Evolution where is the Evidence?

[DARRELX]

Evolution fails at every step of the fairytale. 

 

Abiogenesis is impossible.

 

Single cell to multicellular life is impossible.

 

Multicellular species  evolving new biological traits is impossible.

 

Enough rhetoric I challenge an EVO to prove these things possible with real evidence rather then faith based claims and wishful thinking.

[thilipsis]

On 11/9/2016 at 11:17 PM, DARRELX said:

Evolution fails at every step of the fairytale.

 

Abiogenesis is impossible.

 

Single cell to multicellular life is impossible.

 

Multicellular species  evolving new biological traits is impossible.

 

Enough rhetoric I challenge an EVO to prove these things possible with real evidence rather then faith based claims and wishful thinking.

I'm new so bear with me if I'm not formatting the post right. First of all 'evolution' is generally defined as the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. That pretty much makes everyone an evolutionist. The 'theory of evolution' on the other hand is what is otherwise known as Darwinism which is a philosophy of natural history that presupposes exclusively naturalistic causes. We do well to discern the difference. 

Abiogenesis is largely speculation, the only way anyone has ever seen life emerge is from life. That's actually an easy one.

The biggest problem of single cell to multicellurlar life is simply the DNA. Single cell is usually something like bacteria which is a genome in the thousands or millions of DNA base pairs long. You have a genome that is close to three billion base pairs long. What is curious is that there are so many DNA repair mechanisms in the genome but so very few that actual edit or extend the DNA.

Now if you mean single cell living populations evolving into plants and animals I have no issues. In Darwinism they presuppose naturalistic processes and ask questions later.

Finally with regards to you challenge I would like to pick up the gauntlet. Let me just say, I'm a died in the wool creationist but don't underestimate the fact that they have some pretty formidable arguments. One of the best pieces of advice I have ever gotten is a gentleman who was teaching on the creation/evolution thing that said the first step is to make the strongest possible argument for the opposing view.

Don't get me wrong, I believe wholeheartedly that God created life, about 6 thousand years ago. I would simply advise caution when equivocating evolutionary biology with Darwinian naturalistic assumptions. Think about it, Noah's Ark touches down on Ararat some 4,000 years ago and from those samplings of the originally created kinds there are now something like 2 million to 60 million species. My point is simply this, from those small populations you have diversity in all it's vast array. God provided for adaptive evolution, it's Darwinian naturalistic assumptions that are at the heart of the creation/evolution divide.

Grace and peace,        

Mark                                                                                                                                                                                                             

On 11/9/2016 at 11:17 PM, DARRELX said:

 

 

[Enoch2021]

9 hours ago, thilipsis said:

First of all 'evolution' is generally defined as the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time.

2.  That pretty much makes everyone an evolutionist.                                                                                                                                                                                             

1.  Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University (“Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist" -- Stephen Jay Gould)...

"I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades — evolution is a CHANGE IN GENE FREQUENCIES in populations — is NOT only NOT EXPLANATORY, BUT IS IN FACT MISLEADING."  {emphasis mine}
Mayr E. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge (MA): The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1988. p, 162.

2.  Funny that.

 

Quote

The 'theory of evolution' on the other hand is what is otherwise known as Darwinism which is a philosophy of natural history that presupposes exclusively naturalistic causes.

Huh??  Philosophies are Scientific Theories?? 

 

"Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process); e.g., Germ Theory.  Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED...

 

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {emphasis mine} 
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

Can you show ONE 'Philosophy' EVER that has been put through the Scientific Method...?

 

Quote

We do well to discern the difference. 

Using a term in two different senses in the same argument is 'discerned' as an Equivocation Fallacy:

Equivocation (Fallacy)--- The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/equivocation/

 

Quote

Abiogenesis is largely speculation, the only way anyone has ever seen life emerge is from life.

 

Actually, it's exponential magnitudes worse than a mere 'speculation'...

 

The de novo appearance of just the Physical "Functional " Molecules -- DNA, RNA, and Proteins (30 mer or larger) from their respective constituents (Sugar/Nucleo-bases/ activated Phosphates/Amino Acids) is such a Fairytale of Epic Proportions it's difficult to express it in language !!!  But I'll go ahead and try...

    

First of all, The Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) Research is an INVALID Scientific Inquiry; UNLESS...somebody has OBSERVED Life from Non-Life.  Why??  Well... they skipped the First Step of The Scientific Method: "Observe a Phenomenon"!!  It's not... "Conjure a Phenomenon" (lol).
It's Tantamount to Observing scorch marks on my Garage Wall; then Speculating that an Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragon caused it.  And what's this??...
This is a Complete Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy) and has the Quintessential Characteristic that "it"...can NEVER be Disproved!! (How convenient)...or so they thought   :

 

Of the ~500 Amino Acids (AA's) known, 23 of them are Alpha Amino Acids.  All Life requires and exclusively uses 20 Essential Alpha AA's.

1. Please show (CITE Source) of the "Natural" Formation of ALL 20 Essential Alpha AA's from their "Building Blocks"....?  (This is ONE of the dirty little secrets you never hear about, it's really quite mind numbing...but they know they can 'Whistle Past The Graveyard', because of the utter ignorance and "Blind" Faith of their target audience).

  
We could in-effect stop right here, but where's the fun in that...

