How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?

[McBell]

Ignorance can be cured by education.

Assuming they want to learn.
I strongly suspect that is not the case given her track record in this very thread.

 

[Skywalker]

One fossil? One fossil!!??? Are you kidding me? And there is much much more than just countless fossils that are evidence for the theory of evolution.

Seriously since you have no understanding of any of the sciences would you care to try to learn? Right now you are just making a joke of yourself. There is no reason that you cannot learn. You are not lacking in intelligence. You are merely amazingly ignorant. Ignorance can be cured by education.

Darwinian evolution can't account for the cilia because you only get the motion of the cilium when you've got everything together. None of the individual parts can do the trick by themselves. You need them all in one place. For evolution to account for that, you would have to imagine how this could develop gradually-but nobody has been able to do that. I don't agree with the explanation that these three components were being used for other purposes in the cell and eventually came together for this new function. For instance, microtubules look a bit like girders. Some people think they were used in the structure of primitive cells. Or maybe they formed the cellular highways along which the motor proteins moved material within the cell. A motor protein that has been transporting cargo along a cellular highway might not have the strength necessary to push two microtubules relative to each other. A nexin liner would have to be exactly the right size before it was useful at all. Creating the cilium inside the cell would be counterproductive; it would need to extend from the cell. The necessary components would have to come together at the right place at the right time, even assuming they were all pre-existing in the cell.

 

[rational experiences]

When humans discuss a subject and own words, their advice, is the subject of their study only. The presence and the form.

Any other theme about it is not relative.

If a human has to live as a human to study another human and claim with words human genetics. And human genetics is only expressed in self human presence....then if you discuss a theme of the genetics leaving, then you wrote the document yourself as a male, a group of males in an agreement about humans.

If you wrote a document after the fact, you personally DNA owner would have healed and evolved, past the historic event, when DNA got removed. As book theist.

Then you claim the natural conditions in which you live changed, meaning must have all healed from irradiation changes, to support your own healing. And claim, everything must have changed also.

That status is defined as medical science. Which has no condition whatsoever to do with any cosmic or law evaluation for occultism, being conversion of natural.

Now if you claim I converted natural, then the bio micro organism, once would have been changed by you, de evolved and then re evolved. If that is what your human memory occult converter, who converts is discussing as relative aware self advice. I did it before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Darwinian evolution can't account for the cilia because you only get the motion of the cilium when you've got everything together. None of the individual parts can do the trick by themselves. You need them all in one place. For evolution to account for that, you would have to imagine how this could develop gradually-but nobody has been able to do that. I don't agree with the explanation that these three components were being used for other purposes in the cell and eventually came together for this new function. For instance, microtubules look a bit like girders. Some people think they were used in the structure of primitive cells. Or maybe they formed the cellular highways along which the motor proteins moved material within the cell. A motor protein that has been transporting cargo along a cellular highway might not have the strength necessary to push two microtubules relative to each other. A nexin liner would have to be exactly the right size before it was useful at all. Creating the cilium inside the cell would be counterproductive; it would need to extend from the cell. The necessary components would have to come together at the right place at the right time, even assuming they were all pre-existing in the cell.

You are wrong. Did you read the article? If you did you clearly did not understand it. Your comment appears to have nothing to do with the linked article. In fact your entire post is one non sequitur after another. Let me do you a favor. Here is the video that explains the article in much much less detail. It, like the article, is rather old. The music is terrible. But the concepts are solid. I can find a more up to date one for you, but the science has not changed all that much in over ten years:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Assuming they want to learn.
I strongly suspect that is not the case given her track record in this very thread.

One correction "his" not "her".

 

[Skywalker]

You are wrong. Did you read the article? If you did you clearly did not understand it. Your comment appears to have nothing to do with the linked article. In fact your entire post is one non sequitur after another. Let me do you a favor. Here is the video that explains the article in much much less detail. It, like the article, is rather old. The music is terrible. But the concepts are solid. I can find a more up to date one for you, but the science has not changed all that much in over ten years:

