Evolution and Creation, are both wrong?

[Ouroboros]

All hail the computer guys....I've been doing this for 20 years....

I think that "Professor" has been studying the art of 'guessary'....then aga..he is a computer scientist and not a biologist..

PhD in Guessary. Hehe.

Here's one thing I wonder (besides all other 1,000,000 things I'm wondering about), if it's so upsetting for many to hear Dawkins talk about religion (he's a bio scientist), and he shouldn't do it because it's outside his field, expertise, and yada yada, then why is it okay to quote a computer guy or mathematician or a horticulturalist to "disprove" evolution? It's like saying that math is wrong and 1+1 is not 2 because my UPS guy thinks so. Yeah, my UPS guy most definitely looked into math extensively, and he has a PhD in mail-carrying, and he says that 1+1=3. So there you have it, math is wrong. *palm meets forehead*

From my studies, I can't even remember all the facts from all the different areas of science. We look at combined facts and evidence from geology, biology, sociology, genetics, etc. We even had to use the Hardy-Weinberg Equation to show variations and try to figure out explanations. (Yeah, there is math in evolution, who would'a thunked?)

And I wonder if that computer scientist professor knows about genetic or evolutionary algorithms. They've been around since the 80's. And right now, we actually might be enjoying the existence of them (and they're working) in the mighty world-wide web and all the extremely advanced routers to guide the traffic.

 

[rusra02]

All hail the computer guys....I've been doing this for 20 years....

I think that "Professor" has been studying the art of 'guessary'....then aga..he is a computer scientist and not a biologist..

So when a scientist agrees with you, it's "all hail the computer guys" but when one disagrees, what he says is irrelevant? If you can't answer the argument, attack the expert? Btw,Professor Tistarelli is an associate editor of three international science magazines, and has coauthored more than 100 scientific papers. He studies human visual systems and designs such systems for robots. But, having said that, I realize none of that matters to you, because he exposes the ToE for what it is, mere bluster. Therefore, he is to be marginalized and ridiculed. Talk about bluster!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

He studies human visual systems and designs such systems for robots.

Perhaps he should stick to what he knows.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A lot of relevant stuff here.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So when a scientist agrees with you, it's "all hail the computer guys" but when one disagrees, what he says is irrelevant? If you can't answer the argument, attack the expert? Btw,Professor Tistarelli is an associate editor of three international science magazines, and has coauthored more than 100 scientific papers. He studies human visual systems and designs such systems for robots. But, having said that, I realize none of that matters to you, because he exposes the ToE for what it is, mere bluster. Therefore, he is to be marginalized and ridiculed. Talk about bluster!

And, to you, the education and achievements of every single scientist who has ever studied evolution and concluded that it is an accurate representation of reality is completely irrelevant. You can always dismiss their opinions, regardless of how well educated they are, on the basis that they are part of some vast conspiracy, so stop acting like the credentials of this one scientist suddenly matters when the academic prowess of these people clearly doesn't matter to you. All that matters is whether or not they agree with your presupposed beliefs, and as long as they are willing to do that you will laud them as geniuses and list their credentials as if they are the only people smart enough to know what they are talking about. Yet I could rattle off a list of thousands of PhD scientists who have submitted far more work and achieved far greater esteem than this one guy you're quoting who accept evolution, and you'll just dismiss it because "they're just upholding the status quo" or some other ridiculous argument that has absolutely no basis in reality.

 

[Ouroboros]

So when a scientist agrees with you, it's "all hail the computer guys" but when one disagrees, what he says is irrelevant? If you can't answer the argument, attack the expert? Btw,Professor Tistarelli is an associate editor of three international science magazines, and has coauthored more than 100 scientific papers. He studies human visual systems and designs such systems for robots. But, having said that, I realize none of that matters to you, because he exposes the ToE for what it is, mere bluster. Therefore, he is to be marginalized and ridiculed. Talk about bluster!

So hundreds, if not thousands of professors in Biochemistry, genetics, anthropology, geology, ecology, and even computer science writes hundreds of thousands of articles that logically and supported by evidence (and even computer code in many books) all around the world doesn't outnumber one single guy with an opinion, then what does?