2. Once you get all of the Alpha AA's "Naturally" (and...you won't), they exist "Naturally" as Stereoisomers...Enantiomers i.e., a 50/50 mix (Racemic Mixture/ Mirror Images/Chiral) Left Handed-Right Handed.  But LIFE exclusively uses Left-Handed Amino's (There are Exceptions but not material and outside the scope of our discussion).  To be "Functional" Proteins, you not only need their Primary Structure (Proper Sequence) but FORM (Secondary Structure) "Form = Function" motif.  ONE "right-handed" AA in the chain Compromises Secondary Structure...aka: Football Bat.
 

In EVERY SINGLE OOL Paper with AA's/Proteins (and SUGARS---we'll get to that), take a look @ "Materials and Methods" Section ... their other dirty little secret, you'll find EVERY-SINGLE TIME the word "PURIFICATION" or equivalent.  Because they **sequestered**---if Proteins, then left-handed AA's are chosen...if Sugars, then right-handed ones are chosen, before they even start on their "a priori" fairytale.
**This is so far beyond Unacceptable Investigator Interference and PROVES the need for Intelligent Agency!
 

3. The DeltaG for Polymerization of AA's to form Polypeptides is "Positive" i.e., Non-Spontaneous.
 

4. Peptide Bond Formation is "Condensation Reactions".  Ahhh, That is....Peptide Bonds won't form IN WATER, from both a Thermodynamic and Kinetic point of view... Peptide Bonds won't form between two AA zwitterions ---- this is the form AA's are found in Aqueous Environments.
You'd have better chances resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse than attempting even a cogent explanation of how this could be in the Galactic Universe of Possibility, let alone actually Physically/Chemically forming a 30 mer "FUNCTIONAL" Protein, "Naturally"!!  

AND...This is even before we discuss: Primary Structure, Sunlight which destroys AA's (and Nucleo-Bases), Mono/bi-functional moieties, pH, Cross Reactions, Brownian Motion, Hydrolysis, and Oxidation.

I suppose this is what the Grand Poobah of Origin of Life Research (Dr. Leslie Orgel) was referring to, when he said (His last DOCUMENTED WORDS before passing)...

 

Dr. Leslie Orgel's last Published Words after more than 50 Years of OOL Research...

 

"However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help."

Orgel LE (2008): The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology.

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0060018

 

"Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to divide neatly into two classes. The first, usually but not always molecular biologists, believe that RNA must have been the first replicating molecule and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulties of nucleotide synthesis. They believe that a few more striking chemical "surprises" will establish that a reasonable approximation to a racemic version of the molecular biologist's pool could have formed on the primitive earth and that further experiments with different activating groups and minerals will solve the enantiomeric cross-inhibition problem. The second group of scientists are much more pessimistic. They believe that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive earth would have been a near miracle. (The authors subscribe to this latter view.)"

Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 19. The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993.

https://cshmonographs.org/index.php/monographs/article/view/3786/3003

 

 

 

Quote

The biggest problem of single cell to multicellurlar life is simply the DNA.

Na, that's a Begging The Question Fallacy:  where'd you get the 'Single Cell', FIRST...?

 

And actually it's not only Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE to obtain ONE Functional Molecule (DNA or 30 mer RNA /Protein) let alone "LIFE", the Elephant in the Room is you have to Scientifically Validate Nature/Natural Phenomenon "Poofing" INFORMATION into existence.

"DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."

Hood, L., Galas, D.,: The Digital Code of DNA: Nature 421, 444-448 (23 January 2003) |  doi :10.1038/nature01410

"There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopædia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopædia Britannicas"

Richard Dawkins; The Blind Watchmaker, p. 116

But INFORMATION is nether Matter or Energy...

Norbert Wiener Professor Mathematics MIT...

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy.”
Wiener, N., Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Hermann et Cie, The Technology Press, Paris, 1948.

 

Come to think of it, all of this Nonsensical Buffoonery is painfully Academic, because...

In order for " MATTER " to Exist, there MUST BE  A 

" KNOWER " .... FIRST !!!

 

 

 

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."--- 

Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist): The Quantum Theory and Reality; Scientific American, 1979, p. 151.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf

 

"Quantum Theory thus denies the physically real world INDEPENDENT OF IT'S OBSERVATION". {emphasis mine}
Rosenblum B., Kuttner, F: The Quantum Enigma; Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 7

"You often hear that the Observer was brought into Physics by Quantum Mechanics but it was not a Passive Observer...Quantum Mechanics brought the human being into science not only as an Observer, a Passive Observer...but as an AGENT;  And that is the Key Point.  In order to make Quantum Mechanics WORK, you've got to bring the Human Agent into the equations of Quantum Mechanics---into the Dynamics, @ the outset."
Prof. Henry Stapp Particle Physicist: United Nations Briefing; 11 Sept 08

 

“The atoms or elementary particles themselves ARE NOT REAL; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."  

Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Laureate, Physics); Physics and Philosophy, p.160

 

 

“The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable.”

Prof. Anton Zeilinger (Particle Physicist)

 

Sir Rudolph Peierls, PhD Nuclear Physics....

 

"The moment at which you can throw away one possibility and keep only the other is when you finally become conscience of the fact that the experiment has given one result... You see, the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS." {Emphasis Mine}

The Ghost in the Atom, p. 73-74 

 

 

Quote

Now if you mean single cell living populations evolving into plants and animals I have no issues.