It's very improbable that they might all come together by chance. Say there are ten thousand proteins in a cell. Now, imagine you live in a town of ten thousand people, and everyone goes to the county fair at the same time. Just for fun, everyone is wearing blindfolds and is not allowed to speak. There are two other people named Lee, and your job is to link hands with them. What are the odds that you could go grab two people at random and create a link of Lees? Pretty slim. In fact, it gets worse. In the cell, the mutation rate is extremely low. In our analogy, that would mean you could only change partners at the county fair one time a year. So you link with two other people-sorry, they're not the Lees. Next year, you link with two other people. Sorry, no Lees again. How long would it take you with the other Lees? A very, very long time-and the same is true in the cell. It would take an enormous amount of time-a prohibitive amount of time-even to get three proteins together.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's very improbable that they might all come together by chance. Say there are ten thousand proteins in a cell. Now, imagine you live in a town of ten thousand people, and everyone goes to the county fair at the same time. Just for fun, everyone is wearing blindfolds and is not allowed to speak. There are two other people named Lee, and your job is to link hands with them. What are the odds that you could go grab two people at random and create a link of Lees? Pretty slim. In fact, it gets worse. In the cell, the mutation rate is extremely low. In our analogy, that would mean you could only change partners at the county fair one time a year. So you link with two other people-sorry, they're not the Lees. Next year, you link with two other people. Sorry, no Lees again. How long would it take you with the other Lees? A very, very long time-and the same is true in the cell. It would take an enormous amount of time-a prohibitive amount of time-even to get three proteins together.

Yes, you are right. It is a good thing that evolution does not rely on chance as you are using the word.


Seriously, why don't you try to learn instead of repeatedly demonstrating that you do not know what you are talking about? Arrogant ignorance only gets people laughed at.

 

[ratiocinator]

Apart from one fossil, evolution from one species to another has no evidence.

This has to be one of the most absurd statements I've ever read from a creationist (and that's saying a lot, they come out with endless absurdities). What planet are you on? Not only are there countless fossils that support evolution but we could forget all the fossils and provide a complete case for evolution from genetics alone.

Have you dug out some old creationist book from decades ago or something? You're coming out with all the endlessly refuted nonsense that even most creationists have given up on years ago.

 

[exchemist]

Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, who argues that evolution never have given rise to the intricate structures of life, has identified something he calls "irreducible complexity." This refers to an organism which is so complex that it could not have come together piece by piece and still function; all the parts must have come about at once in order to have any function at all.

Behe is a crank employed by the Discovery Institute, who was thoroughly discredited at the Kitzmiller trial and whose reputation has never recovered. Nobody in the science community takes Behe seriously.

"Irreducible complexity" is bogus pseudoscience, based on faulty (and most likely dishonest) use of logic. Various biological structures have been proposed as "irreducibly complex", only for later research to show how they evolved. The eye and the bacterial flagellum are two well-known examples.

 

[exchemist]

Bill Gates said that DNA is more advanced than any software they ever created. Wouldn't the cell have a designer, since it's far more advanced than any man made software? Researchers believe DNA could be the basis of a staggeringly powerful new generation of computers. After computer scientist Leonard Aldeman realized that human cells and computers process and store information in much the same way, researchers around the world began creating tiny biology-based creating, using test tubes of DNA-laden water to crunch algorithms and spit out data. Researchers are also hoping that genetic material can self-replicate and grow into processors so powerful that they can handle problems too complex for silicon-based computers to solve.

There is no scientific evidence for this designer, so science makes no use of this hypothesis (Ockham's Razor).

You and I are welcome to entertain metaphysical, personal preference for a creator God if we wish, but looking for scientific evidence for this in nature is a waste of time.

 

[exchemist]

It's very improbable that they might all come together by chance. Say there are ten thousand proteins in a cell. Now, imagine you live in a town of ten thousand people, and everyone goes to the county fair at the same time. Just for fun, everyone is wearing blindfolds and is not allowed to speak. There are two other people named Lee, and your job is to link hands with them. What are the odds that you could go grab two people at random and create a link of Lees? Pretty slim. In fact, it gets worse. In the cell, the mutation rate is extremely low. In our analogy, that would mean you could only change partners at the county fair one time a year. So you link with two other people-sorry, they're not the Lees. Next year, you link with two other people. Sorry, no Lees again. How long would it take you with the other Lees? A very, very long time-and the same is true in the cell. It would take an enormous amount of time-a prohibitive amount of time-even to get three proteins together.

Something that you, and in fact most creationists, suffer from is this silly or mendacious notion, I don't know which, that evolution is the outcome of a process consisting of "chance". The whole point about evolution is something called natural selection.

I suggest you look up this term and read what it means. The environment tends to select, from the natural variation in a population of organisms, those best adapted to the environment.

The process is NOT just a product of chance. Yet time and again we see creationists misrepresenting the principle of evolution by suggesting all the features of a creature came together "by chance". This is total nonsense.

 

[exchemist]

What about a glowing protein in jellyfish that allows surgeons to illuminate cancerous tissue while they operate to remove it; and a starfish called the brittlestar, coated with tiny lenses that act as a collective "eye," which engineers are using as a model for creating sensors and guidance systems. The giraffe needs a powerful heart to pump blood up its long neck to the brain. If we want to believe in evolution, let's imagine that the very first giraffe manages to evolve the two-foot-long heart it needs to get blood up a neck that long. Its heart is now so powerful that, as the giraffe bends its head down, the increased blood pressure is more than enough to burst the blood vessels in its brain. So this first giraffe must be intelligent enough to realize that an improvement is needed and then set out to somehow grow an incredibly complex organ structure to fix the problem.