The "bluster" in the theory of evolution is supported by a huge amount of facts, numbers, statistics, object, artifacts, items, things, equations, formulas, computer software, simulations, evidence, DNA, biochemistry, experiments, and so on and so forth. The facts and the evidence is actually overwhelming. That's why it's so loud today. Because it's true.

 

[CG Didymus]

JayJayDee, you are amazing and a brave soul. You've come into a scientific lion's den with your sword of truth. But what exactly is your truth? When I say "creationism," I was referring to the literal believing "young Earthers."[FONT=&quot] I looked it up in Wikipedia and found that there are old Earth creationists, evolutionary creationists, creation science, intelligent design and theistic evolution. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Which one are you? Or, something totally different? By what you said:[/FONT]

There is something in the middle, more balanced and in keeping with reality. Things that exhibit design need a designer. How can anyone with half an ounce of intelligence not acknowledge that?
How do evolutionists just ignore the possibility of this intelligent designer? Don't you see, if he exists, it changes everything.

It sounds like some form of ID. Let's hear it. What do you believe?

Do you really want to know or are you happy to be an ignorant ridiculer?

Yes and yes. I do want to know the different "theories." But, because Christian Bible based theories carry religious doctrinal baggage with them, I do want to reserve the right of being "an ignorant ridiculer." But, it's mainly aimed at the literal young Earth creationists. I might like what you say.

Life is a totally random process.

That is what I was trying to say. Life is so random that it appears more like we were put here to evolve and fight for our survival, then some Christian divine plan.

...if you know what the Bible really teaches. You are so way off base, it's kinda funny reading what you think the Bible says. If the churches promote this nonsense, they ought to be drawn and quartered. I find them as ridiculous as you do.

Yes! I see extreme creationism as a fight for survival of a threatened, wounded animal, Fundamental Christianity. Fundamentalists don't want to go extinct, but they are a relic. They have to adapt or die. Since creationism has "evolved" into so many offshoots already, it seems to me that people with an once of brains can see that the literalist view can't be supported. But can yours? Can any concept of the Christian God make sense and harmonize with what science tells us about the world and the universe around us?

 

[camanintx]

He studies human visual systems and designs such systems for robots.

Perhaps he should stick to what he knows.

Perhaps he should keep up with his own field.

Using Natural Selection to Evolve a Robot

 

[mycorrhiza]

So when a scientist agrees with you, it's "all hail the computer guys" but when one disagrees, what he says is irrelevant? If you can't answer the argument, attack the expert? Btw,Professor Tistarelli is an associate editor of three international science magazines, and has coauthored more than 100 scientific papers. He studies human visual systems and designs such systems for robots. But, having said that, I realize none of that matters to you, because he exposes the ToE for what it is, mere bluster. Therefore, he is to be marginalized and ridiculed. Talk about bluster!

It doesn't matter if he is a great scientist in his own field, he still isn't a biologist. If you're trying to prove that the ToE is wrong, then why not use peer-reviewed scientific papers published by biologists and/or paleontologists? If there are many scientists in the relevant fields that disagree with it, then it shouldn't be too hard to show some actual evidence against it.

 

[assyrianpride]

creationism and evolutionism cant both be wrong. think about it--either everything was created, or appeared by itself. theres no other options. but the real story is kind of a combination of both (although the dominant factor is creationism).

now to address the problems you found with creationism:

missing links are simply mutated animals. anyone familiar with biology would know that not all offspring from mutated parents will be mutated, and that mutations cause the organism to be weaker then non- mutated ones, not stronger.

the sun and stars were created on the first day; the plants were created on the third day.

the entoe creation wasnt loaded onto the ark; only two of each species (which there moat likely wasnt nearly as much variety then as there is now: which shows that to some degree evolution does happen)

dinosaurs and humans lived together in peace before sin existed.

there is plenty of proof for a worldwide flood, the most convincing is that fossils of sea creatures have been found on top of mountains.

 

[Ouroboros]

now to address the problems you found with creationism:

So you are defending the creationist view below, or?

missing links are simply mutated animals. anyone familiar with biology would know that not all offspring from mutated parents will be mutated, and that mutations cause the organism to be weaker then non- mutated ones, not stronger.