1.  'evolving', what's that?  Please post the "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?

2.  So 'Whistle Past the Graveyard' and show us this 'evolving' of single cells to plants and animals...?

 

Quote

Let me just say, I'm a died in the wool creationist but don't underestimate the fact that they have some pretty formidable arguments.

They're arguments are Moronically Absurd both logically and scientifically.  My 12 Year old daughter could reduce the most eminent evolutionary biologist to a blithering idiot in 2 minutes.

Post The BEST of the BEST argument...?

 

Quote

Don't get me wrong, I believe wholeheartedly that God created life, about 6 thousand years ago.

That's wise but WHY do you believe that...?

 

Quote

I would simply advise caution when equivocating evolutionary biology with Darwinian naturalistic assumptions.

  Ahhh, that's what YOU did above !!

 

Quote

Think about it, Noah's Ark touches down on Ararat some 4,000 years ago and from those samplings of the originally created kinds there are now something like 2 million to 60 million species. My point is simply this, from those small populations you have diversity in all it's vast array.

Well you have one big problem... "SPECIES".  And is Laughable with your RANGE here:  2 Million to 60 Million

 

species, genus, family et al are merely a "CONVENTION" (The Taxonomic Classification System) used to categorize/classify.  It's a painfully arbitrary, human construct.

It's based on what the "Conventioneers" deem as similar characteristics then categorize. I can make one up right now...

Classification I: Duccolslopelgertz and Sluccols:

Duccolslopelgertz: These have hair, hands, forward-facing eyes, smelly armpits, most can calculate correctly 1 + 1 = 2 when challenged.

Sluccols: having hands, hair, handlike feet, and forward-facing eyes, agile tree dwellers, they cannot calculate 1 + 1 = 2 when challenged.

Are Duccolslopelgertz, Sluccols ??

Classification II:  

Duccolslopelgertz:  These have hair, hands, forward-facing eyes.

Sluccols: having hands, hair, and forward-facing eyes.

Are Duccolslopelgertz, Sluccols ??

Since the Classification System is arbitrary/contrived, if you use it for any other purpose than what it is EXCLUSIVELY meant for (simple categorization) --- e.g., Extrapolating Fairytale Ancestry et al, then you Ipso-Facto stand Face to Face with a Circular Reasoning Fallacy Fiasco from the Black Lagoon!!!

Get the Picture?

You're also in need of a serious block of instruction on heterozygosity and gene frequencies in relation to producing many variants (your 'species').  See: Research from Francisco Ayala (evolutionist) back in the day.

 

Quote

God provided for adaptive evolution

Really??  Post the Scripture...?

 

Quote

it's Darwinian naturalistic assumptions that are at the heart of the creation/evolution divide.

It's Pseudo-Science Fairytale "Just-So" Stories that are @ the heart of their fairytales;  there is no debate or divide.

 

regards           

[thilipsis]

On 11/17/2016 at 11:40 AM, Enoch2021 said:

1.  Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University (“Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist" -- Stephen Jay Gould)...

"I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades — evolution is a CHANGE IN GENE FREQUENCIES in populations — is NOT only NOT EXPLANATORY, BUT IS IN FACT MISLEADING."  {emphasis mine}
Mayr E. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge (MA): The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1988. p, 162.

2.  Funny that.

 

Huh??  Philosophies are Scientific Theories?? 

 

"Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process); e.g., Germ Theory.  Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED...

 

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {emphasis mine} 
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

Can you show ONE 'Philosophy' EVER that has been put through the Scientific Method...?

 

Using a term in two different senses in the same argument is 'discerned' as an Equivocation Fallacy:

Equivocation (Fallacy)--- The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/equivocation/

 

 

Actually, it's exponential magnitudes worse than a mere 'speculation'...

 

The de novo appearance of just the Physical "Functional " Molecules -- DNA, RNA, and Proteins (30 mer or larger) from their respective constituents (Sugar/Nucleo-bases/ activated Phosphates/Amino Acids) is such a Fairytale of Epic Proportions it's difficult to express it in language !!!  But I'll go ahead and try...

    

First of all, The Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) Research is an INVALID Scientific Inquiry; UNLESS...somebody has OBSERVED Life from Non-Life.  Why??  Well... they skipped the First Step of The Scientific Method: "Observe a Phenomenon"!!  It's not... "Conjure a Phenomenon" (lol).
It's Tantamount to Observing scorch marks on my Garage Wall; then Speculating that an Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragon caused it.  And what's this??...
This is a Complete Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy) and has the Quintessential Characteristic that "it"...can NEVER be Disproved!! (How convenient)...or so they thought   :

 

Of the ~500 Amino Acids (AA's) known, 23 of them are Alpha Amino Acids.  All Life requires and exclusively uses 20 Essential Alpha AA's.

1. Please show (CITE Source) of the "Natural" Formation of ALL 20 Essential Alpha AA's from their "Building Blocks"....?  (This is ONE of the dirty little secrets you never hear about, it's really quite mind numbing...but they know they can 'Whistle Past The Graveyard', because of the utter ignorance and "Blind" Faith of their target audience).

  
We could in-effect stop right here, but where's the fun in that...

