That was not an example of a "beneficial mutation." The only thing that was observed was that some of the bacteria already had a resistance to the antibiotics. The antibiotics killed off all other bacteria, except for that which already had an immunity to it. The bacteria that had this immunity multiplied. The same thing goes for the coca plants. The pesticides killed off all the plants except those which already had resistance to it. Notice how evolutionists try to interpret observations in light of a preconceived idea. You call that science? As for evolution attempting to explain the origin of life, of course it does. Remember there's multiple definitions of evolution. You have: 1. Cosmic evolution (the origin of time, space matter, aka the "Big Bang"; 2. Chemical evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen; 3. Stellar and planetary evolution - origin of stars and planets; 4. Organic evolution - origin of life; 5. Macro evolution - Changing from one kind of animal into another; 6. Micro evolution -- variations within kinds. The first five have never been observed, and require a heck of lot of faith to believe in. In other words, the first five are religious. You've never seen it happen, but you believe it anyway based on all the conjecture and guesswork, must of which is nonsensical when you really think about it.
Show me one example of a beneficial mutation that has ever been observed (or even the fossil record of a partially mutated species). In fact, let's go way, way back and try to figure out how life would have "mutated" from a few amino acids to a single celled organism. Explain how our early atmosphere, which is assumed to have no oxygen, would allow the formation of amino acids. With oxygen, amino acid formation could not take place. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, there would be no UV protection. UV will kill any life from "forming". Even Stanley Miller's experiment in 1953 failed miserably. In this experiment sparks were discharged into an apparatus which was circulating common gases. These gases reacted to form various organic products which were collected and analyzed. The experiment succeeded in producing only a few of the 20 amino acids required by itself. In addition to the problems I've noted above, the same gases which can react to form amino acids undergo known reactions in the presence of sunlight which remove them from the atmosphere. The required gases would not have been around long enough for life to have developed! In addition, a cold trap was used to keep the reaction products from being destroyed as fast as they formed.
The biggest problem is that the amino acids formed in this experiment are always a 50/50 mixture of stereotypes (L and D forms). Stereotypes are like a drawer full of right-hand and left-hand gloves, identical in every way except a mirror image of each other. Life contains only L stereotypes of these randomly produced amino acids. Yet equal proportions of both types are always produced. How could the first cell have selected only L stereotypes from a random, equally reactive mixture? No answer to this has ever been found.
These are just a few of the problems with the fanciful idea that life generated itself. The linking of these randomly produced amino acids into the required proteins is an even more overwhelming impossibility.
The mathematician is a designer of the simulation, and he tells the simulation what to do. It is a silly argument to use, really. I'm not even sure why you're using it.
Like I said, evolution et al fails to answer numerous questions, and in fact only complicates matters. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter? When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.) Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true? How did intermediate forms live (and where is the fossil record)? There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why? How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design? Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered, and do these answers reflect your "belief system" or your science? Many people accept evolution simply because it's what they've always been taught, ie, programmed to believe (the "designers" in this case are well-meaning, but misguided teachers). But should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because you don't have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)? Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of Intelligent Design or Creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? After all, it is just a religious worldview that isn't even based on scientific fact, and takes more faith to believe in than God. I believe "In the beginning, God..." but you believe "In the beginning, dirt...". Yep, you've got more faith than I do.
The UNIX game "Life" had a designer. Show me a program that created itself.
The second part of your response seems to refer to microevolution, or adaptation to an environment. With this I agree (although I object to the term "evolution). However, the mutations that you refer to are not adding information at the DNA level. The DNA information is already present. Otherwise, information is being lost/scrambled. New DNA information has never been added on it's own by chance. If certain genes become dominant, then those genes will also be dominant in the offspring, but as noted no new information is added. Micro evolution occurs, but macro evolution does not.
God is infinite, we are finite, and for the finite to explain or even understand the infinite is impossible. And no, I do not consider myself "owned".
I believe, by faith, in God. I don't, however, have enough faith to believe in evolution. There is no real concrete evidence for evolution (all I see is conjecture, theory, and contrived 'evidence' that has later been shown to be false), but the immense complexities and inter-relational operations within nature is evidence, to me, of a Creator. You'd look at something as simple as a watch and know that it had a designer, but you see something that is exponentially, millions of times, more complex and believe that it all happen by chance, a fluke. Wow, I wish I had half the faith that you have. Look at it this way. Let's assume that you know and understand half of all the knowledge in the universe. Is it possible for God to exist in the half that you don't know?
