“Evolution, the Grand Experiment” Chapter 10: The fossil record of Pinnipeds: Seals and Sea Lions

I’m reviewing the whole of Dr. Carl Werner’s “Evolution, the Grand Experiment” vol 1 on this blog. See this link for past chapter reviews.

This review is for chapter 10: The fossil record of Pinnipeds: Seals and Sea Lions.

Sea lions are up first. Dr. Werner gives some information about them. First line, first paragraph.

Sea lions can be distinguished from seals by the presence of a visible ear. There are various forms of sea lions living today, such as the California sea lion, the Australian sea lion and the Stellar sea lion.

Sea lions are highly streamlined and can swim at speeds of up to 25 miles per hour. They can hold their breath for up to 15 minutes. Their front extremities are fin-like an are used during the swimming power stroke.

Dr. Werner describes sea lions’ webbed feet and the ability and strength it needs to dive as deeply as it can. Its body must withstand high pressures to dive as deeply as it does.

Dr. Werner describes some confusion over whether a sea lion evolved from a dog-like creature or a bear-like creature. Scientists can’t agree, because no fossils have been found for a sea lion ancestor. Dr. W also points out that scientists who oppose evolution ask, “Where is the evidence?” He points out again that no fossils have been found.

The next page shows three photos of sea lions. One photo shows a circle around an ear and says, “Sea lions can be distinguished from seals by the presence of external ears.”

The next page says, “What animal evolved into a sea lion?” Then it shows two pictures of a modern golden retriever. And another photo of a modern bear with lines pointing from the dog and bear to a sea lion. There are question marks between them. The bottom text on the page says, “A dog? A bear? Or Neither?”

The next page reinforces that no fossils have been found  by quoting a Dr. Irina Koretsky from the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History and Dr. Annalisa Berta from San Diego State University.

Dr. Berta quote says, “And the earliest animal that we’ve recognized has the name Pithanotaria. It’s very similar in terms of its body size and morphology to the modern sea lions.”

I googled Pithanotaria (link), and I couldn’t quickly discover what it was. I must interject that I find it odd that this quote includes a possible ancestor of sea lions, but Dr. W makes no effort to describe what it is.

I must also point out that the reason evolution believes that sea lions came from a sort of bear or dog is because bears and dogs are found to be closely related in evolutionary terms.

Dr. W says,

Despite this peculiar imbalance in the fossil record, scientists continue to hold out hope.

There’s a quote from a Harvard professor saying that he’s expecting a fossil discovery to emerge quietly soon.

The next section is about Seals. In a bout of redundancy, Dr. W says, “Seals are highly streamlined. They can dive to extreme depths, sometimes diving nearly a mile deep, and can hold their breath for an amazing two hours at a time.”

Dr. W says that similarities in seals, skunks, and otters mean that it’s where scientists think they evolved.

“Scientists who oppose evolution do not believe seals evolved,” says Dr. W. “Animals having similar features is not a justifiable proof of evolution. They suggest the fossil record does not correlate with the idea of a skunk or otter evolving into a seal. They ask: If evolution occurred, where are the fossils of a skunk or otter slowly changing into a seal.”

There is another question and answer series with Dr. Koretsky followed by a large-type statement:

5,000 fossil seals have been found, but the proposed evolutionary ancestors of seals have not been found.

After having responded to all the chapters previous to this one, I will forgo another response similar to my previous chapters. I’m not convinced that Dr. Werner is up front with his readers about evolution. He continues to refer to scientists that do not believe in evolution, but he does not name these scientists. Do they exist?

Despite all the google-able evidence for evolution of these animals, he continues to propose that evolution is untrue … notwithstanding the proposition that the claim that this is a balanced book, neither for or against evolution. The only argument against evolution Dr. Werner makes is that ancestral fossils can’t be found. But we continue to show how that’s not true.

Let me remind you that Dr. Werner isn’t trained in evolution. Neither am I. But I’m not claiming to debunk evolution. He’s a physician, and his and his wife’s hobby is traveling around the world interviewing scientists and taking photos of photos at museums. Dr. Werner continues to show a lackluster knowledge of evolution, and seems to be writing this book at a child’s level of intellect.

Again, I ask, how, then, should we take this book or Dr. Carl Werner seriously?

***UPDATE***

Crap, I forgot to post the pictures I took. Here they are so you can verify my work against Werners. It’s great that Werner wrote this as a child’s textbook. It makes it easy to allow you to do such a thing.