2. Once you get all of the Alpha AA's "Naturally" (and...you won't), they exist "Naturally" as Stereoisomers...Enantiomers i.e., a 50/50 mix (Racemic Mixture/ Mirror Images/Chiral) Left Handed-Right Handed.  But LIFE exclusively uses Left-Handed Amino's (There are Exceptions but not material and outside the scope of our discussion).  To be "Functional" Proteins, you not only need their Primary Structure (Proper Sequence) but FORM (Secondary Structure) "Form = Function" motif.  ONE "right-handed" AA in the chain Compromises Secondary Structure...aka: Football Bat.
 

In EVERY SINGLE OOL Paper with AA's/Proteins (and SUGARS---we'll get to that), take a look @ "Materials and Methods" Section ... their other dirty little secret, you'll find EVERY-SINGLE TIME the word "PURIFICATION" or equivalent.  Because they **sequestered**---if Proteins, then left-handed AA's are chosen...if Sugars, then right-handed ones are chosen, before they even start on their "a priori" fairytale.
**This is so far beyond Unacceptable Investigator Interference and PROVES the need for Intelligent Agency!
 

3. The DeltaG for Polymerization of AA's to form Polypeptides is "Positive" i.e., Non-Spontaneous.
 

4. Peptide Bond Formation is "Condensation Reactions".  Ahhh, That is....Peptide Bonds won't form IN WATER, from both a Thermodynamic and Kinetic point of view... Peptide Bonds won't form between two AA zwitterions ---- this is the form AA's are found in Aqueous Environments.
You'd have better chances resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse than attempting even a cogent explanation of how this could be in the Galactic Universe of Possibility, let alone actually Physically/Chemically forming a 30 mer "FUNCTIONAL" Protein, "Naturally"!!  

AND...This is even before we discuss: Primary Structure, Sunlight which destroys AA's (and Nucleo-Bases), Mono/bi-functional moieties, pH, Cross Reactions, Brownian Motion, Hydrolysis, and Oxidation.

I suppose this is what the Grand Poobah of Origin of Life Research (Dr. Leslie Orgel) was referring to, when he said (His last DOCUMENTED WORDS before passing)...

 

Dr. Leslie Orgel's last Published Words after more than 50 Years of OOL Research...

 

"However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help."

Orgel LE (2008): The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology.

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0060018

 

"Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to divide neatly into two classes. The first, usually but not always molecular biologists, believe that RNA must have been the first replicating molecule and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulties of nucleotide synthesis. They believe that a few more striking chemical "surprises" will establish that a reasonable approximation to a racemic version of the molecular biologist's pool could have formed on the primitive earth and that further experiments with different activating groups and minerals will solve the enantiomeric cross-inhibition problem. The second group of scientists are much more pessimistic. They believe that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive earth would have been a near miracle. (The authors subscribe to this latter view.)"

Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 19. The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993.

https://cshmonographs.org/index.php/monographs/article/view/3786/3003

 

 

 

Na, that's a Begging The Question Fallacy:  where'd you get the 'Single Cell', FIRST...?

 

And actually it's not only Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE to obtain ONE Functional Molecule (DNA or 30 mer RNA /Protein) let alone "LIFE", the Elephant in the Room is you have to Scientifically Validate Nature/Natural Phenomenon "Poofing" INFORMATION into existence.

"DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."

Hood, L., Galas, D.,: The Digital Code of DNA: Nature 421, 444-448 (23 January 2003) |  doi :10.1038/nature01410

"There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopædia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopædia Britannicas"

Richard Dawkins; The Blind Watchmaker, p. 116

But INFORMATION is nether Matter or Energy...

Norbert Wiener Professor Mathematics MIT...

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy.”
Wiener, N., Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Hermann et Cie, The Technology Press, Paris, 1948.

 

Come to think of it, all of this Nonsensical Buffoonery is painfully Academic, because...

In order for " MATTER " to Exist, there MUST BE  A 

" KNOWER " .... FIRST !!!

 

 

 

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."--- 

Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist): The Quantum Theory and Reality; Scientific American, 1979, p. 151.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf

 

"Quantum Theory thus denies the physically real world INDEPENDENT OF IT'S OBSERVATION". {emphasis mine}
Rosenblum B., Kuttner, F: The Quantum Enigma; Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 7

"You often hear that the Observer was brought into Physics by Quantum Mechanics but it was not a Passive Observer...Quantum Mechanics brought the human being into science not only as an Observer, a Passive Observer...but as an AGENT;  And that is the Key Point.  In order to make Quantum Mechanics WORK, you've got to bring the Human Agent into the equations of Quantum Mechanics---into the Dynamics, @ the outset."
Prof. Henry Stapp Particle Physicist: United Nations Briefing; 11 Sept 08

 

“The atoms or elementary particles themselves ARE NOT REAL; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."  

Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Laureate, Physics); Physics and Philosophy, p.160

 

 

“The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable.”

Prof. Anton Zeilinger (Particle Physicist)

 

Sir Rudolph Peierls, PhD Nuclear Physics....

 

"The moment at which you can throw away one possibility and keep only the other is when you finally become conscience of the fact that the experiment has given one result... You see, the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS." {Emphasis Mine}

The Ghost in the Atom, p. 73-74 

 

 

1.  'evolving', what's that?  Please post the "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?