Actually, no.

The vast majority of mutations are harmless. Virus or bacteria that mutates to become more resistant have beneficial mutations--to them, not to us, but to them. And there are documented cases of higher level species mutating, in just 50 years.

the sun and stars were created on the first day; the plants were created on the third day.

What day? Greenwich time zone or Israel? There's always day and night all around the planet all the time. There's no "third day" unless you only look at a very local place.

the entoe creation wasnt loaded onto the ark; only two of each species (which there moat likely wasnt nearly as much variety then as there is now: which shows that to some degree evolution does happen)

It does. And by looking at fossils and mutations in our own time, we know they happen on a larger scale too, not just "some degree".

dinosaurs and humans lived together in peace before sin existed.

Not according to paleontology and evidence in fossil records. They never occur at the same strata.

there is plenty of proof for a worldwide flood, the most convincing is that fossils of sea creatures have been found on top of mountains.

It proves that some of the mountains used to be under water, and geological evidence supports it too. But it doesn't support a deluge since there's not enough water to cover the mountaintops. The reason they were under water is because of shifts and movement of land. I don't know how to put this simple enough but the land masses are moving as we speak. Right now. It can be measured. For the mountains to rise from the ocean floor in 6,000 years means that the highest mountains would rise extremely fast. They don't. It's a very slow, but continuous rise. I let some geologist explain that better.

 

[tumbleweed41]

creationism and evolutionism cant both be wrong. think about it--either everything was created, or appeared by itself. theres no other options. but the real story is kind of a combination of both (although the dominant factor is creationism).

now to address the problems you found with creationism:

missing links are simply mutated animals. anyone familiar with biology would know that not all offspring from mutated parents will be mutated, and that mutations cause the organism to be weaker then non- mutated ones, not stronger.

the sun and stars were created on the first day; the plants were created on the third day.

the entoe creation wasnt loaded onto the ark; only two of each species (which there moat likely wasnt nearly as much variety then as there is now: which shows that to some degree evolution does happen)

dinosaurs and humans lived together in peace before sin existed.

there is plenty of proof for a worldwide flood, the most convincing is that fossils of sea creatures have been found on top of mountains.

Please tell me you are joking.

 

[JayJayDee]

And, to you, the education and achievements of every single scientist who has ever studied evolution and concluded that it is an accurate representation of reality is completely irrelevant. You can always dismiss their opinions, regardless of how well educated they are, on the basis that they are part of some vast conspiracy, so stop acting like the credentials of this one scientist suddenly matters when the academic prowess of these people clearly doesn't matter to you. All that matters is whether or not they agree with your presupposed beliefs, and as long as they are willing to do that you will laud them as geniuses and list their credentials as if they are the only people smart enough to know what they are talking about. Yet I could rattle off a list of thousands of PhD scientists who have submitted far more work and achieved far greater esteem than this one guy you're quoting who accept evolution, and you'll just dismiss it because "they're just upholding the status quo" or some other ridiculous argument that has absolutely no basis in reality.

Just to address the statements I emboldened......can you dismiss the credentials and opinions of these scientists as well?

Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

This article by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University Medical Center appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. It poses a number of challenges to both chemical and biological evolution, including:

1. Limitations of the chemical origin of life data to explain the origin of DNA
2. Limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to address the irreducible complexity of the cell
3. Limitations of transitional species data to account for the multitude of changes involved in the transition.​

Regarding the chemical origin of life, Kuhn points to the Miller-Urey experiments and correctly observes that "the experimental conditions of a low-oxygen, nitrogen-rich reducing environment have been refuted."

Kuhn also observes that a challenge to neo-Darwinism comes from the Cambrian explosion:

Thousands of specimens were available at the time of Darwin. Millions of specimens have been classified and studied in the past 50 years. It is remarkable to note that each of these shows a virtual explosion of nearly all phyla (35/40) of the animal kingdom over a relatively short period during the Cambrian era 525 to 530 million years ago. Since that time, there has been occasional species extinction, but only rare new phyla have been convincingly identified. The seminal paper from paleoanthropologists J. Valentine and D. H. Erwin notes that the absence of transitional species for any of the Cambrian phyla limits the neo-Darwinian explanation for evolution.

