So you say I don't understand Evolution. Really?

[Bunyip]

Read that whole thing. Full of just so scenarios & possibilities & guesses. Not definite science like I keep asking for. Your problem is when you actually read the wording of evolutionary explanations it exposes its fallacy. Real proven science fact doesn't read that way. It knows, doesn't have to use so much conjecture that a "proven fact of evolution" has to. Conjecture is Not proven fact of real science. Like examples I've given. You still can't give me the one example like I've asked for.

See, my whole point is all of creation is the same facts on what is known of how things work whether creationist or evolutionist. Problem is how it was created originally.

My point is life experience shows us that the extreme degree & complexity of Design, Engineering, Programming etc can only come from a supreme Intelligence. Man can't match it even today. Our robotics etc can't match it. Our computer programs can't match DNA/RNA complexity, esp the more we learn about it. We know evolution is sold as a force if nature like mother nature with abilities like only a brain has. Absurd, it has no brain any more than mother nature does. Like my example of faces on Mt Rushmore. Our world shows us that it takes actual intelligent brains to Design, Engineer, Program etc what we see man creates with his brain.
Yet you want me to believe a non thinking actual non brain can out Design, Engineer, Program what man, top of the line "evolved"brain still can't match? How illogical & non sensical do you think I am?
You sure aren't convincing & sure haven't answered the questions, esp the specifics, to show me evolution is the same proven truth as all other types of science that are very specific & detailed. Evolution can't do it because it is fraud science. So many pillars are proven frauds & your article is great example showing it is full of conjecture, innuendo etc w/o real descriptive proven detailed science! Thx.

Not understanding evolution doesn't make for much of a challenge.

 

[Riverwolf]

... the same proven truth as all other types of science that are very specific & detailed.

There's a "reply" button for a reason. If that's too much trouble, you can also tag: @ttechsan.

There's no such thing as "proven truth" in any of the sciences.

There's also only one "type" of science. The multitudes come in the many, many fields which have lots of overlap. If you deny biology (which is what you're doing when you deny biological evolution) you deny, by extension, all the other scientific fields. You certainly deny all forms of modern medicine.

 

[psychoslice]

If you want to believe in pretending gods and saviours that's you choice, but to shove that onto a intelligent discussion, is asking for asking for trouble lol.

 

[LuisDantas]

Read that whole thing. Full of just so scenarios & possibilities & guesses. Not definite science like I keep asking for.

Right here you show that you lack a functional understanding of what science is, thereby making your demands senseless.

If I may, try reading a bit about what the scientific method is. Then describe it in your own words here in the thread. It may be helpful.

 

[dust1n]

Read that whole thing. Full of just so scenarios & possibilities & guesses. Not definite science like I keep asking for. Your problem is when you actually read the wording of evolutionary explanations it exposes its fallacy. Real proven science fact doesn't read that way. It knows, doesn't have to use so much conjecture that a "proven fact of evolution" has to. Conjecture is Not proven fact of real science. Like examples I've given. You still can't give me the one example like I've asked for.

Yeah, there isn't really much point in giving you scientific material, because most people who aren't botanist aren't going to understand anything about it. For the most part, I'm stepping out of this little discussion because it isn't going to go anywhere. If you want to disprove evolution, I would suggest attending any of the many secular universities around the world that teach and study evolution, and then disproving it there.

"'Yucca Moths' have a remarkable biology. They are famous for an old and intimate relationship with Yucca plants and are their obligate pollinators as well as herbivores (Pellmyr et al., 1996). Interactions of these organisms range from obligate mutualism to commensalism to outright antagonism. Their bore holes are a common sight on trunks of such plants as the Soaptree yucca. Two of the three yucca moth genera in particular, Tegeticula and Parategeticula, have an obligate pollination mutualism with yuccas. Yuccas are only pollinated by these moths, and the pollinator larvae feed exclusively on yucca seeds; the female moths use their modified mouthparts to insert the pollen into the stigma of the flowers, after having oviposited in the ovary, where the larvae feed on some (but not all) of the developing ovules. Species of the third genus of yucca moths, Prodoxus, are not engaged in the pollination mutualism, nor do the larvae feed on developing seeds. Their eggs are deposited in fruits and leaves, where they eat and grow, not emerging until fully mature.