2.  So 'Whistle Past the Graveyard' and show us this 'evolving' of single cells to plants and animals...?

 

They're arguments are Moronically Absurd both logically and scientifically.  My 12 Year old daughter could reduce the most eminent evolutionary biologist to a blithering idiot in 2 minutes.

Post The BEST of the BEST argument...?

 

That's wise but WHY do you believe that...?

 

  Ahhh, that's what YOU did above !!

 

Well you have one big problem... "SPECIES".  And is Laughable with your RANGE here:  2 Million to 60 Million

 

species, genus, family et al are merely a "CONVENTION" (The Taxonomic Classification System) used to categorize/classify.  It's a painfully arbitrary, human construct.

It's based on what the "Conventioneers" deem as similar characteristics then categorize. I can make one up right now...

Classification I: Duccolslopelgertz and Sluccols:

Duccolslopelgertz: These have hair, hands, forward-facing eyes, smelly armpits, most can calculate correctly 1 + 1 = 2 when challenged.

Sluccols: having hands, hair, handlike feet, and forward-facing eyes, agile tree dwellers, they cannot calculate 1 + 1 = 2 when challenged.

Are Duccolslopelgertz, Sluccols ??

Classification II:  

Duccolslopelgertz:  These have hair, hands, forward-facing eyes.

Sluccols: having hands, hair, and forward-facing eyes.

Are Duccolslopelgertz, Sluccols ??

Since the Classification System is arbitrary/contrived, if you use it for any other purpose than what it is EXCLUSIVELY meant for (simple categorization) --- e.g., Extrapolating Fairytale Ancestry et al, then you Ipso-Facto stand Face to Face with a Circular Reasoning Fallacy Fiasco from the Black Lagoon!!!

Get the Picture?

You're also in need of a serious block of instruction on heterozygosity and gene frequencies in relation to producing many variants (your 'species').  See: Research from Francisco Ayala (evolutionist) back in the day.

 

Really??  Post the Scripture...?

 

It's Pseudo-Science Fairytale "Just-So" Stories that are @ the heart of their fairytales;  there is no debate or divide.

 

regards           

What was that? The working definition I'm using is responded to with some rambling description of Mayr, why? I don't think you wrote most of this, I think you just copy and pasted it and I have to wonder if you read my post because most of what your responding with has little to do with what I said.

 

[Enoch2021]

2 minutes ago, thilipsis said:

What was that?

So let me get this straight, you quote my ENTIRE POST discussing (in excruciating detail) many subjects and this is your response? 

 

Quote

The working definition I'm using...

1.  What is a 'Working Definition'?  Compare/Contrast a 'Working' definition with just a plain ole run-o-the-mill definition...?

2.  'Working definition' of what??

 

Quote

some rambling description of Mayr

What's a 'Rambling' Description...?  Compare/Contrast a 'Rambling' description with just a plain ole run-o-the-mill description, THEN show how Professor Mayr's definition is 'Rambling' so as to SUPPORT your inane claim...?

 

Quote

why?

Well you said...

"First of all 'evolution' is generally defined as the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time."

Then I Retorted with...

"I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades — evolution is a CHANGE IN GENE FREQUENCIES in populations — is NOT only NOT EXPLANATORY, BUT IS IN FACT MISLEADING."  {emphasis mine}
Mayr E. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge (MA): The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1988. p, 162.

Essentially 'Clobbering' your offering into the Incoherent Oblivion. 

 

Quote

I don't think you wrote most of this

  Then Who, pray tell... do 'YOU THINK' did??

 

Quote

I think you just copy and pasted it

Copy and Paste, eh?  Can you share the rationale of What on Earth does Copy and Paste have to do with the Veracity of the Message? Would it be better if I typed it out from Scratch?

Define Non-Sequitur (Fallacy)..?

 

What if a Professor wrote up a lesson plan, then wrote on the board: "Protein Secondary Structure is crucial for functionality and is conferred by Functional Sequence Complexity (Primary Structure), and Hydrogen Bonding". 

Then later that evening, decided to email the class the exact same text...but didn't feel like writing it out again....so merely "Copy and Pasted" from the lesson plan to the email.

Is the message in the email now COMPROMISED..because it was Copy and Pasted??

You wouldn't happen to be Pre-Law by chance?

 

Would the students dismiss it out of hand due to lack of credibility? 

I understand though, you have no coherent SUPPORT for any position, so you're reduced to feebly conjuring inane improprieties, right? 

 

This is Tantamount to saying: Your Case is Refuted because you: wrote it in German, submitted it on Legal Paper (wrong Stationary), used 'Word Pad" instead of "Microsoft Word", it's in Blue Ink rather than Black, used the wrong Font, Folded it, Stapled it, ad nauseam.

 

I mean, R-Ya-Kiddin me sir?

 

 

The Parts that have something like this: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0060018 or this: Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Laureate, Physics); Physics and Philosophy, p.160 beneath them, are called CITATIONS.  No I didn't "WRITE' them...because they're CITATIONS.  

They're employed everyday from 5th Grade to the Supreme Court and are used EXTENSIVELY in Scientific Literature in SUPPORT of Claims.

 

The Parts that don't have a "CITATION" are my words.

 

Is there something here that's confusing that you need more elaboration on??

 

Quote

and I have to wonder if you read my post because most of what your responding with has little to do with what I said.

Really?? Can you stop 'Wondering' for a moment then show us EXPLICITLY ONE CASE that supports your Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy...?

