor in ridiculous fashion.

If you guys would give me more references to scientists attacking Behe and Meyer, I would be happy to show you more examples of how insecure and frightened they are.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

The ACLU is thoroughly on the side of religious freedom

http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/aclu-and-freedom-religion-and-belief.

I hardly believe that the ACLU sides with religious freedom. The only side they side with in this regards is "freedom from religion". You will never ever convince me that the ACLU is an honest freedom preserving organization when it comes to religion and beliefs.

[littlechild]

Rob:

Sorry I don't get my science from the ACLU. They are fine however when someone tries to force, by law, me or mine to believe any religion.

I don't know how many ways and times I need to tell you ID is NOT science. It is NOT a Theory. It CANNOT be falsified. ID has NO place in a science classroom.

You want to disprove Evolution? It is easy. Just find a fully formed human skeletons in undisturbed Precambrian rock

Please explain how natural selection created the thyroid gland.

[littlechild]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[18] Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[19][20]

First of all, consensus doesn't determine the correctness of a viewpoint. Scientists who 'vote' on whether a scientific fact, must do so on the basis that they don't have an externally verifiable proof.

Secondly, you haven't defined science, so until you do, we can't really determine whether ID is science or not. But that isn't really the question here. That's a red herring. We don't care if it is science, we care if it is true and more accurate than other explanations. It so happens, that ID explains things more adequately than Darwinism.

Alchemists also believed that you could turn lead into gold. Your pseudo intellectual democracy is as wrong as they were.

Now, please do something significant in this debate other than trot out opinions. Show us the proof, which can be independently verified, outside of the echo chamber of the Darwinian magisterium.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/186879/endocrine-system/45468/The-thyroid-axis

and

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/icp053v1

requires subscription

[littlechild]

http://www.britannic...he-thyroid-axis

and

http://icb.oxfordjou...t/full/icp053v1

requires subscription

So, you can't.... understood.

Natural selection defintion

Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

Natural selection creates nothing

By definition, natural selection only culls those traits that have ALREADY come to be, it doesn't have any role to play in their creation. The creation process must happen by other means. Only then, can this thing we call natural selection determine those survival characteristics that are optimal.

How are things created?

How are complex things created? If you see a house, with a garage, a piano, a stairway, windows, plumbing, electricity, would it be fair to say that their was a creator of the house? Would you consider any alternative more likely than that?

No, and why is that? Because complex things are designed. They are built according to a plan. And to have a plan, requires complex information, and requires specific information. CSI, or complex specific information, is measurable in the universe. The more CSI an item has, the more intelligence required to create it.

From where does information originate?

A child cannot solve complex mathematical puzzles. It has insufficient understanding. Only a person trained in math can use his experience and training to solve such puzzles. In other words, a mathematician has more CSI at his disposal to be used to solve problems. Solving a problem requires an understanding of the problem.

Creation requires a goal, a purpose

There is an old saying, "If you see a man on top of a mountain, he didn't fall there." Climbing mountains requires a goal, and an effort. It would be ludicrous to suggest that a man will wake up one day, and find himself on top of a mountain, without having the goal of being there, or of having made the effort to get there.

So how did all the complex forms of life originate?

Science has no answer. To have living entities as complex as the simplest parasite, requires a developmental pathway far more complex than any plan ever devised by any man at any time. Not only does natural selection have no creative ability, it is not an intelligent force, and therefore, no understanding, no goal, and no information.

To believe in natural selection is to believe in intelligent design

To say that the process of natural selection is the key mechanism of "evolution" is to say that an intelligent force, with an understanding of the complex specific information needed to create a living entity, and the goal of achieving such, is responsible for the diversity of life. This is logically the far more likely conclusion based upon the evidence. A good principle of "science" is to prefer the most likely explanation. We know that "nothing" cannot create "something".

We also know that adaptation requires understanding, a goal, and effort. How do Olympic athletes achieve greater muscular efficiency? By having an understanding of training principles, by having a goal, and by directing their efforts to an application of those principles.

Without those three elements, you are not likely to see any improvements in muscular efficiency, no adaptation, no Olympic gold medals. You see atrophy, dissolution, and decay instead.

the uncritical acceptance of natural selection as an explanatory force for all aspects of biodiversity (without any direct evidence) is not much different than invoking an intelligent designer

Michael Lynch

The Origins of Genome Architecture, p 368

Natural selection is a logical fallacy

Natural selection as defined by classic Darwinism is a contradiction. It "works" by winnowing out the evolutionary 'losers'. In other words, it works against diversity. It keeps only the best, as evidenced by the phrase, "survival of the fittest". That means that diverse evolutionary pathways are jettisoned and only the "winning" pathways are chosen.

In other words, the more natural selection, the fewer experimental pathways, and thus the fewer offspring, and fewer branches on the Darwinian tree of life.

a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance

Mae Wan Ho

Beyond neo-Darwinism

many genomic features could not have emerged without a near-complete disengagement of the power of natural selection

Michael Lynch

opening, The Origins of Genome Architecture

What we are saying here, is whatever natural selection is, it resembles an intelligent designer more than a random, unguided process, and the power of Darwinism to explain the scientific phenomena we see all around us is nil.

[littlechild]

deleted

[littlechild]

duplicate post

[Tsuzuki]

Creation requires a goal, a purpose

There is an old saying, "If you see a man on top of a mountain, he didn't fall there." Climbing mountains requires a goal, and an effort. It would be ludicrous to suggest that a man will wake up one day, and find himself on top of a mountain, without having the goal of being there, or of having made the effort to get there.

He could have fallen from a helicopter, plane, or low earth orbit.

[thesometimesaint]

littlechild:

Yours are simply variations of the watch builder canard.

[littlechild]

littlechild:

Yours are simply variations of the watch builder canard.

And yours are simply non-answers.