71 thoughts on ““Evolution, the Grand Experiment” Chapter 10: The fossil record of Pinnipeds: Seals and Sea Lions

  1. “Scientists who oppose evolution do not believe seals evolved,” says Dr. W. “Animals having similar features is not a justifiable proof of evolution. They suggest the fossil record does not correlate with the idea of a skunk or otter evolving into a seal. They ask: If evolution occurred, where are the fossils of a skunk or otter slowly changing into a seal.”

    Preposterous nonsense.

  2. I don’t know how you can pollute your brain with the puerile nonsense.

    Creationism is just a nasty, false, twisted bunch of lies.

    Why do all the C’s wind me up..Catholicism, Creationism and Crazies 🙂

  3. Thanks for the link, David. It’s so easy to find out what’s wrong with this book.

    It’s as if I’m already wasting my time reading it. Why do I have to find the counter to it when it’s so easily done?

    It is preposterous. I am looking forward to finishing.

    My goal now is to get one of those other 27 Pullmans to comment at least once on this blog. 🙂

  4. Hello,

    Werner’s book is among the worst I have seen (actualy, I’ve only seen what is available at Google Books, and I agree with your assessments).

    I should note the siliness of this notion of his – you sum up “Dr. Werner describes some confusion over whether a sea lion evolved from a dog-like creature or a bear-like creature.”

    As youl ater point out, this is a moot point, since bears and dogs evolved from a dog-bear-like ancestral group.

    In other words, Werner’s questions about seal and sea lion evolution are akin to wondering how it can be that he is related to both his great-great-great-great grandmother on his mother’s side AND his great-great-great-great grandfather on his father’s side…

    Truly silly sludge.

    1. More like the master troll.

      Would you care to expand on the part of the above post that’s “delusional” apart from the information written in poor Dr. Werner’s book?

  5. I have recently read Dr. Werner’s book and I find it astonishing that you can still believe in evolution after reading it. He quotes numerous scientists who believe in evolution, despite the fact that they continually say there is no evidence, in each specific scenario that Dr. Werner is writing about.

    Consider just one instance, the evolution of pterosaurs. He quotes Dr. Gunter Viohl, curator of the famous Jura Museum in Eichstatt, Germany, who says regarding pterosaurs, “The ancestors are not known…when the pterosaurs first appear in the geological record, they were completely perfect. They were perfect pterosaurs.”

    He also quotes Dr. Peter Wellnhofer, Curator Emeritus of the Bavarian State Collection of Paleontology in Munich, Germany, who said, “As for the ancestors, the possible ancestors of pterosaurs, there are only theories, hypotheses of course…In fact, it is a mystery which group of reptiles…might have given rise to the pterosaurs.”

    Scientific “facts” continue to change when observational science confirms their invalidity. As in the case of spontaneous generation, which was held to firmly by scientists for over 200 years. Observational science cannot prove evolution, yet evolutionist-scientists continue to believe. It will take some time, but as more and more science is observed that disproves evolution, the “fact” of evolution itself, will someday be history.

    1. Are you 8? You have the credulity of a youngster.

      Dr. Werner’s book isn’t written for adults nor did Dr. Werner treat it as such. It’s not academically sound, and that you could quote it as authority is astonishing.

      Did you verify those sources, because Dr. Werner surely didn’t? You can check his notes to verify it.

      Please read a book on evolution with some academic credibility and then respond. Then we can have a conversation.

      If the litmus test for scientific inquiry is written at the level only an 8 year old can appreciate, surely you have more issues that need to be worked out.

  6. Evolution has inumerous problems but evolutionists try to ignore them and atack the person who point out the errors.

  7. Listen,
    I think Werner is as swift as a one wheeled carriage strapped to a dead horse.
    I think he’s as dense as the middle of the periodic table.
    Those are personal attacks. When someone takes the time to read a book and critique it based on facts and evidence, that is not a personal attack.
    Disagreeing with someone is not a personal attack, nor is correcting them.
    The hand waving that goes on in the creationist camp just serves as further evidence of their inability to formulate an informed argument.
    If there is something substantive with which you disagree with Jeremy then point it out, reason why it’s wrong, and have a conversation.
    Otherwise, you are just betraying your ignorance.