 

regards

[thilipsis]

1 hour ago, Enoch2021 said:

So let me get this straight, you quote my ENTIRE POST discussing (in excruciating detail) many subjects and this is your response? 

 

1.  What is a 'Working Definition'?  Compare/Contrast a 'Working' definition with just a plain ole run-o-the-mill definition...?

2.  'Working definition' of what??

 

What's a 'Rambling' Description...?  Compare/Contrast a 'Rambling' description with just a plain ole run-o-the-mill description, THEN show how Professor Mayr's definition is 'Rambling' so as to SUPPORT your inane claim...?

 

Well you said...

"First of all 'evolution' is generally defined as the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time."

Then I Retorted with...

"I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades — evolution is a CHANGE IN GENE FREQUENCIES in populations — is NOT only NOT EXPLANATORY, BUT IS IN FACT MISLEADING."  {emphasis mine}
Mayr E. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge (MA): The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1988. p, 162.

Essentially 'Clobbering' your offering into the Incoherent Oblivion. 

 

  Then Who, pray tell... do 'YOU THINK' did??

 

Copy and Paste, eh?  Can you share the rationale of What on Earth does Copy and Paste have to do with the Veracity of the Message? Would it be better if I typed it out from Scratch?

Define Non-Sequitur (Fallacy)..?

 

What if a Professor wrote up a lesson plan, then wrote on the board: "Protein Secondary Structure is crucial for functionality and is conferred by Functional Sequence Complexity (Primary Structure), and Hydrogen Bonding". 

Then later that evening, decided to email the class the exact same text...but didn't feel like writing it out again....so merely "Copy and Pasted" from the lesson plan to the email.

Is the message in the email now COMPROMISED..because it was Copy and Pasted??

You wouldn't happen to be Pre-Law by chance?

 

Would the students dismiss it out of hand due to lack of credibility? 

I understand though, you have no coherent SUPPORT for any position, so you're reduced to feebly conjuring inane improprieties, right? 

 

This is Tantamount to saying: Your Case is Refuted because you: wrote it in German, submitted it on Legal Paper (wrong Stationary), used 'Word Pad" instead of "Microsoft Word", it's in Blue Ink rather than Black, used the wrong Font, Folded it, Stapled it, ad nauseam.

 

I mean, R-Ya-Kiddin me sir?

 

 

The Parts that have something like this: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0060018 or this: Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Laureate, Physics); Physics and Philosophy, p.160 beneath them, are called CITATIONS.  No I didn't "WRITE' them...because they're CITATIONS.  

They're employed everyday from 5th Grade to the Supreme Court and are used EXTENSIVELY in Scientific Literature in SUPPORT of Claims.

 

The Parts that don't have a "CITATION" are my words.

 

Is there something here that's confusing that you need more elaboration on??

 

Really?? Can you stop 'Wondering' for a moment then show us EXPLICITLY ONE CASE that supports your Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy...?

 

regards

I'm not sure how the formatting on here works so taking this line by line is awkward. I don't know why it seems significant that you 'clobbered' my definition of 'evolution', the change all alleles (traits) in populations over time has worked fine for me for years. Yea, that definition is attributed to Mayr, I fail to see how such a general working definition has any bearing on this. What is more you going through and calling things fallacies and the fact is I haven't really started an argument yet, just making some general comments trying to get a feel for the topic. 

Let's try this again, there are not one but two definitions for evolution that are passed off as the same thing. The change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. That's about as basic as it gets but when they talk about the 'theory of evolution' it's more of a reference to Darwinism I think is best summed up in this quote:

In these works he (Lamarck) upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.  (Darwin, On the Origin of Species. Preface)

This comes down to an a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. As opposed to how adaptive evolution works as a phenomenon in nature. Nothing is going to be debated here unless we manage to get a handle on the subject matter, defining core terms is pretty foundational.

I've spent a lot of time on the subject matter, read a lot about paleontology and comparative genomics. I have long held that the key issues is human evolution in general and the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes specifically. I really don't know what you are trying to do with this but there is really no point in dismissing everything as fallacies or clobbering general working definitions. I'm a Biblical Creationist who happens to think the Genesis account of creation allows for an old earth. God created the 'heavens' and the 'earth' at some time in the past referred to by 'in the beginning'. That could have been just before creation week or billions of years previously. The Genesis account describes the creation of the biosphere being made suitable for life, then the creation of life in general and man in particular about six thousand years ago.

If that sounds like that would be of interest to you let me know.

Grace and peace

 

Edited November 18, 2016 by thilipsis

[Enoch2021]

21 hours ago, thilipsis said:

I don't know why it seems significant that you 'clobbered' my definition of 'evolution', the change all alleles (traits) in populations over time has worked fine for me for years.

Well because "Your" definition is bunk.

 

Quote

Yea, that definition is attributed to Mayr, I fail to see how such a general working definition has any bearing on this.

Again your Appeal to a 'Working' definition is inane.  For the 2nd Time... What is a 'Working Definition'?  Compare/Contrast a 'Working' definition with just a plain ole run-o-the-mill definition...?

You fail to see that "Your" definition (Change in Allele Frequency) and Ernst Mayr's (Professor of Zoology Harvard and identified as "The Worlds Greatest living evolutionary biologist" ----Gould) pummeling of said definition...has any bearing?? 