You can also read excerpts from David L. Abel, “Is Life Unique?,” Life, Vol. 2:106-134 (2012).

Douglas D. Axe, Philip Lu, and Stephanie Flatau, “A Stylus-Generated Artificial Genome with Analogy to Minimal Bacterial Genomes,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(3) (2011).

Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson, “Can the Origin of the Genetic Code Be Explained by Direct RNA Templating?,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(2) (2011).

Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).

Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some further research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology, 1-21 (2010).

George Montañez, Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “A Vivisection of the ev Computer Organism: Identifying Sources of Active Information,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010(3) (2010).

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

Douglas D. Axe, “The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (1) (2010)

David L. Abel, “The GS (genetic selection) Principle,” Frontiers in Bioscience, Vol. 14:2959-2969 (January 1, 2010).

D. Halsmer, J. Asper, N. Roman, and T. Todd, “The Coherence of an Engineered World,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(1):47–65 (2009).

David L. Abel, “The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, Vol. 10:247-291 (2009).....and many more.
​

Read all about it..... CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

Not all intelligent people in the scientific community support evolution.
Do you have an argument with their findings?

 

[johnhanks]

creationism and evolutionism cant both be wrong. think about it--either everything was created, or appeared by itself. theres no other options. but the real story is kind of a combination of both (although the dominant factor is creationism).

now to address the problems you found with creationism:

missing links are simply mutated animals. anyone familiar with biology would know that not all offspring from mutated parents will be mutated, and that mutations cause the organism to be weaker then non- mutated ones, not stronger.

the sun and stars were created on the first day; the plants were created on the third day.

the entoe creation wasnt loaded onto the ark; only two of each species (which there moat likely wasnt nearly as much variety then as there is now: which shows that to some degree evolution does happen)

dinosaurs and humans lived together in peace before sin existed.

there is plenty of proof for a worldwide flood, the most convincing is that fossils of sea creatures have been found on top of mountains.

Poe, surely.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Just to address the statements I emboldened......can you dismiss the credentials and opinions of these scientists as well?

Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

This article by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University Medical Center appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. It poses a number of challenges to both chemical and biological evolution, including:

1. Limitations of the chemical origin of life data to explain the origin of DNA
2. Limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to address the irreducible complexity of the cell
3. Limitations of transitional species data to account for the multitude of changes involved in the transition.​

Regarding the chemical origin of life, Kuhn points to the Miller-Urey experiments and correctly observes that "the experimental conditions of a low-oxygen, nitrogen-rich reducing environment have been refuted."

Kuhn also observes that a challenge to neo-Darwinism comes from the Cambrian explosion:

Thousands of specimens were available at the time of Darwin. Millions of specimens have been classified and studied in the past 50 years. It is remarkable to note that each of these shows a virtual explosion of nearly all phyla (35/40) of the animal kingdom over a relatively short period during the Cambrian era 525 to 530 million years ago. Since that time, there has been occasional species extinction, but only rare new phyla have been convincingly identified. The seminal paper from paleoanthropologists J. Valentine and D. H. Erwin notes that the absence of transitional species for any of the Cambrian phyla limits the neo-Darwinian explanation for evolution.

You can also read excerpts from David L. Abel, “Is Life Unique?,” Life, Vol. 2:106-134 (2012).

Douglas D. Axe, Philip Lu, and Stephanie Flatau, “A Stylus-Generated Artificial Genome with Analogy to Minimal Bacterial Genomes,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(3) (2011).

Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson, “Can the Origin of the Genetic Code Be Explained by Direct RNA Templating?,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(2) (2011).

Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).

Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some further research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology, 1-21 (2010).

George Montañez, Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “A Vivisection of the ev Computer Organism: Identifying Sources of Active Information,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010(3) (2010).

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

Douglas D. Axe, “The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (1) (2010)

David L. Abel, “The GS (genetic selection) Principle,” Frontiers in Bioscience, Vol. 14:2959-2969 (January 1, 2010).

D. Halsmer, J. Asper, N. Roman, and T. Todd, “The Coherence of an Engineered World,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(1):47–65 (2009).