  8. Ignorance is a bitch!

    -On fossil formation. The fact that an animal dies does not guarantee that a fossil will be left behind. Fossil formation is a rare process. The fossil record is incomplete and it will likely never be completed (see my previous statement for an explanation). This is not a secret in evolutionary biology, nor is it a weakness or impediment, we deal with what is available. That doesn’t mean that because we can’t find fossils for some species we ignore all the evidence from the fossil records we do have for these thousands of other species!
    -On common descent. Scientists are still trying to understand the evolutionary relationship between certain species. It is a complex process, one prone to mistakes and refinements. Sometimes discoveries are made in the field and confirmed in the lab, and other times discoveries are made in the lab and tested in the field. Once an evolutionary relationship is suspected, the next step is trying to determine, more or less, the point in time when the branching occurred. Is it always accurate? No. Has this worked before? Yes! Look at whale evolution, bat evolution, and more recently turtle evolution, where there is evidence of primitive shell formation!
    -On evolution’s weaknesses. What you ignorant misinformed idiots call weaknesses scientists call exciting research areas. Not a single scientist claims that evolution can fully explain all processes of speciation and variation. There is still tons we don’t know and guess what, we’re still experimenting and learning. Scientists continue to put forth hypotheses, test them, and either accept or reject conclusions. They refine future experiments based on previous results and move on, it’s called the scientific method; it’s self-correcting, it is open for debate, and it works!
    -On the issue of scientists who reject evolution. PZ mentioned a while ago there is a list containing about 700+ signatures of “scientists” who reject evolution. On examination the list reveals that the majority of these people are engineers, dentists, and people of other disciplines outside of the bench-top sciences. About 2% of the list contained people with actual Biology degrees who openly disagreed with evolution. When you consider the number of persons in disciplines of Geology, Paleontology, Evolution, Biology, Mol. Biology, Genetics, and others who do agree with evolution, this so-called list is not even a blip on the radar.

  9. I am afraid I have the mentality of an 8 year old also, but I make a living by repairing machines using logic to diagnose faults. These machines are sequenced by PLC’s. Each part has carefully been designed to function in co-operation with the other components to provide images on textiles.
    A single cell is millions of times more complex, any living organism makes these machines look like they were just an accident, yet everyone I have ever asked, has always agreed they were designed by an intelligent human being. Why do we see this in every simple electro-mechanical machines run by a digital code but not in a cell run by a much more complex digital code?

    I realise you will probably suggest or think I’m retarded and perhaps I am. But I will never understand this unless one of you highly intelligent and knowedgable people help me out.
    Best regards
    Chris

    1. Chris,

      I can appreciate that you tiptoed into this response, and that you left a response at all. I realize it can be daunting to throw your two cents into a cauldron of what you perceive as disdain.

      I’m sure you’re not retarded.

      I would like to take this opportunity to respond to you, perhaps in a different way than you might imagine. I hope that you check back to see if there was a response to you.

      I get what you’re saying. I really do. From an outside perspective and from within the belief perspective, evolution is blindingly difficult to accept. We get it.

      It’s like your faith, right? I mean, you seem reasonable. And you seem to be someone who takes faith seriously. But you know that not everyone is going to accept your standpoint no matter how hard you argue or offer advice.

      You agree that single cells are incredibly complex. You said it above. And that complexity leaves you with a feeling of awe. It’s so much awe that it matches what you know of God. God is so awe-inspiring that he’s too complex for knowledge.

      Here’s where I think I’m going to lose you, but I’m going to write it anyway.

      So God is complex and he created complex animals and life. He took time to write out the code that operates DNA that when the right ingredients are mixed, various DNA makes up the stuff of so many different, various, and amazing life.

      That’s your perspective right?

      Here’s where there’s a break in that logic, and maybe you can help me out. When it comes to writing a simple book with words that we can all read. When it comes to the most satiating way to give us knowledge about the deity who authored these brilliant animals and plants. Cells and bacteria.

      So with life: brilliance!

      But with words: failure after failure.

      And this book supposedly came from the almighty master and author of everything.

      Now i understand that you love the holy bible. Or you may say you do. Or you may look at it with the same healthy skepticism that you used to approach this response above.

      I hope you can agree that God included things in that book that aren’t so perfect. And I’m talking about killing people, and babies (babies!), and not giving us things that help, but perpetuating ignorance. He didn’t solve the problem of anti-biotics and science. He did a few miracles that cannot be replicated in any modern sense. He expects us to take his word that he created creation and a book to model our lives upon.

      I feel that I may have wasted my time responding to you. And I hope you know I really appreciated your response and hope that you consider, at least for a few minutes, what I wrote.

      Best and Merry Christmas.

      Jeremy

      1. Hi Jeremy
        Thanks very much for your reply, I appreciate you taking the time to respond particularly at this busy time of year. I wish you and your family a fabulous Christmas. You were right about my taking the Bible very seriously, in fact my wife and I do not celebrate Christmas, because of its pagan roots. We celebrate the birth, death, and ressurection of our Saviour Jesus Christ every day. I understand your reply quite well, because up until being 40, I was an atheist and believer in evolution, I was brought up in the church, but ditched it as soon as I was allowed to make my own decisions.