I've studied evolution for years, and there are way too many problems with it due to irreducible complexity, for example. No straw man arguments are even required. Since I began to also study in depth the arguments for Intelligent Design, I have begun to take this viewpoint very seriously. While studying Intelligent Design, some of the arguments were so convincing (and even scientifically verifiable and sound in many cases, you can't always say that for evolution) that I've asked myself on several occasions, "Why wasn't I also taught this stuff in school?" I mean, if there are sound alternatives out there, shouldn't we also know about them as well? I'd recommend you read Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and then refer to Dr. Robert DiSilvestro's (Ph.D. Biochemistry, Associate Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University) rebuttal to the book's critics. Another great read would be a book by Dr. Robert Gentry (Nuclear Physicist) on Polonium halos found in granite. Read the criticisms, and his rebuttals. This is all extremely interesting and eye opening material.
Nobody has ever seen macro evolution take place either (e.g.. genetic information being added). Where is the fossil record proving evolution? Even Darwin assumed that the fossil record would prove his idea but it hasn't. (Surely, there must be numerous examples of partially evolved animals over millions of years if macroevolution is true). Can you point to one single positive mutation that has ever been observed? At what point did sexual reproduction begin to take place, and how did animals reproduce when sexual organs were only partially evolved? How did anything see, and move around, and find food to eat when eyes were only partially evolved, or mouths, or digestive systems, etc? If a watch could never be assembled by chance by taking all of it's pieces in your hand and tossing it around for a billion years, how can even a single-cell, which is exponentially more complex, have ever happened by chance? If there was oxygen in the atmosphere, it would have oxidized any 'life' and killed it off. If there was no oxygen, then there would be no ozone and therefore no protection from UV rays, which would also have killed any life. Darwinian evolution has some serious questions that is has failed to answer, let alone prove, and I've only come to this realization fairly recently. This is one reason why I think an alternative should be taught along side evolution, and the only real alternative is Intelligent Design.
I understand your point, but your argument is an argument of semantics. The bottom line is that an intricate, complex design cannot happen without an outside influence. Anything which contains parts that operate, depend upon and interact with one another needs to be designed to do so.
If I belonged to a secluded African tribe that had never had any contact with the rest of the world and one day found a watch on a riverbank, for example, would it be logical to assume that metal pieces (which is found naturally) had been formed and somehow put together further up river by the movement of water until it evenually assembled itself into a design of intricate parts? Each part itself needs to be designed. These designed parts must then be assembled in a specific order so as to function correctly. It cannot happen by chance, and even taking each individual part, and shaking them in your hand for a billion years will never cause you to end up with a fully assembled watch. It will not happen, ever. And, considering that a single cell is more complex than the space shuttle, it is silly to assume that, given enough time, a single cell will put itself together all on its own. Mathematically, it is an impossibility. I can now understand why more and more scientists and teachers are also coming to this conclusion as well.
I agree, it is not I-D, but about 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process of macro evolution. That's pretty damn high. I think they realize that macro evolution is statistically impossible to happen all on its own "by chance." It's like taking the millions of characters in the more than 40 million lines of source code for Microsoft Windows XP, putting each character in a gigantic box and throwing it over a cliff. How many times will you need to throw it over before you have each character, and each line of code, line up perfectly AND in the correct order to get the code correct? Obviously, it's never going to happen. Macro evolution teaches that, given enough time, the source code for "Windows XP", if you will, will be laid out in perfect order. Uh, don't think so.
This same evolutionary model even contends that the extremely complex living cell, more complex than the space shuttle, evolved from a non-living thing, a rock. (Give me one example where science has ever observed life coming from non-living material.) Again, I think it's because they understand that it's like taking all of the nuts, bolts, tiles, wires, switches, electronic chips, transistors, capacitors, etc. etc. etc. from the space shuttle, putting them all in a box and letting them roll down and endless slope. How far will they have to travel before they all eventually end up completely assembled and you have a fully functioning space shuttle? Again, it just ain't gonna happen. Not by chance, not ever, impossible, no matter how much time you let it roll. Common sense.
Universe. Uni = one. Verse = a spoken sentence. God said, "Let there be..." and there was. Now that's a Universe, and it's good enough for me.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't read "Tornado in a Junkyard" yet, but may look into it sometime.