And it must do so within a matter of days-before it dies of thirst or brain damage-or else this new species will shortly be extinct. (Of course, how would it know an improvement was needed unless it had first had a brain hemorrhage? And then it wouldn't know anything, it would be dead.)

You can pull these examples out of your arse till the cows come home but they prove nothing, except that living organism are complex. Nobody denies that.

Just because science has not yet produced a total breakdown of how all the features of these organisms came to be, it does not mean that there is anything "irreducibly" complex about any of them. All it means is they have not yet been reduced.

It is an obvious logical fallacy to assume that current lack of knowledge implies unknowability.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human asked another human a rational question.

Why do you assume you need to know why natural existence exists existing?

For it always has. And it did a long time before a human owned a human life to think about it.

Then you think.

You quote that you believe one and only one condition owns every single diverse presence as one supposed body from which everything came from.

As a theist that would mean, I want you all to be just that one form, and not any natural form.

Why false preaching is one of the many warnings written by a biologist medical scientist who also studied consciousness, and human express of sion.

For it was pertinent in the living proof that humans in science ignore natural as existing in every single multi diverse self presence in any natural body that exists.

And if one self a human in a group agreement quotes, group agreement. Just maybe you think as that group to be the groups that you discuss instead of all just representing one self. As the science community our one Father human self...the inventor of science.

For we are a multi self, yet in the multi self is diverse information to share.

Why sharing was taught to be a mutual benefit to the human family.

I truly wonder at how any one single human as an equal to my own self....thinks and then quotes, and what I want is the only purpose. For natural believe it or not human brother or sister was not invented by you thinking about it.

And if you tried to force every diverse body just to be one form of such ideal of the knowledge or wisdom of just one product or body or form...then everything else would be destroyed.

So then you look at the human theist thinking.

Claiming I copy everything I believe in, and build the design, a machine, and then I react the designed model in a reaction cause, yet what I change is its highest form, natural.

So the quantified theme is big bang. And the scientist theist owns the confess of sion....I think upon it non stop. Yet by theory, to react it has not yet occurred, what is theoried about. Then he would argue, for that is his position. Science was based on an argument with his own natural innocent self. Who had not experienced change...then he did....complained non stop ever since.

When a human applies research, then the human worded confession was taught in my feed back questions to be pertinent in realising just how possessed a mind can become with its own beliefs...the thesis.

Big bang he would argue already happened, once. So if it is argued upon, then why theory about it...as you did not invent the big bang.

Why you then have to question the thinker and ask a basic question. But are you in a subliminal aware thesis actually thinking about causing it. For why else was a document written that began with the end statement...never give God a name again....hence never change natural God....With an explanation about the Destroyer human conscious moment, involved with false prophecies, being science/mathematical probabilities of a future cause.

Surely by now you realise the warnings were written to your own self. When you wrote it, brain affected/irradiated you knew exactly what you were saying and feeling. Then the brain mind state of humanity changed in fall out conditions.

Why it became so difficult to reason what was known and warned about.

God was the presence O Earth as energy mass that owned its own beginnings as a God theme what it never was. Once it was not stone. Yet what stone never was is themed, higher and greater than the form of stone. Stone a by product of a consuming mass ever changing in a vacuum, becoming less and less a body.

Hence when a theist claims I can copy and speaks/discusses God O planet Earth conditions as if it is his machine, before he builds his machine, then he is in fact making these thinking claims...when God today, the stone no longer owns its beginnings.

 

[ecco]

Nebraska Man was created from a single tooth discovered in Nebraska. Based on only one tooth (and a lot of imagination), Nebraska Man was sketched complete with a skull, skeleton, tools, and even a family. The only problem is that the tooth was later found to have come from an extinct pig!

Scientists are human. Humans have egos and humans make mistakes. Most scientists in the field never acknowledged Nebraska Man and the finding was retracted by scientists within a few years.

Three thousand years ago your God-Inspired Bible stated that the type of wood used in a hitching post can affect the spots on a goat. That is patently wrong and was never retracted, even in the NT.

What point were you trying to make?

 

[ecco]

There is no reason that you cannot learn. You are not lacking in intelligence. You are merely amazingly ignorant. Ignorance can be cured by education.

Ignorance that is the result of severe religious indoctrination cannot be cured by education.

There are occasional exceptions like Marjoe Gortner, but they are few and far between.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ignorance that is the result of severe religious indoctrination cannot be cured by education.