        I became annoyed by a Christian who what ever I said to enlighten them, just came back with Jesus Christ this, Jesus Christ that. I went to a seminar by a Christian called Josh Mcdowell. His testimony started me looking into the history of Christ.
        I realised that this man had to be God, all the disciples suffered terribly for their belief in Him, dying for it. Surely if He didn’t rise, at least one of them would have given up on the story, none of them gained wealth from it like many false TV evangelists today. They had no reason to hang onto a lie they had started.

        I became a Christian a few years later, when I asked Jesus to take over my life and fill me with His Spirit. It happened. No one can ever convince me that God doesn’t exist, or that the Bible is not His Word, because I know Him in my life. My marriage, my surviving being kidnapped in Lagos, my carrying on working doing a physical job on a broken knee which a surgeon two years ago told me was finished (no cartledge left), all can only be explained by God being with me, He answers my prayers, not always as I would like, but always for my ultimate good.

        The Bible is an amazing book, and I realise you won’t agree with my belief, but I would be honoured if you could and would spare the time to read and comment on what I write. I will just address what I see in the world in this reply.

        I believe in Genesis, that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. I won’t go into detail about Polonium halo’s, Helium levels in rock, salt levels, human population, genetic deterioration, because I am sure you are better informed of these things than myself.
        I would like to point out that Genesis tells us God created in 6 days with Adam and Eve being the final addition to the universe. Please bare with me in my folly, but if a scientist travelled back in time to late on day 6, how old do you think he would asses Adam and Eve to be? How old would he asses the trees, plants, and animals to be? How old would he asses the rocks to be? God created a complete world having the appearence of age, no scientist, even taking back with him all the tools and technology we have today would date anything that was made correctly.

        Now I believe God is perfect and that His creation was perfect, but He gave us the choice to love and obey Him or not. It had to be a real choice, or we would just have been like robots programmed to love him.
        When Adam chose to disobey, he knew that the result would be death, and sure enough God cursed His creation and things have been going downhill ever since.
        If God had not brought in death, all the really evil people would still be with us, every normal person would be living in fear under extreme dictatorship of the most evil, ruthless, selfish and murderous leaders the world has ever seen.

        In the Bible the nations which God used the Jews to destroy, were destroyed because of their sin, not because He only favoured the Jews. If babies were killed they are the lucky ones, because the Bible teaches that they go straight to heaven and never have to suffer in this world.

        Many of us are richly blessed today enjoying our lives immensely, but you ask the people who are starving or being terrorised by evil men whether they would like to stay here or go to be with the Lord, they have a totally different opinion of life on earth.
        I enjoy my life, I am not wealthy but I have more than I need, I assume you do too, it is easy for us to think, those poor children that missed out on life, but it is the poor adults that missed out on God that I feel sorry for.

        I hope you can understand my opinion, and thanks again for your patience.

        Best regards
        Chris

      2. Chris,

        It is interesting how two people look at the same material. I have read Josh McDowell extensively, and find him to be dishonest and the farthest possible candidate for respectable scholarly work.

        Your “proof” for God shows me that you’re willing to point into the faces of so many people who aren’t “saved” from their illness, or kidnapping, or molestation and laugh at them square in the face.

        What makes you better than they?

        I have trouble following your timeline. Were you an atheist while you were kidnapped and had a troubled knee? How is it that at 40 you went from atheist to belief? How is it that you seem smart and consider Josh McDowell more intelligent than experts in science?

        You say you were an atheist like me? I was a believer like you. I was taught to say/write verbatim the things you wrote below. You make claims about “science” by God’s hand making the earth appear “old” that biblical “scholars” tell people without any scholarly reference whatsoever.

        Your not making any sense, Chris. It doesn’t help that you write like I did when I was a teenager. And this is where you responded before in a self-deprecating way.

        I wish people like you wouldn’t perpetuate the ignorance of men who claim they know the face and thoughts of an unknowable beast who didn’t have the sense to write a better book in his name.

        Thanks for writing and keep searching … as I know I will.

        Jeremy

      3. “If babies were killed they are the lucky ones, because the Bible teaches that they go straight to heaven and never have to suffer in this world.”

        I am sickened by this, on so many levels.

      4. Tim,

        I completely overlooked that, as I was too boggled over the 10,000 year old earth, praise for Josh McDowell and claiming to be an atheist.

        Not being an active believer does not make an atheist. I have heard Christians make this statement a lot to establish a connection with atheists. I’ve even heard Christians say that they “behave like atheists.” Roll eyes.