That was not an example of a "beneficial mutation." The only thing that was observed was that some of the bacteria already had a resistance to the antibiotics. The antibiotics killed off all other bacteria, except for that which already had an immunity to it. The bacteria that had this immunity multiplied. The same thing goes for the coca plants. The pesticides killed off all the plants except those which already had resistance to it. Notice how evolutionists try to interpret observations in light of a preconceived idea. You call that science? As for evolution attempting to explain the origin of life, of course it does. Remember there's multiple definitions of evolution. You have: 1. Cosmic evolution (the origin of time, space matter, aka the "Big Bang"; 2. Chemical evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen; 3. Stellar and planetary evolution - origin of stars and planets; 4. Organic evolution - origin of life; 5. Macro evolution - Changing from one kind of animal into another; 6. Micro evolution -- variations within kinds. The first five have never been observed, and require a heck of lot of faith to believe in. In other words, the first five are religious. You've never seen it happen, but you believe it anyway based on all the conjecture and guesswork, must of which is nonsensical when you really think about it.
Show me one example of a beneficial mutation that has ever been observed (or even the fossil record of a partially mutated species). In fact, let's go way, way back and try to figure out how life would have "mutated" from a few amino acids to a single celled organism. Explain how our early atmosphere, which is assumed to have no oxygen, would allow the formation of amino acids. With oxygen, amino acid formation could not take place. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, there would be no UV protection. UV will kill any life from "forming". Even Stanley Miller's experiment in 1953 failed miserably. In this experiment sparks were discharged into an apparatus which was circulating common gases. These gases reacted to form various organic products which were collected and analyzed. The experiment succeeded in producing only a few of the 20 amino acids required by itself. In addition to the problems I've noted above, the same gases which can react to form amino acids undergo known reactions in the presence of sunlight which remove them from the atmosphere. The required gases would not have been around long enough for life to have developed! In addition, a cold trap was used to keep the reaction products from being destroyed as fast as they formed. The biggest problem is that the amino acids formed in this experiment are always a 50/50 mixture of stereotypes (L and D forms). Stereotypes are like a drawer full of right-hand and left-hand gloves, identical in every way except a mirror image of each other. Life contains only L stereotypes of these randomly produced amino acids. Yet equal proportions of both types are always produced. How could the first cell have selected only L stereotypes from a random, equally reactive mixture? No answer to this has ever been found. These are just a few of the problems with the fanciful idea that life generated itself. The linking of these randomly produced amino acids into the required proteins is an even more overwhelming impossibility.
The mathematician is a designer of the simulation, and he tells the simulation what to do. It is a silly argument to use, really. I'm not even sure why you're using it. Like I said, evolution et al fails to answer numerous questions, and in fact only complicates matters. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter? When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.) Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true? How did intermediate forms live (and where is the fossil record)? There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why? How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design? Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered, and do these answers reflect your "belief system" or your science? Many people accept evolution simply because it's what they've always been taught, ie, programmed to believe (the "designers" in this case are well-meaning, but misguided teachers). But should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because you don't have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)? Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of Intelligent Design or Creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? After all, it is just a religious worldview that isn't even based on scientific fact, and takes more faith to believe in than God. I believe "In the beginning, God ..." but you believe "In the beginning, dirt ...". Yep, you've got more faith than I do.
The UNIX game "Life" had a designer. Show me a program that created itself. The second part of your response seems to refer to microevolution, or adaptation to an environment. With this I agree (although I object to the term "evolution). However, the mutations that you refer to are not adding information at the DNA level. The DNA information is already present. Otherwise, information is being lost/scrambled. New DNA information has never been added on it's own by chance. If certain genes become dominant, then those genes will also be dominant in the offspring, but as noted no new information is added. Micro evolution occurs, but macro evolution does not.
God is infinite, we are finite, and for the finite to explain or even understand the infinite is impossible. And no, I do not consider myself "owned". I believe, by faith, in God. I don't, however, have enough faith to believe in evolution. There is no real concrete evidence for evolution (all I see is conjecture, theory, and contrived 'evidence' that has later been shown to be false), but the immense complexities and inter-relational operations within nature is evidence, to me, of a Creator. You'd look at something as simple as a watch and know that it had a designer, but you see something that is exponentially, millions of times, more complex and believe that it all happen by chance, a fluke. Wow, I wish I had half the faith that you have. Look at it this way. Let's assume that you know and understand half of all the knowledge in the universe. Is it possible for God to exist in the half that you don't know?