Coevolution is particularly important in evolutionary biology as it demonstrates increased genetic variance between two organisms that have strong interactions, resulting in increased fitness generally for both species. In an effort to further investigate the traits that have evolved as a result of coevolution O. Pellmyr and his team utilized a phylogenetic framework to observe the evolution of active pollination and specializing effects of the Yucca moths which eventually lead to the loss of nectar in the genus of Yucca plants, requiring them to have Prodoxidae moths around to reproduce. The moths in this case, specifically Tegeticula and Parategeticula, pollinate Yucca flower purposefully, and lay their eggs in the flowers. The larvae of the moths rely on Yucca seeds as nourishment and this is also cost inflicted on the plants to maintain the mutualism. After setting up a test experiment which involved pairing species of Prodoxidae with different host plants, the results have shown that moths that were able to develop a pollination-type relationship with the new plant species were more successful and would better be able to reproduce than moths that were unable to do so (Pellmyr 1996; Groman 2000).

Another study takes a look at coevolution as a primary driver of change and diversification in the Yucca moth and the Joshua tree, more commonly known as the Yucca palm. The researchers tested this hypothesis by setting up a differential selection of two species of yucca moths and two corresponding species of Yucca palms which they pollinate. The study showed floral traits involving pollination evolved substantially more rapidly than other flower features. The study then looks at phylogeny and determines that coevolution is the major evolutionary force behind diversification in the Yucca palms when pollinated moths were present. The researchers of the Joshua tree show that setting up phylogenetic patterns using maximum likelihood techniques, can be a powerful tool to analyze the divergence in species (Godsoe 2008).

Researchers have again tried to demonstrate the absolute minimal level of evolution needed to secure a Yucca plant and moth mutualism. The researchers attempt to find an answer as to how integral coevolution was as the driving force behind various adaptions between the Yucca moth and plant species. Phylogenetic examination was also used here to reconstruct the trait evolution of the pollinating Yucca moths and their non-mutualistic variants. Certain mutualistic traits have predated the Yucca moth-plant mutualism, such as larval feeding in the floral ovary; however, it suggests that other key traits linked to pollination were indeed a result of coevolution between the two species. It is integral to reiterate here that key traits such tentacular appendages which help in pollen collection and pollinating behaviors evolved as a result of coevolution during a mutualism between moths and host plants. After collecting genetic information from dozens of differing Prodoxidae moths, including ones involved in ideal mutualisms such as Tegeticula, and mapping these extracted sequences using the Bayestraits clade forming algorithm, conclusions could be drawn about trait formation that differentiated the monophylum or clade of strict obligate pollinators in the Prodoxidae family from other moths that did not undergo mutualism (Yoder 2010)."

Prodoxidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See, my whole point is all of creation is the same facts on what is known of how things work whether creationist or evolutionist. Problem is how it was created originally.

Not really. This isn't much a problem for anyone other than religious people.

My point is life experience shows us that the extreme degree & complexity of Design, Engineering, Programming etc can only come from a supreme Intelligence.

My life experience indicates nothing of the sort. It actually supports the opposite.

 

[outhouse]

See, my whole point is all of creation is the same facts on what is known of how things work whether creationist or evolutionist.

No, it is not he same.

Mythology is different everywhere.

 

[Ouroboros]

Our computer programs can't match DNA/RNA complexity, esp the more we learn about it.