        But thanking god for dead babies … the belief bar is set so low nothing will pass below it.

        Thank god people suffer? Thank god babies go to heaven?

        Thank god that he took his time to offer science and technology to save lives?

        Bullshit.

        Chris, it is terrifying that you can openly admit what you have on a public forum.

        I’m not sorry for you. I’m sorry for the people who look to you as a role model.

        Revolted,

        Jeremy

      5. >>I won’t go into detail about Polonium halo’s

        See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

        >>Helium levels in rock

        See: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE001.html

        >>salt levels

        See: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD301.html

        >>human population

        See: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html

        >>genetic deterioration

        See: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH320.html

        >>because I am sure you are better informed of these things than myself.

        Because knowledge of the current scientific advancements is power.

  10. “Why do we see this in every simple electro-mechanical machines run by a digital code but not in a cell run by a much more complex digital code?”

    Because it’s not a digital code unless you’re specifically looking at it that way. If you give it a cursory glance, the way that DNA codes for proteins might appear to be so; but, considering it was RNA and then DNA that, we think, might have formed first, from amino acids floating around in the world-oceans and muds and environments of the primordial Earth (the simple molecules initially had millions of years to find their way to bind to each other, the way atoms and molecules tend to do thanks to how their subatomic particles react to one another, over the entire surface of the planet), and then extremely simple cellular “life” and then more and more complex life built around channeling that DNA–pretty much every single thing we do, as individuals and as a species, is geared towards pushing our DNA to the next generation.

    Using DNA as a marker for the most successful creatures on the planet, bacteria are clearly the winners. They are everywhere. We ourselves are host to, I think, trillions. And if something were to form on another planet, chances are overwhelming it would at least be a form of bacterial life.

    So, you can look at it as a code. Or you could look at the DNA and see the chemical interactions through billions of years of genetic mutations that produced creatures inward-looking enough to see the chemical processes that make them tick.

    1. Hi Jeremy

      Time line:
      Brought up in church, but left at 16, believed evolution. no God. Very happy with this scenario.
      About 31 started arguing with believer but could not shake their faith about Jesus Christ.
      Went to Josh McDowell, and his seminar made me look into the history of Jesus Christ.
      Drew conclusion that Jesus Christ is a fact of history and was God.
      32 commited adutery and split up my family.
      Ignored what I had started to look into, and for about 8 years, lived with new woman.
      40ish relationship broke down became, free and single.
      41 made my first ever new year resolution, to read through the Bible in a year. Decided to read 3 chapters a day. Could not put it down finished it by around end of April. Prayed that God would forgive me and enter into my life, but thought I was too bad to be forgiven.
      However God did forgive me, He came into my life and changed me from the inside. My swearing just stopped, my obssesion with cars disappeared, and I felt different. I started to go to church and wanted to tell everyone that God is there.
      I got quite a bit of ridicule from work colleagues about Genesis, so started to read up about Creation and evolution.

      When I looked at the explanations for the amazing complexity we see, and read up about the complexity of a single cell, I realised from an engineering perspective that design was essential.

      Mr Shepherd explained that RNA resulted from chemical bonds and then brought about life and DNA. But I only ever see information as the product of intelligence. This code which you say is just the result of time and chemicals is massively complex, beyond anything we have managed. It has taken years of our best brains coupled with massive computing power to start to understand the sequences. Yet still we are only just beginning to get to grips with it.
      This code just happened over time?

      Say you allow 1 billion years for just our brains to develop. Science tells us that the brain has at least 100,000 billion electrical connections in it. That averages out at just over 11 new connections per hour continously for a billion years. The complexity we see in life is beyond just time and chemicals.
      If evolution is responsible for all the life forms we see developing over the last 4.5 billion years then it is an amazingly fast and effective process carrying out amazing development every second.

      I have never thanked God for dead babies. He judged those nations for attrocities like building live babies into the foundations of their buildings, and sacrificing babies and children on their altars.
      I am horrified that since atheistic evolution has become the dominating belief, we are once more sacrificing babies through abortion. However I do thank God that these precious babies after they have suffered during the abortion process go straight to be with the Lord.

      I don’t laugh in the face of those who have been kidnapped, or are suffering, I pray for them when I hear of their plight, probably with more understanding than if I had not gone through these things.
      I was kidnapped at Lagos airport in Nigeria, but because God had persuaded me to leave my credit cards at home, I lost only my cash and not my life. When I was released, I made contact with the company that I was supposed to be working at.
      They did not expect to see me.
      The owner of the company spoke to me about what had happened, when I explained he took me to the airport to meet airport security. I showed them why I had never seen the person who was supposed to meet me, and how someone else had copied my name, met me before the meeting point and ducked me under a fence, telling me his car was parked this side and it would save walking all the way round.
      God used me to save other peoples lives!