I've studied evolution for years, and there are way too many problems with it due to irreducible complexity, for example. No straw man arguments are even required. Since I began to also study in depth the arguments for Intelligent Design, I have begun to take this viewpoint very seriously. While studying Intelligent Design, some of the arguments were so convincing (and even scientifically verifiable and sound in many cases, you can't always say that for evolution) that I've asked myself on several occasions, "Why wasn't I also taught this stuff in school?" I mean, if there are sound alternatives out there, shouldn't we also know about them as well? I'd recommend you read Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and then refer to Dr. Robert DiSilvestro's (Ph.D. Biochemistry, Associate Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University) rebuttal to the book's critics. Another great read would be a book by Dr. Robert Gentry (Nuclear Physicist) on Polonium halos found in granite. Read the criticisms, and his rebuttals. This is all extremely interesting and eye opening material.
Nobody has ever seen macro evolution take place either (e.g.. genetic information being added). Where is the fossil record proving evolution? Even Darwin assumed that the fossil record would prove his idea but it hasn't. (Surely, there must be numerous examples of partially evolved animals over millions of years if macroevolution is true). Can you point to one single positive mutation that has ever been observed? At what point did sexual reproduction begin to take place, and how did animals reproduce when sexual organs were only partially evolved? How did anything see, and move around, and find food to eat when eyes were only partially evolved, or mouths, or digestive systems, etc? If a watch could never be assembled by chance by taking all of it's pieces in your hand and tossing it around for a billion years, how can even a single-cell, which is exponentially more complex, have ever happened by chance? If there was oxygen in the atmosphere, it would have oxidized any 'life' and killed it off. If there was no oxygen, then there would be no ozone and therefore no protection from UV rays, which would also have killed any life. Darwinian evolution has some serious questions that is has failed to answer, let alone prove, and I've only come to this realization fairly recently. This is one reason why I think an alternative should be taught along side evolution, and the only real alternative is Intelligent Design.
I understand your point, but your argument is an argument of semantics. The bottom line is that an intricate, complex design cannot happen without an outside influence. Anything which contains parts that operate, depend upon and interact with one another needs to be designed to do so. If I belonged to a secluded African tribe that had never had any contact with the rest of the world and one day found a watch on a riverbank, for example, would it be logical to assume that metal pieces (which is found naturally) had been formed and somehow put together further up river by the movement of water until it evenually assembled itself into a design of intricate parts? Each part itself needs to be designed. These designed parts must then be assembled in a specific order so as to function correctly. It cannot happen by chance, and even taking each individual part, and shaking them in your hand for a billion years will never cause you to end up with a fully assembled watch. It will not happen, ever. And, considering that a single cell is more complex than the space shuttle, it is silly to assume that, given enough time, a single cell will put itself together all on its own. Mathematically, it is an impossibility. I can now understand why more and more scientists and teachers are also coming to this conclusion as well.
I agree, it is not I-D, but about 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process of macro evolution. That's pretty damn high. I think they realize that macro evolution is statistically impossible to happen all on its own "by chance." It's like taking the millions of characters in the more than 40 million lines of source code for Microsoft Windows XP, putting each character in a gigantic box and throwing it over a cliff. How many times will you need to throw it over before you have each character, and each line of code, line up perfectly AND in the correct order to get the code correct? Obviously, it's never going to happen. Macro evolution teaches that, given enough time, the source code for "Windows XP", if you will, will be laid out in perfect order. Uh, don't think so. This same evolutionary model even contends that the extremely complex living cell, more complex than the space shuttle, evolved from a non-living thing, a rock. (Give me one example where science has ever observed life coming from non-living material.) Again, I think it's because they understand that it's like taking all of the nuts, bolts, tiles, wires, switches, electronic chips, transistors, capacitors, etc. etc. etc. from the space shuttle, putting them all in a box and letting them roll down and endless slope. How far will they have to travel before they all eventually end up completely assembled and you have a fully functioning space shuttle? Again, it just ain't gonna happen. Not by chance, not ever, impossible, no matter how much time you let it roll. Common sense. Universe. Uni = one. Verse = a spoken sentence. God said, "Let there be..." and there was. Now that's a Universe, and it's good enough for me.