David L. Abel, “The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, Vol. 10:247-291 (2009).....and many more.
​

Read all about it..... CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

Not all intelligent people in the scientific community support evolution.
Do you have an argument with their findings?

Yes. Their methods for conclusion are completely unscientific. And as an aside, none of their peers take them seriously

 

[camanintx]

Just to address the statements I emboldened......can you dismiss the credentials and opinions of these scientists as well?

Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

This article by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University Medical Center appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. It poses a number of challenges to both chemical and biological evolution, including:

Looks like one big argument from incredulity to me. The structure of DNA was discovered until 1953 and the human genome wasn't sequenced until 2000. We've barely begun to understand it so any arguments about what we don't know are premature.

1. Limitations of the chemical origin of life data to explain the origin of DNA

I don't know the origin of DNA so it must be created.

2. Limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to address the irreducible complexity of the cell

I don't know the origin of the cell so it must be created.

3. Limitations of transitional species data to account for the multitude of changes involved in the transition.

I don't know how every species evolved so they must be created.
​

Regarding the chemical origin of life, Kuhn points to the Miller-Urey experiments and correctly observes that "the experimental conditions of a low-oxygen, nitrogen-rich reducing environment have been refuted."

Regarless if it correctly reproduced historical conditions, it showed that organic material will self-assemble given the proper conditions. Scientists have done much in the 60 years since.

Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment: Scientific American

Kuhn also observes that a challenge to neo-Darwinism comes from the Cambrian explosion:

Thousands of specimens were available at the time of Darwin. Millions of specimens have been classified and studied in the past 50 years. It is remarkable to note that each of these shows a virtual explosion of nearly all phyla (35/40) of the animal kingdom over a relatively short period during the Cambrian era 525 to 530 million years ago. Since that time, there has been occasional species extinction, but only rare new phyla have been convincingly identified. The seminal paper from paleoanthropologists J. Valentine and D. H. Erwin notes that the absence of transitional species for any of the Cambrian phyla limits the neo-Darwinian explanation for evolution.
​

That doesn't appear to have been a challenge to James Valentine.

On the Origin of Phyla, Valentine

 

[CG Didymus]

creationism and evolutionism...the real story is kind of a combination of both (although the dominant factor is creationism).

There seems to be a rhyme or reason to life. One point to a creator. Now that things are rolling, where is the creator? Except for things of the heart, the creator seems to have left the world to fend for itself. Point for Evolution. God used to have to be appeased to prevent natural disasters and help bring in a good harvest. Natural things happen. Volcanoes, earthquakes, weather patterns are all happening because of natural things going on. There doesn't have to be a god controlling them or causing them to punish people. A big minus one for God, because it sounds like primitive man made him up.

(A)nyone familiar with biology would know that not all offspring from mutated parents will be mutated, and that mutations cause the organism to be weaker then non- mutated ones, not stronger.

I don't know how it works, but are there inactive genes that could be activated to take a species to a new level? So not a mutation but something that is positive?

the sun and stars were created on the first day; the plants were created on the third day.

NASB Gen 1:12-13 has plants on the 3rd day. Gen 1:14-19 has the Sun and stars get made on the 4th day. I don't care, unless an extreme creationist insists on a literal interpretation. For me Genesis is a poetic religious story, of which there are many. All meaningful in a spiritual way, but they are not scientific or historical.

the entoe creation wasnt loaded onto the ark; only two of each species (which there moat likely wasnt nearly as much variety then as there is now: which shows that to some degree evolution does happen.
dinosaurs and humans lived together in peace before sin existed.
there is plenty of proof for a worldwide flood, the most convincing is that fossils of sea creatures have been found on top of mountains.

I don't care about the flood either. To me it's a religious story. What was the point? God wanted to rid the planet of bad people. He killed them, along with all the plants and animals that weren't on the ark, really? There's still bad people, so God wasn't successful. Since the supposed flood was only about 4000 years ago, then there shouldn't be a wide variety of animals in the supposed fossil record in the mud the flood created. That mud should have bones of nephilim, regular humans, and a sample of every species.