      My knee is not healed, I walk with a limp, and my leg won’t straighten. But because of prayer and trusting God for my work, He has kept me working on a knee which should be so painful I couldn’t walk. I do get some slight pain, particularly when I have had a hard day lifting and carrying heavy machinery, but I praise Him nearly everyday that He is keeping me going.

      When I look at the arrangement of our Solar system, the interdependence of life on earth, the massive complexity and wonderful things like reproduction, sight, hearing, touch, taste, antibodies, blood clotting, lungs, heart, arteries and viens. Our hands which are way beyond any of our robotics. I see wonderful design way beyond mans ability. There is only one reason to believe in time and chemicals, that is because you believe there is no God. I don’t need to search to find the truth, because God is a person I know well in my life.

      Could I ask you a few questions please.

      From my last post about the earth having age built in it. The Bible clearly states that God made everything in six days. You don’t need to be a scholar to understand that by day six it contained fish, birds, plant, trees, insects, animals and man. It obviously does not teach that it took millions of years to cool down. So my point was that if you believe the opposite that it evolved from the big bang, and you went back to day 6, your opinion would be that it was over 4 billion years old, when it was only 6 days old. Therefore as a Bible believer I don’t expect your age for the earth to tie in with mine, it can’t. Do you not agree with this conclusion?

      I know little about current evolution and origins theories. If DNA and RNA just happened, how did they manage to come up with all the wonderful range of life forms, by mutation?

      You say you used to be a believer, what changed your mind?

      You say my writings remind you of your teenage years, well I am basically an electrician, never was an intellectual, however I am very practical, I use what God gave me to the best of my ability. He has however given me an understanding of the Bible which answers my queries, and ties in with what I see in the world.

      Sincere and best regards

      Chris

      1. >>”If DNA and RNA just happened[…]”

        They did not “just happen”. You said it yourself, you know very little about the subject, and yet you’re passing such damning judgment?

        As I explained above, if you take the view (that is currently held by the vast majority of scientists, as well, and buttressed by empirical studies that were subject to peer review, and not held as uncompromising, unquestioned dogma) that the Earth is several billions of years old, and that the universe is around tens of billions, it becomes easy to show how simple molecules, forming in the early environments all over our planet, could have done what molecules tend to do (which, even for someone like myself that barely understands chemistry) and start to form bonds with other molecules and atoms. In an open environment with trillions upon trillions upon trillions of molecules interacting, and with energy pouring in from the sun and other sources, it’s a small wonder that something started to form replicating strands that would later coalesce into RNA and DNA.

        See:
        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

        >>”When I look at the arrangement of our Solar system[…]”

        Do you see the rampant chaos? The comets and other stellar debris that might still hit our planet and obliterate it? Do you see how we are close enough to our star that when it starts to die its outer layers will be close enough to incinerate our planet? Do you see our moon eventually leaving our gravitational dance? Do you see the dead planets that ours could have been?

        >>”the interdependence of life on earth”

        That we desperately need the sun to continue living, and without the birth of which from prior stellar violence we would not have come into being? Do you see the inefficiency of requiring constant nourishment? The absurdity of requiring a mate to pass on our genetic information? How even we humans are prey animals?

        >>”the massive complexity and wonderful things like reproduction[…]”

        Reproduction can be dangerous to many species; it’s a time of weakness that in other species can lead to the death of both mother and children. For some reason bacteria, the most successful life forms on our planet, don’t require another bacteria to mate with; it makes you wonder if the complexity is even a good thing, considering all the things that can and do go wrong with sexual reproduction.

        That doesn’t mean it’s all bad of course, but the sexual reproduction as we know it is clunky and easy to fault. Natural miscarriages happen all the time, and complications can arise that lead to the death of the mother. A study shows the death rate associated with or around pregnancies here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16501342

        See also:
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.html
        http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may99.html
        http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/258768-overview

        >>”sight”

        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html
        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html
        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html

        >>”hearing”

        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html

        >>”taste”

        http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/28063.php

        >>”antibodies, blood clotting”

        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/
        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/icsic.html
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_2.html
        http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb97.html

        >>”[…]But I only ever see information as the product of intelligence.”