I disagree. Only about 19,000 genes are active in the human genome. There are currently 3 billion users online, each with a computer with CPUs with at least a billion transistors. Connected over a network with some 100 million routers, each with a couple of million transistors. All together, the number of transistors relating to internet use at this moment is way up in the thousand trillions. Only a tad larger than the human DNA, but actually, in fact a lot more complex how electrons a tunneled through the PNP and NPN gates. A transistor contains more atoms than a codon. Sorry. We've outdone nature.

Here are some other things we've done that nature can't do (yet, as far as we know). We can build make habitats in space and vehicles that can traverse the empty space and report back images over radio signals. Tell me which "complex" organism is doing this naturally.

 

[ttechsan]

Isn't it ironic that all of what we have accomplished takes intelligence. Yet you give credit to a natural force that actually has no real brain or actual intelligence. Regardless your problem is no matter where you go you have to get there by intelligence that Designs Engineers Programs etc. Evolution has no actual brain of intelligence. No more than mother nature does. But you give it credit as if it does. Adaptation, micro evolution, is not macro evolution and you again have no real proof step by step from one to the other proving macro like I've asked for. You can't explain the start and ending point and all the points in between and what each step entailed and the no. of steps. Yet real science can do that with processes and systems very specifically. Creationist science is exactly the same on all of that. The only difference is how it came about at the beginning. We use logic and common sense acknowledging that what we see in the world shows us that complexity of Design, Engineering Programing always takes an actual brain of intelligence. It does not occur w/o one as evolutionist claim. Evolutionist own words betray it. It is full of innuendo and just so stories and not specifics like real science. But I can't make you see what you refuse to see due to your commitment to atheism first and foremost as Dr. Lewontin admits regardless of the bad science he admits etc.

As I said, even atheist Fred Hoyle sees and admits to this and shows how mathematically evolution is impossible. But to get to the intelligence he knows it requires, to avoid God he goes to outer space. Again, evolution is more faith based than anything I know. I has to violate so many laws of science etc that you say it created in the first place. Yet those are so precise, intricate, unchanging and must be so so "evolution" can occur which must have the constant change you claim happened. Yet we are in a constant state of declining not getting better. Our life spans, DNA/RNA copying errors are getting more and more and making things worse as they build up. Yet it must work in reverse for evolution to work. What faith you have.

I just don't have that much faith. I can't suspend my common sense and logic as Dr. Lewontin says is required for evolutionist.

I find evolutionist are teaching students WHAT TO THINK NOT HOW TO THINK! That is very disturbing. What are they so afraid of by letting them be exposed to the problems and all the frauds being exposed to them. Esp when they are the pillars used to teach evolution.

The book by Jonathan Wells who is a Dr of microbiology. Who for some reason doesn't use his Dr. in title as author. Wrote "Icons of evolution" exposing all the frauds used to teach evolution and how they have had plenty of time to remove them from text but haven't. Sad commentary on real and truthful science! Really?

Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation - Conservapedia

Evolution Fraud and Myths

http://www.amazon.com/Icons-Evolution-Science-Teach-About/dp/0895262002

Here are three links about the frauds in evolution that are proven including the book by Dr. Jonathan Wells.

I know it is hard to admit you have fallen for frauds and been a victim. Don't blame the messenger. Be anger at those that conspired to do this to you. Don't be mad at those of us trying to wake you up to it!.

 

[outhouse]

Don't be mad at those of us trying to wake you up to it!.

You mean the minority of uneducated theist who refuse modern academia, in favor of mythology????????

 

[outhouse]

. It is full of innuendo and just so stories and not specifics like real science.

Creationism.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Adaptation, micro evolution, is not macro evolution and you again have no real proof step by step from one to the other proving macro like I've asked for.

Show me a single example of one step leading to the completion of a Marathon...

You'll undoubtedly point to the last step of the runner crossing the finish line, as one step being equal to the completion of a marathon. That last observable step you would call micro-evolution, completely discrediting the other 46,112 steps that were taken over the course of the whole race.

You had admitted that steps exist. You even admit that steps are required for locomotion. You can observe walking. You can observe jogging. You can observe sprinting. Yet you deny that a bunch of little steps will eventually cover a great distance?