"Peace before sin?" Some Christians think all creatures were vegetarians before the flood. Is that what you are eluding to? The living record of all life has something eating something. Some eat plants. Some eat other animals. Besides, when really was there a time "sin" didn't exist? Adam and Eve disobeyed by page 4 in my Bible. So do you think for a time all animals lived in peace? Then, all of a sudden the pet T-Rex, along with lions and tigers turned on humans and started eating them? About that veggie thing, humans and animals still died before the flood. What ate the dead flesh? That is still meat eating.
Sea creatures on top of mountains? Rising and sinking land explains that also. So what makes more sense? 1000's of feet of water? Or, natural movements the Earth is still doing? Plus, the Bible kind of makes it sound like there wasn't rain before the flood? So how far are you willing to take the Bible as literally true? It gets pretty farfetched.
But, on the other hand, in support of creation, I hope there is a nice place in the sky to go to when we die. So because I hope and dream,and can feel it in my heart, I have faith that there must be a God. Therefore, I give one huge point to God, because how do you argue against faith in a dream? All the facts in the world cannot prevail against it--No matter how stupid and illogical it might sound.

 

[Ouroboros]

Lenski's E-Coli experiment showed positive mutations. Gene changes that improved the life cycle for the bacteria. It was also a "irreducible complex" mutation, and it was all natural.

 

[CG Didymus]

Lenski's E-Coli experiment showed positive mutations. Gene changes that improved the life cycle for the bacteria. It was also a "irreducible complex" mutation, and it was all natural.

Cool. A "health" doctor I listen to said something like that there are "bad" genes that get "expressed" by negative things in the environment. He sells supplements to suppress them. Is that so? And if there are bad ones, then is there inactive genes that could get activated that could cause us to transform into a more advanced type of human?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just to address the statements I emboldened......can you dismiss the credentials and opinions of these scientists as well?

Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

This article by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University Medical Center appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. It poses a number of challenges to both chemical and biological evolution, including:

1. Limitations of the chemical origin of life data to explain the origin of DNA
2. Limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to address the irreducible complexity of the cell
3. Limitations of transitional species data to account for the multitude of changes involved in the transition.​

Regarding the chemical origin of life, Kuhn points to the Miller-Urey experiments and correctly observes that "the experimental conditions of a low-oxygen, nitrogen-rich reducing environment have been refuted."

Kuhn also observes that a challenge to neo-Darwinism comes from the Cambrian explosion:

Thousands of specimens were available at the time of Darwin. Millions of specimens have been classified and studied in the past 50 years. It is remarkable to note that each of these shows a virtual explosion of nearly all phyla (35/40) of the animal kingdom over a relatively short period during the Cambrian era 525 to 530 million years ago. Since that time, there has been occasional species extinction, but only rare new phyla have been convincingly identified. The seminal paper from paleoanthropologists J. Valentine and D. H. Erwin notes that the absence of transitional species for any of the Cambrian phyla limits the neo-Darwinian explanation for evolution.

You can also read excerpts from David L. Abel, “Is Life Unique?,” Life, Vol. 2:106-134 (2012).

Douglas D. Axe, Philip Lu, and Stephanie Flatau, “A Stylus-Generated Artificial Genome with Analogy to Minimal Bacterial Genomes,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(3) (2011).

Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson, “Can the Origin of the Genetic Code Be Explained by Direct RNA Templating?,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(2) (2011).

Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).

Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some further research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology, 1-21 (2010).

George Montañez, Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “A Vivisection of the ev Computer Organism: Identifying Sources of Active Information,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010(3) (2010).

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

Douglas D. Axe, “The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (1) (2010)

David L. Abel, “The GS (genetic selection) Principle,” Frontiers in Bioscience, Vol. 14:2959-2969 (January 1, 2010).

D. Halsmer, J. Asper, N. Roman, and T. Todd, “The Coherence of an Engineered World,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(1):47–65 (2009).

David L. Abel, “The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, Vol. 10:247-291 (2009).....and many more.
​

Read all about it..... CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

Not all intelligent people in the scientific community support evolution.
Do you have an argument with their findings?

Simple question: do you understand the point of what I wrote?

As for Kuhn's argument, here is a rebuttal:

A Response to Joseph Kuhn’s Dissecting Darwinism « Afarensis: Anthropology, Evolution, and Science

If you want a personal response, I suggest you ask a biologist.