        You, nor anyone else has shown beyond “it looks like goddidit, therefore goddidit”. There have been no well-intentioned ways to show how to define something as “information”; things just “look like information”. It’s very subjective. Do the emissions from pulsars sound like information, too? Have a listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHEVo-LkDrQ

        And not only do things have to have more than just an appearance of “information”, however it is defined, but to even begin with the end goal in mind, that something looks designed, therefore designer, is dishonest at best. If there is indeed “information” in the haphazard way our genes are arranged (which, might I remind you, is entirely for the production of proteins) there should be some way to objectively point to a “designer” other than “this looks like information”, especially “information” that can also be shown to be directly related to billions of years of slow, painfully slow evolutionary processes.

        Related:
        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
        http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2010_08.html

        >>”This code just happened over time?”

        Code? It is not a code. Stop looking at it from a point of view that misconstrues it as such.

        As well, as stated before, it took a long time with an incredible number of interacting chemicals for the first “life” to even “begin”.

        See:
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html
        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html

        >>”Say you allow 1 billion years for just our brains to develop.”

        Not necessary, since complex organisms formed within the last 500 million years, with simple brains. It is not a stretch at all to think that, over generations and millions of years, brains that could deal with increased stimuli could be under environmental and genetic pressure to be selected for.

        See also:
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB303.html
        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_brains.html
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB400.html
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB400_1.html

        >>”That averages out at just over 11 new connections per hour continously for a billion years.”

        Amazing that you mathed that out! But it’s too bad that this calculation is pointless. If you don’t understand the theory or the processes, as you’ve said multiple times, how can you rationalize away the gradual growth of a collection of neurons over generations by performing math that doesn’t really say much of anything?

        I’ll give you something that should throw you for a loop: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis had a larger brain than we have now. Why is that?

        >>”The complexity we see in life is beyond just time and chemicals.”

        Do you comprehend how large our planet is? How big populations separating can increase or decrease genetic diversity and allelic frequency by leaps and bounds, through catastrophic environmental shifts? How, over the entire surface of our planet, there are enough organisms to make new populations over time?

        It’s a big math problem, I know. But humans aren’t easily capable of dealing with probabilities or big numbers easily.

        See:
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-book.html

        >>”If evolution is responsible for all the life forms we see developing over the last 4.5 billion years then it is an amazingly fast and effective process carrying out amazing development every second.”

        It is not fast, except for bacteria and other similar organisms. Why do you think we have a new flu vaccine every year? Why do you think it’s taking so long to provide a vaccine for HIV/AIDS? We’ve also experienced bacterial speciation in the lab, and have seen speciation in the field, but if it is as fast as you think it is, every large animal would be changing every moment of its life into something new, as your math problem with the growth of neurons above showed.

        Evolution works over long periods of time normally, and only through the passing of genetic material to new generations. It can speed up if there is a separation event or if a particular adaptation is selected for (like bacteria that develop immunities to our antibiotics). But you’re looking at generations before something big happens that even you might see as evolution.

        For your reading pleasure: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

        >>”I am horrified that since atheistic evolution has become the dominating belief, we are once more sacrificing babies through abortion.”

        Abortions have happened throughout all of human history, I can bet you good money on that; and not only that, but a good percent of pregnancies spontaneously miscarry anyway, which makes your god, if you believe it to be as such, one of the greatest abortion providers in all of history.

        Here, have a study on spontaneous miscarriages, I mean godly abortions: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/8/1720.full

        On abortions throughout history, educate yourself:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

        Moving on, it is not a belief: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

        >>”However I do thank God that these precious babies after they have suffered during the abortion process go straight to be with the Lord.”

        It’s amusing that you think that the “precious babies” might have felt some pain, or suffered — both without regard to the mothers who might have had to suffer through those pregnancies, and without knowledge of the current scientific understanding of the developing babies’ own nervous systems: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/06/why_a_new_study_on_fetal_pain.html

        Considering that the vast majority of abortions occur before the fetus can likely feel pain, you’ve got no leg to stand on: http://www.livescience.com/17529-trimester-abortions.html

        I’ll return to an earlier comment by you:

        >>”It has taken years of our best brains coupled with massive computing power to start to understand the sequences. Yet still we are only just beginning to get to grips with it.”

        You know why it’s taken this long to begin to understand this portion of ourselves? Because we didn’t know about it until sometime in the last century, and the sheer magnitude of the length of the strands of DNA in each of our chromosomes is far from complex (it is just two repeating pairs of molecules, after all), but like trying to count each of the particles of snow in an avalanche (and are avalanches complex?). Try that math problem on for size.

        >>”Do you not agree with this conclusion?”

        Yes, I can agree that you don’t know what you’re talking about with regards to your problems with an older universe, abiogenesis, evolution, geology, and science in general.

        See:
        http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

        Good day.