Evolution, driven by the environmental pressure of natural selection (which is nothing more than a definition given to factors present in changing environments compared to the best tools suited to those environments) among other factors, leads to speciation. It is a very observable and accurate science based on nearly 2 centuries worth of research and literally thousands of studies supporting it.

If you're only qualm comes from disliking the religious implications that science has with literal mythological readings, then you'll just have to deal it.
Math doesn't change because we don't like how numbers work, or because they are hard to calculate sometimes.
Science doesn't change because we old some mythological ideas in more esteem than others.
It's just how it is.

 

[ttechsan]

Here is another post for you to consider

To again make the point I've made before. Evolution that actually has no brain gets credit by using nature and natural forces to intricately Design Engineer etc superior to what man can do and man has to study nature to learn how to do it better. Common sense tells you that is impossible.

The humpback whale has bumps on the front edge of its flippers, common sense tells us that a smooth leading edge is most efficient. This is why swimmers shave their legs and wear tights, slick suits to reduce drag in the water. This is why submarines are designed in a smooth, tube like shape. Smooth skin was the conventional underwater design, until Engineers actually tested a whales flipper in a wind tunnel.

The smooth flipper behaved like a typical airplane wing, providing lift and propulsion to the whale in the water. Surprisingly the flipper with bumps (tubercles) were found to have 8% better lift and 32% less drag. It also resisted stalling (drastically losing lift) at a 40% steeper wing angle. Why did the bumps on the flipper work so much better? The bumps (tubercles) on the leading edge of the flipper broke up the flow of the fluid and forced into the fluted valleys in between. This generated eddies (vortices) that kept the flow attached to the top surface of the flipper, thus increasing the lift and resisting stalls.

Researchers are now proposing this tubercles design for use on helicopters, propellers, and ship rudders. When we take time to study creatures, we are often surprised by all we learn from the design. We have much to learn from the Master Designer. It would be foolishness to attribute these intricate design marvels to chance processes such as random mutations guided by natural selection. When we see bumps (tubercles) we know there must be a bump maker and that is God.

See as I've been saying. To say Natural Selection that has no brain can out design, engineer, program what man the top of the line in evolution can't even match today is absurd. It lacks common sense and is so illogical to be pure foolishness.

But you have the right to continue to ignore the obvious! I'd rather trust what I see in this world today. Every Design, Engineering Programming etc feat has taken an actual thinking brain of intelligence to accomplish it. That is w/o exception. I keep asking for examples of the exception yet I get none!

 

[outhouse]

Here is another post for you to consider

No we don't read your fanaticism and fundamentalism.

 

[outhouse]

To say Natural Selection that has no brain can out design, engineer, program what man the top of the line in evolution can't even match today is absurd. It lacks common sense and is so illogical to be pure foolishness

Watchmaker fallacy, its weak and pathetic and been refuted for a very long time. How boring.

 

[Ouroboros]

The book by Jonathan Wells who is a Dr of microbiology. Who for some reason doesn't use his Dr. in title as author. Wrote "Icons of evolution" exposing all the frauds used to teach evolution and how they have had plenty of time to remove them from text but haven't. Sad commentary on real and truthful science! Really?

He also is an HIV (AIDS) denier. He strongly disagrees that the HIV causes AIDS.

 

[Sapiens]

Here is another post for you to consider

To again make the point I've made before. Evolution that actually has no brain gets credit by using nature and natural forces to intricately Design Engineer etc superior to what man can do and man has to study nature to learn how to do it better. Common sense tells you that is impossible.

You keep TRYING to make that point, but you do not succeed. All that is required is reproduction with variation and natural selection. You are sufferening from a bad case of the common sense logical fallacy marinated in an argument from ignorance.