There are occasional exceptions like Marjoe Gortner, but they are few and far between.

I have found in those cases a two by four can be effective

 

[Skywalker]

This has to be one of the most absurd statements I've ever read from a creationist (and that's saying a lot, they come out with endless absurdities). What planet are you on? Not only are there countless fossils that support evolution but we could forget all the fossils and provide a complete case for evolution from genetics alone.

Have you dug out some old creationist book from decades ago or something? You're coming out with all the endlessly refuted nonsense that even most creationists have given up on years ago.

I can think of only one fossil that supports macroevolution. Microevolution is variation within species. There is great variety within dogs-the tiny Chihuahua to the huge Great Dane. Both are dogs and they have incredible differences. But they are still dogs. Or look at horses. There are huge variations within the human species. Think of all the different features from Asian to African to Aboriginal to Caucasian. Darwin's theory of evolution, however, is based on the concept of macroevolution. This is the inference that successive small changes seen in macroevolution (these variations within species) can accumulate and lead to large changes over long periods of time. In macroevolution, one kind of creature (such as a reptile) becomes another kind of creature (such as a bird), requiring the creation of entirely new features and body types. This would be a bit like observing a car going from 0 to 60 mph in 60 seconds, and inferring that it can then go 0 to 6,000 mph in 100 minutes-and become an airplane in the process. That's quite an assumption, and it puts a tremendous responsibility on mutations to accidentally create complex new body parts, and on natural selection to recognize the benefit these new parts will eventually convey and make sure the creatures with those new parts survive.

 

[ratiocinator]

I can think of only one fossil that supports macroevolution. Microevolution is variation within species. There is great variety within dogs-the tiny Chihuahua to the huge Great Dane. Both are dogs and they have incredible differences. But they are still dogs. Or look at horses. There are huge variations within the human species. Think of all the different features from Asian to African to Aboriginal to Caucasian. Darwin's theory of evolution, however, is based on the concept of macroevolution. This is the inference that successive small changes seen in macroevolution (these variations within species) can accumulate and lead to large changes over long periods of time. In macroevolution, one kind of creature (such as a reptile) becomes another kind of creature (such as a bird), requiring the creation of entirely new features and body types. This would be a bit like observing a car going from 0 to 60 mph in 60 seconds, and inferring that it can then go 0 to 6,000 mph in 100 minutes-and become an airplane in the process. That's quite an assumption, and it puts a tremendous responsibility on mutations to accidentally create complex new body parts, and on natural selection to recognize the benefit these new parts will eventually convey and make sure the creatures with those new parts survive.

Pointless waffle. My points stand. There is endless fossil evidence for macroevolution (which is just lots of microevolution) and the entire case could be made from genetics alone without referencing a single fossil.

Why don't you correct your appalling ignorance of the subject and get yourself some sort of basic education before bearing false witness (intentionally or through ignorance) to other people?

 

[Skywalker]

Pointless waffle. My points stand. There is endless fossil evidence for macroevolution (which is just lots of microevolution) and the entire case could be made from genetics alone without referencing a single fossil.

Why don't you correct your appalling ignorance of the subject and get yourself some sort of basic education before bearing false witness (intentionally or through ignorance) to other people?

How can mutations and natural selection work to create the amazing complexity of life in our world? It doesn't add up. The first problem we find is that the variations we see in microevolution are always within limits set by the genetic code. Fifty years of genetic research on the fruit fly have convinced evolutionists that change is limited and confined to a defined population. Despite being bombarded with mutation agents for half a century, the mutant fruit flies continue to exist as fruit flies, leading geneticists to acknowledge that they will not evolve into something else. This confirms Gregor Mendel's findings in the 1800s that there are natural limits to genetic change. Genetics professor Francisco Ayala is quoted as saying, "I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate. Small changes aren't the only thing that doesn't add up. But more importantly, the amount of change isn't really the issue.

Mutations can only modify or eliminate existing structures, not create new ones. Within a particular type of creature, hair can vary from curly to straight, legs can vary from heavy to thin, beaks from long to short, wings from dark to light, etc. But the creatures still have hair, legs, beaks, and wings-nothing new has been added.

 

[ratiocinator]

How can mutations and natural selection work to create the amazing complexity of life in our world?

Look it up, it's not a secret. As I said, you need a basic education in the subject.

Mutations can only modify or eliminate existing structures, not create new ones

False.

What do you think is going on here? Pretty much every scientist who studies these things has one view, and of the tiny, tiny minority who disagree, pretty much all of them have a religious vested interest in evolution being wrong because they are desperate to cling a literal interpretation of their favourite self-contradictory book of myths.

Here is a rare honest creationist to tell you that there's lots and lots of evidence for evolution: The truth about evolution