 

Quote

What is more you going through and calling things fallacies and the fact is I haven't really started an argument yet

Well Logical Fallacies are Logical Fallacies whether you think you're in an argument or not.

 

Quote

Let's try this again, there are not one but two definitions for evolution that are passed off as the same thing. 

Well that's called a TEXTBOOK...

Equivocation Fallacy --- when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument. 

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/equivocation/

 

Quote

 

That's about as basic as it gets but when they talk about the 'theory of evolution' it's more of a reference to Darwinism I think is best summed up in this quote:

In these works he (Lamarck) upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.  (Darwin, On the Origin of Species. Preface)

 

 

The BIGGIST problem is you clearly don't know what a REAL "Scientific Theory" is...

"theory" (Colloquial):  Abject Speculation !! 

 

"Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process); e.g., Germ Theory.  Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED...

 

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {emphasis mine} 
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

Does your "Lamarckian" 'theory of evolution' meet any of the criteria above??  Is it a VIABLE "Scientific Theory"?? Case Closed...unless you have another offering?

 

And...

 

"Although the name "Lamarck" is now associated with a discredited view of evolution, the French biologist's notion that organisms inherit the traits acquired during their parents' lifetime had common sense on its side."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/02/3/l_023_01.html

 

 

Quote

This comes down to an a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means going all the way back to and including the Big Bang.

Well we don't do "a priori" assumptions in "Science", we Hypothesis TEST.  However, they do "a priori" assumptions in Metaphysical Fairytale "Just-So" Story Telling --- evolution, big bang, multiverses, "spinning balls", billions of years, ect.

 

Quote

Nothing is going to be debated here unless we manage to get a handle on the subject matter, defining core terms is pretty foundational.

You let me know when you have "a" viable definition and Scientific Theory.  mmm K? 

 

Quote

I've spent a lot of time on the subject matter, read a lot about paleontology and comparative genomics.

Well paleontology isn't a "SCIENCE", #1 ; and...

Comparative Genetics??  Begging The Question Fallacy: Where'd you get Genes?

Ya see, before you go and 'post hoc' your way into another Begging The Question Fallacy from the Black Lagoon, you first have to DEFINE specifically what it is you're providing evidence for 

btw, have you read this...

"Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination."

N. A. Takahata, "Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (vol. 26, 1995), p. 343.

IAW, SEE: Metaphysical Fairytale "Just-So" Story Telling above.

 

Quote

I have long held that the key issues is human evolution in general

1.  "evolution", what's that??  Then Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

2.  Provide the BASIS for 'you holding'...?

  

Quote

I really don't know what you are trying to do with this but there is really no point in dismissing everything as fallacies or clobbering general working definitions.

Well I'm pointing out (quite clearly and cogently)--- with sound reasoning (the opposite of Logical Fallacies) and established Scientific Principles, that your knowledge of the subject is an unmitigated disaster--to be kind.

 

Quote

I'm a Biblical Creationist who happens to think the Genesis account of creation allows for an old earth. 

1.  Key statement 'I happen to think'.   How/why do you happen to think that way ??

2.  Old Earth??  Please Scientifically Validate the Age of the Earth/Universe...?  That is, Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then Experiment that VALIDATES your claim...?  Highlight the "Independent Variable" used in your TEST...?

 

Quote

That could have been just before creation week or billions of years previously.

Based on what...?

And isn't "Creation" of Heaven and Earth part of... "CREATION" week??

 

regards

 

[thilipsis]

 

Quote

Well because "Your" definition is bunk.

Well your argument is an obviously ad hominem and it's what you resort to when you have nothing else. Scathing personal arguments are not substantive, they are illogical melodrama. Differentiating between the phenomenon in nature known as 'evolution' and Darwinian naturalistic evolution also known as the 'theory' of evolution are two different things passed off as if they were the same thing which is an equivocation fallacy.  

Quote

Again your Appeal to a 'Working' definition is inane.  For the 2nd Time... What is a 'Working Definition'?  Compare/Contrast a 'Working' definition with just a plain ole run-o-the-mill definition...?

If you want to define, 'evolution' then be my quest but I'm not chasing this around the mulberry bush. 

Quote

You fail to see that "Your" definition (Change in Allele Frequency) and Ernst Mayr's (Professor of Zoology Harvard and identified as "The Worlds Greatest living evolutionary biologist" ----Gould) pummeling of said definition...has any bearing?? 

You fail to see that during the Modern Synthesis Darwinism and Mendelian Genetics were blended. That's why evolution in this day and age reflects population genetics, which is statistical variance, which is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Your too busy attacking the person to focus on the substantive aspects of these issues. 

Quote

Well Logical Fallacies are Logical Fallacies whether you think you're in an argument or not.

Well that's called a TEXTBOOK...

Equivocation Fallacy --- when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument. 

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/equivocation/

From your link that you didn't bother to quote or discuss:

For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning each time they appear in its premises or conclusion. Arguments that switch between different meanings of words equivocate, and so don’t work. This is because the change in meaning introduces a change in subject. If the words in the premises and the conclusion mean different things, then the premises and the conclusion are about different things, and so the former cannot support the latter. (Equivocation Fallacy)

Evolution is not one thing but two, it's the change of allele frequencies in populations over time and it's the Darwinian philosophy of natural history that presupposes universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic causes. 