The humpback whale has bumps on the front edge of its flippers, common sense tells us that a smooth leading edge is most efficient. This is why swimmers shave their legs and wear tights, slick suits to reduce drag in the water. This is why submarines are designed in a smooth, tube like shape. Smooth skin was the conventional underwater design, until Engineers actually tested a whales flipper in a wind tunnel.

The smooth flipper behaved like a typical airplane wing, providing lift and propulsion to the whale in the water. Surprisingly the flipper with bumps (tubercles) were found to have 8% better lift and 32% less drag. It also resisted stalling (drastically losing lift) at a 40% steeper wing angle. Why did the bumps on the flipper work so much better? The bumps (tubercles) on the leading edge of the flipper broke up the flow of the fluid and forced into the fluted valleys in between. This generated eddies (vortices) that kept the flow attached to the top surface of the flipper, thus increasing the lift and resisting stalls.

Researchers are now proposing this tubercles design for use on helicopters, propellers, and ship rudders. When we take time to study creatures, we are often surprised by all we learn from the design. We have much to learn from the Master Designer. It would be foolishness to attribute these intricate design marvels to chance processes such as random mutations guided by natural selection. When we see bumps (tubercles) we know there must be a bump maker and that is God.

Quite the opposite. You make no case for attribution of the tubercles to a god, you just make a bald faced, unsupported, claim. You do make a case against engineers, but then most any biologist can tell you have the engineers stated, with great assurance, that it was quite impossible for a bumble bee to fly. I even heard some engineers with fundamentalist views express the idea that bumble bee flight was a miracle proclaiming the glory of their god. If only they had looked at the rebound energy supplied by the flexing of the bee's carapace.

See as I've been saying. To say Natural Selection that has no brain can out design, engineer, program what man the top of the line in evolution can't even match today is absurd. It lacks common sense and is so illogical to be pure foolishness.

Sorry, I just gave an example that shows you're wrong.

But you have the right to continue to ignore the obvious! I'd rather trust what I see in this world today. Every Design, Engineering Programming etc feat has taken an actual thinking brain of intelligence to accomplish it. That is w/o exception. I keep asking for examples of the exception yet I get none!

The world is full of millions of examples, just look around you.

 

[Deidre]

Sorry it has taken me awhile to get back to you. I have serious health issues. That is why I am so sporadic on here. I ask your forgiveness on that. It is something I can't help or control. I wish I didn't have these issues. Yet at the same time. I have dedicated them to God's glory and He does that continually. So despite the pain and constant problems, God uses me through it. I wouldn't change that as compared to what He did for me. This is a small cross to bear for Him and it puts me where I can help others I wouldn't meet otherwise. Anyway, here is a response. I hope it helps. But I do want real science answers. I don't and won't respond to just telling me I don't understand evolution. I understand apparently more than evolutionist do. You give it credit for having a brain it doesn't have. The world shows that only brains can Design, Engineer and Program and esp to the intricate precise detail we see. A force of nature, w/o a brain can't possible do that, much less do it better than man can match when we are the top of the "evolutionary" chain. Additionally when I ask you guys to tell me how using your top of the "evolutionary" chains brain, how you would do it? All I get is no real answers and attacks. That shows you have no idea and are covering up you don't know by attacking the other. That is a debate tactic used when the other side has you. Here is my latest.


A problem for evolutionist, esp considering the order you say things evolved. These couldn’t have stayed alive or survived long enough w/o the other due to long time span between! Animals and plants



Visitors to the southwestern United States are often awed by the imposing yucca plant. At its base is a rosette of stiff, sword shaped leaves with a tall stem containing clusters of white, waxy flowers. The yucca plant can only be pollinated by ONE insect, the yucca moth, because the nectar glands can only be reached by the proboscis (sucking mouth part) of this moth. Likewise, the yucca moth requires the yucca plant for its reproductive cycle and for food.

