It is clear from the OP that ttechsan doesn't understand evolution, and all his/her objections have been soundly refuted over and over again.
Lets see.
1. It does not have an actual thinking brain! True!
2. It is a force of nature (Natural Selection ie Survival of the Fittest) Yes
3. Forces of Nature don't have actual brains! (Mother Nature etc) True
Yes, like gravity, it does not have a mind or personality. It is an unguided phenomenon in nature. So far so good.
4.Evolutionist give it credit as if it has the powers of a brain to Design, Engineer and Program etc. Yes you do.
Not exactly. We agree that it is a "blind," unguided process, with no foresight or desired outcome.
5. Yet, In all of human history and all we see in the world today. Anytime we see Design, Engineering, Programming it always takes Intelligence for it to occur! Yes
Yes, it is natural to look at organisms in nature and imagine that there is a design or intent behind them. That's why it took us so long to discover evolution; it appears to go against common sense. However this is true for most scientific discoveries, which is what makes it significant.
6.You say it ALL started with the Big Bang. Therefore all the order, precision, laws of nature, science. math, cosmology and it goes on came ultimately as a result of an explosion energy! (Yet nothing in our experience of today's world do we ever see order, precision etc as a result or aftermath of an explosion of energy!) If so please give me examples other than what you SAY evolution did. But if I go by % of the evidence then explosion of energy doesn't produce order, precision etc. So very illogical and not common sense based on real world experience. I Live in Texas. The explosion in West didn't leave order. Nor did 9/11, nor Oklahoma City bombing and this goes on. Heck the bombing of Japan to end WWII sure didn't either.
The Big Bang is a completely different question from the process of natural selection, and it is not really pertinent to evolution. The kind of explosions you are comparing the big bang to are not even in the same category. Things like solar systems are formed over periods of billions of years as matter from a star gradually cool and condense to form heavier elements. The order that we observe in the universe is selective; where is the order in a hurricane or a tornado, for example? The universe is full of violent, chaotic activity that is unpredictable and random.
7. Computer programming controls the computer and all it does. True. So likewise does DNA/RNA for all of life. Yet you can't explain this. Computer Programs are like language that communicate directions. Have we ever seen anything of a language, esp that complex evolve from simple to complex and esp w/o Intelligent brain behind it. Real life experience tells me NO!
Even Darwin in chapter 6 of his book Origins said if ever proven anything was so complex that it couldn't have evolved from simple to complex by evolutionary steps it would disprove his theory. DNA/RNA did that.
So far we haven't found anything in nature that is irreducibly complex. Your lack of imagination or understanding of how something like an eye or a wing can evolve from a simpler form does not discount the discoveries that have been made to confirm Darwin's theory.
8. In real life when we see Design, Engineering, Programming etc we instantly recognize behind it was Intelligence. We don't immediately say, Look what evolved by natural forces w/o a brain directing it.
see my response to #5!
9. Like my example on the other thread about Mother Nature deciding, which has no brain but is a force of nature, to unite the forces of nature and form the faces on Mt Rushmore. Using rain, wind, erosion etc. It shows design but of course since mother nature has no real brain it couldn't have done it as it requires a brain to design it. Yet real life is much more complex and you say natural forces of evolution out designed, engineered, programmed what man still can't match. Not only that did it before man had "evolved" to the point to even learn about it. Much less study nature and copy it to make life better for mankind.
I think you are forgetting that 99% of species that have existed on this planet are extinct. For every successful species there are hundreds of thousands of earlier models that didn't make it. Evolution doesn't plan in advance which species will adapt and which will become extinct. It is a complicated interaction between genetic variation and a wide range of environmental factors, but none of them require any higher intelligence. It does not produce perfect, flawless results. The results are messy and at times random. The human body has all kinds of flaws. Ever get a kidney stone? Any idea why our reproductive tract is the same tube that we pee through? Or we eat through the same place we breathe through? Complexity does not equal good design.
it is a "bottom up" process, and the outcome is based on what is 'good enough' to survive and reproduce.
10. You can take so many processes of life and systems and explain them in depth. Yet you can't take not ONE example of evolution and take it from one species to the next species and explain where it started, the no.of steps it took and what each step it entailed to get there. All the while battling survival of the fittest since after it adapted it was already fittest and had no need to change. To change further put its survival at risk and vulnerable to extinction.
It's true that we haven't dug up every fossil ever. It's not possible to document millions of generations of common descent. Fossils are created under very specific circumstances, so it is amazing that we have as many as we do. However, the horse or the whale are good examples of species where we have found fossils in various stages of development. That is enough to infer what the intermediate stages might have looked like, even if we don't have the missing pieces.