Quote

The BIGGIST problem is you clearly don't know what a REAL "Scientific Theory" is...

"theory" (Colloquial):  Abject Speculation !! 

 

No the biggest problem is that you like correcting things that are not errors without pertaining those random corrections to anything substantive. Science, as we have come to understand it today, was a product of the Scientific Revolution. It was an inductive approach that was the inverse of the Medieval Aristotelian deductive logic. With the advent of tools, mental and physical, like the Y squared and the telescope a new approach was forged. Newton sent his Experimentum Crucis, which was a serious of demonstrations, published and submitted to the Royal Society in London. 

If the arrival of the modern scientific age could be pinpointed to a particular moment and a particular place, it would be 27 April 1676 at the Royal Society, for it was on that day that the results obtained in a meticulous experiment-the experiment crucis-where found to fit with the hypothesis, so transforming a hypothesis into a demonstrable theory.  (Isaac Newton, The Last Sorcerer, by Michael White) 

It was attempted to argue from a priori deductive logic but Newton argued that since he had demonstrated the principle it could only be disproven through demonstration. This silenced his critics, science has held to that standard ever since. Newton, once in a coffee shop challenged his colleagues with a wager over the Y² in motion. He said a comet will appear in the eastern sky in May, if they could calculate when it will appear in the western sky on it's return trip he would give them an uncut (brand new) book on astronomy worth over 700 pounds. They couldn't do it so very politely one of them asked if he had calculated it. He said, 'yes, of course', so he asks to see the calculations and Newton agreed to try to find them. When he was unable to do so he reproduced the calculations and as a result he ended up writing Principia, this was the first application of an emerging math we now know as calculus. In Principia Newton describes the rules of science:

1. Admit no more causes of natural things than are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances,
2. To the same natural effect, assign the same causes,
3. Qualities of bodies, which are found to belong to all bodies within experiments, are to be esteemed universal, and
4. Propositions collected from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate or very nearly true until contradicted by other phenomena. (Four Rules of Scientific Reasoning from Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton)

We learned that science is a process where you test hypothesis, frame a theory explaining the data and when the principle is sufficiently universal it's determined to be a law of science. To date, the only scientific laws governing evolution are the Mendelian laws of heredity which propelled Genetics ahead by leaps and bounds over the hundred years from Chromosome theory to the unveiling of the Initial Sequence of the Human Genome:

The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century1, 2, 3 sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same.

The last quarter of a century has been marked by a relentless drive to decipher first genes and then entire genomes, spawning the field of genomics. (Initial Sequence of the Human Genome, Nature Feb. 2001)

You see, l do know what a theory is and this is getting tedious. I'm well read on the subject of comparative genomics, especially the DNA of chimpanzees and humans. I have a special interest in human brain evolution and if you would like to learn more about that I suggest you start working with me and stop trying to turn this into a contest. 

Quote

And isn't "Creation" of Heaven and Earth part of... "CREATION" week??

That is an interesting question, after looking carefully at the text of Genesis it would appear to be an open question. I would have to answer, perhaps, but there is an alternate reading. God created the, 'heavens and the earth', a Hebrew idiom for the universe. At some time subsequent, perhaps minutes, perhaps billions of years, God started his work of creation on earth that was complete in six literal days. What I think is going on is that the radiometric dating in geology is getting samples from fossil beds that are showing indications of old age, the fossils are becoming mineralized from elements that may well be very old but it is useless to determine the age of the fossils. 

Don't get me wrong, radiometric dating is quite useful, it can be highly useful when examining archaeology evidence. I found a study of the ashes at Ai where the city was destroyed by fire around the time of the Joshua conquest. The date was hard to determine because ash isn't your best source for radiometric dating but the date is very close to the Biblical timeline. 

Now I intend to keep my word, if you want me to make an argument for Darwinian evolution I can do that. But we are not going to get anywhere simply exchanging biting personal remarks. They had me on the ropes and I was even willing to rearrange some of my theology to accommodate Darwinian evolution right up until the publication of the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome. To date I have not been able to find an evolutionist that has an answer for the indels (insertions/deletions) thought responsible for extremely long divergent strands in the human and chimpanzee genomes respectively. 

Grace and peace

Edited November 19, 2016 by thilipsis
transcript errors

[Churchmouse]

Where is the evidence that we as who we portray ourselves as being is actually who we actually are, instead of a fanciful image we like to be known as being. Prove this, prove that.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Churchmouse

[kwikphilly]

Blessings

   I was just about to reply  to thilipsis after reading his intitial post ,especially because of this

Quote

First of all 'evolution' is generally defined as the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. That pretty much makes everyone an evolutionist. The 'theory of evolution' on the other hand is what is otherwise known as Darwinism which is a philosophy of natural history that presupposes exclusively naturalistic causes. We do well to discern the difference. 

My definition would have been simply....evolution ISN"T,so how does one define nothing???   Errr"Science Fiction"      Philosophy of natural history thatb presupposes naturalistic causes????Huh?.......I was merely going to end my comment there & then I saw Enoch,he took point by point,answered every one and the reply was "What did anything have to do with what I wrote?Seriously?

 Well,DARRELX asked four questions,I couldn't wait to hear the replies......as usual,none    Though I do enjoy Sci-Fi I was in the mood for something on a serious note