When the moth visits the yucca flower it collects pollen and carries the tiny pollen balls from plant to plant. After the female lays her four to five eggs in the yucca flower’s ovary, she deposits her pollen ball on the tip of the flower’s pistil, thus pollinating the yucca flower. The seeds then start developing at the same time the moth larvae develop. The seeds are the only source of food for the larvae. These seeds were made possible only by the pollen the female moth had earlier deposited. The larvae eat about half of the 200 seeds produced. The yucca plant could not survive without the yucca moth, and the yucca moth could not survive without the yucca plant.

If evolution were true, which came first? Both the yucca plant and the yucca moth had to be fully functioning from the beginning for this complex symbiotic relationship. God displays creativity in what He has made because He wants His existence apparent to all.



Now look at the order of evolutionary creation and the time lapses between, esp plants and land animals, insects. (Houston we have a problem!) It can’t possibly work.

I’ve shown you a symbiotic between a plant and a animal. So since man is the top of the evolutionary chain and we have an actual thinking brain and evolution doesn’t. Surely, with that brain you can explain how YOU would do it so both survive despite the evolutionary time gap and how they would have to evolve next to one another when this whole earth is its stage.

The math odds are so astronomical against this. Not only due to the evolutionary order of creation but since they would have to evolve right next to one another for them to survive. That situation is true for so many other creatures of creation, animals and plants. Yet evolutionist can’t begin to tell me how with their “evolved” brain how to do what a non brain force of evolution did w/o a brain. To top it off I am told I don’t understand evolution. No, I understand that you give it credit for a brain it doesn’t possess and you evolutionist still can’t describe anything by a step by step order by detail of each step and the number of steps to get from one to another. Yet you say that is science. When science is describing things in real detail, like all the bodily systems. The systems in nature with plants and it goes on and on.

I’m the one using my logical brain and common sense to recognize what you refuse to recognize. It took a power, brain to Design, Engineer, Program etc far beyond what man still can’t match, what we see in this world that has been created.

You can give me empty words that I don’t understand. But until you can actually answer my questions and give me detailed information like if I asked you the steps of Photosynthesis or how various systems of the body worked. See those you could do. When I ask a simple question. Give me just ONE example of evolution from one species to the next higher order species step by step in order and explain each step. If not then tell me how you would do it with your “evolved” brain w/o the extinction of whatever we are discussing. You instead of answering to cover up that you can’t. You attack me as if I don’t understand. Problem really is I do understand it. I understand and have exposed the problems that you fail to acknowledge.

Come back to me when you can actually answer with proven science and not just so stories!

Just curious on something, ttechsan. Why do you feel that in order to be faithful to your 'god' or religion, that you have to disprove evolution to others?

 

[Riverwolf]

See as I've been saying. To say Natural Selection that has no brain can out design, engineer, program what man the top of the line in evolution can't even match today is absurd. It lacks common sense and is so illogical to be pure foolishness.

And yet it's what we observe over and over again.

There's dozens of things in this world that are counter-intuitive, so as to appear foolish at face-value. (Such as that time runs differently on the ISS than here). But there's no indication whatsoever that an intelligent force designed anything from scratch.

 

[Riverwolf]

Every Design, Engineering Programming etc feat has taken an actual thinking brain of intelligence to accomplish it. That is w/o exception. I keep asking for examples of the exception yet I get none!

You do realize that technological evolution also follows a type of natural selection? So does linguistic evolution, incidentally.

We make the tools, sure, but nobody can say for sure which tools will actually become ubiquitous, or influence later tools in the future. Steam power is over 2,000 years old, for instance.

There's no indication of any design or engineering or programming in biology. Again, you're asking for square circles.

 

[Riverwolf]

Adaptation, micro evolution, is not macro evolution and you again have no real proof step by step from one to the other proving macro like I've asked for.

If micro exists, so does macro.

Macro = micro+micro+micro...

In other words, you're wrong: micro evolution is macro evolution, just divided. So yes, I still say you really don't understand evolution.

Oh, and those "sources" you cited? They're garbage. They're not worth acknowledging.