What creationists like to do is move the goalposts. As soon as you show them an intermediate fossil, they'll demand to see the missing steps.
11. Evolutionist own words betray evolution. Quote from Dr. Richard Lewontin A geneticist that is very revealing
‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Sounds like materialism atheism first over good, true, honest, science at all cost.
Dr. Lewontin clearly has an a priori commitment to marerialism but he does not speak for all people who believe in evolution. It's true that many scientific discoveries were counter-intuitive at the time they were discovered. If they were self evident, they would not have been remarkable discoveries.
Nobody questions today that the earth is round and orbits the sun, yet this is not self evident. From our limited perspective, the earth appears flat. It was only through careful and systematic observations that scientists were able to figure this out. That is how science works; through our observations we coax nature into revealing its secrets. The same goes for the existence of germs, atoms, black holes and any number of things that defy common sense. The principles of physics, biology and chemistry that allow you to drive a car or post things on an online forum are the same principles whereby we can learn about our origins.
Stephen J. Gould once admitted, "The history of most fossil species includes... features particularly inconsistent with gradualism..(like) sudden appearance...in any local areas, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears suddenly all at once and "fully formed". According to Gould, there is no evidence of gradual evolution, since there are no transitional creatures. Species are fully formed when they first appear in the record.
When Gould says "sudden" he is speaking in relative terms. There was a period known as the Cambrian Explosion when lots of things evolved in a relatively brief period of time. But we are still talking about millions of years as opposed to hundreds of millions or billions of years. Evolution occurs more rapidly when there are changes in the environment that cause one adaptive trait to succeed over another. We call this "selection pressure."
Evolutionist Mark Ridley admitted, "No real scientist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."
That's because we have much better evidence from other fields of knowledge. Richard Dawkins says that fossil evidence is just a bonus. The real evidence is seen in anatomy, geographic distribution of species, and most importantly DNA.
Dr Mano Singham an evolutionary college prof in this attached article admits to teaching using brainwashing and propaganda techniques to teach his students. Yet, as all evolutionist do he makes it to be religion vs science. Which I find funny with all the other admissions he made. You will have to open the PDF file to read it.
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/53/6/10.1063/1.1306373
From Physics Today of June 2000
Skipping this one due to time constraints :lol:
Dr. James Tour, a prof at Rice who specializes in chemistry, nano engineering and computer science said, Despite decades of research into the origin of life, he does not understand how it all could have happened. And when he challenges his peers on the subject, they too sheepishly admit its a mystery. He says: Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science with National Academy members, Nobel prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public, because its a scary thing if you say what I just said. I say, "Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from and how this happened?" The answer I usually get is "No". "Every time I have sat with people who are synthetic chemist, who understand this, They go "Uh-uh, Nope". Dr. Tour said "And if they're afraid to say "yes", they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can't sincerely do it."
See Evolutionist own words betray what evolution really is. Bad science, full of proven frauds etc.
No good scientists believes they have a complete understanding of anything. The whole point of science is to explore the unknown with the hope of discovering more. This is why scientists get up in the morning!
I've exposed it too by my questions that you can't answer. IT proves I actually know it better than you do.
Nope. All of this has been answered before.
I challenge you to educate me with proof and examples to disprove what I have said.
All the examples you crave are easily available via a simple Google or wikipedia search. If you are really interested in something more in depth, two good books are "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne or "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Dawkins (also Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbably, Selfish Gene, River Out of Eden to name a few.)
Your opinion that I don't know what I am talking about means nothing. I have given you points. You MUST disprove my points with provable and proven science. Not just opinion. If you asked evolutionist to explain various bodily or other systems in depth they as could creationist.
Again, it is clear from your OP that you are not properly educated on this topic. What I've seen so far amounts to little more than cherrypicking, quote mining, and glossing over the mountains of evidence for evolution that is easily available to anyone who is genuinely interested learning more.
We, as does atheist mathematician Fred Hoyle, acknowledge the obvious. Behind it took and demands an Intelligent Designer, Engineer and Programmer etc far above what we are capable of.
That my friends is common sense and logic. Yours takes more faith than I could ever muster. At least I stand on what the world and experience and worlds history tells me.
Plus science is never decided by popular vote. Otherwise the world would still be flat and the earth still the center of this solar system etc.
No groundbreaking discoveries are popular at the time. That is what makes them groundbreaking. People didn't believe Gallileo, or Newton at first.. their ideas have stood the test of rigorous investigation and scutiny. The same is true of Darwin's theory, like it or not!