      2. MJ,

        Sorry for the slow approval. All your links sent this to approval limbo.

        This is an amazing response that should be more than read but thoroughly looked at.

        As opposed to ol’ Dr. Werner who wrote the “science” coloring book reviewed above, these references actually refer to legitimate sources.

        Imagine that …

      3. ‘Its small wonder that something started to form replicating strands that would later coalesce into RNA and DNA.’
        This to me is not a small wonder, but a miracle that these could occur over time, with no direction. This theory is based on Atheism, it looks at the evidence from one side. You are right no one has ever proved God, but thousands of people believed a couple of thousand years ago that they had seen Him. As I have tried to tell you, I know Him actively in my life, I can’t prove it so you can just presume I am a liar, but for what reason. There is only one thing to be gained by you believing in creation, your salvation! That is the only reason for me being on this site.
        You also can’t prove He doesn’t exist, but your science is based on the belief He doesn’t.

        ‘Not necessary, since complex organisms formed within the last 500 million years, with simple brains. It is not a stretch at all to think that over generations & millions of years, brains that could deal with increased stimuli could be under environmental and genetic pressure selected for.’
        This is illogical, it is impossible to select something that doesn’t exist.
        Oh hang on though perhaps Evodidit!

        ‘Might still hit our planet and obliterate it’.
        Yes I do see these things, to you it must seem like real good look that in 4.5 billion years our planet hasn’t been destroyed.

        Do I see ‘The absurdity of requiring a mate to pass on our genetic information’.
        I see absurdity in believing that from self replicating organisms various life forms arose which require two variations to work in an amazingly complex manner to reproduce themselves. What environmental pressures selected for that I wonder.
        Do you see the beauty of love involved in our relationships which lead to that reproduction. Evodidit???

        ‘But the sexual reproduction as we know it is chunky and easy to fault’.
        Our reproduction is totally amazing, just the journey for the sperm, with all the help it gets on the way, defies being selected for. It only works if it is all there. The dilation of the womans bones would not of had time to develop and be selected.

        ‘But to even begin with the end goal in mind, that something looks designed, therefore designer, is dishonest at best’.
        But to even begin with the end goal in mind, that something looks designed, therefore no designer, is crazy.
        I think Dawkins wrote about that in the Blind Watchmaker!

        ‘Before the fetus (baby) can likely feel the pain’.
        That makes it OK does it. Not if you believe the Bible. And what about the mothers who suffer for the rest of their lives because of the abortions.

        Your science stands on the foundation that there is no God, just as my knowledge stands on the foundation of God.
        The Bible says in Romans, that the power and nature of God are visible in His creation.

        If you truly believe that we are just the result of chemistry, why do you bother to try and change the chemistry going on in my brain. Nothing matters.

        Best regards

        Chris

  11. >>”This to me is not a small wonder, but a miracle that these could occur over time, with no direction.”

    Well, since you’ve already admitted you don’t understand the processes, you should invest in a chemistry course at a college level. You know, educate yourself on the things you don’t understand. I have.

    >>”This theory is based on Atheism”

    No, it’s not. Prove it.

    >>”[…]it looks at the evidence from one side.”

    No, it looks at the evidence, period. If there is a god, he/she/it is operating behind the scenes in ways that are indistinguishable from natural processes, so there is no need to include him/her/it.

    >>”You are right no one has ever proved God[…]”

    There’s lots of gods that aren’t proven, what makes yours special?

    >>”[…]but thousands of people believed a couple of thousand years ago that they had seen Him.”

    And the ancient Greeks, Romans, Sumerians, Incas, Aztecs, and Native Americans were and are all wrong, yeah? Just because a bunch of people believe in things doesn’t make them so; which is why scientific endeavors are understood by everyone regardless of creed or beliefs. The same science that proves evolution and geologic processes also made the computers and servers we’re discussing these matters over.

    >>”As I have tried to tell you, I know Him actively in my life, I can’t prove it so you can just presume I am a liar, but for what reason.”

    I frankly don’t give a flying fuck, precisely because you can’t show anything to us outside of your word. Thankfully anecdotes aren’t taken seriously; except amongst believers.

    >>”There is only one thing to be gained by you believing in creation, your salvation!”

    Cool story. Bro.

    >>”That is the only reason for me being on this site.”

    I know, you’ve shown no signs of actually wanting to have a two-way discussion and you’re quite actively preaching at us. Good show.

    >>”You also can’t prove He doesn’t exist[…]”

    And you can’t prove Zeus or Thor don’t exist. Check and mate.

    >>”[…]but your science is based on the belief He doesn’t.”

    No, it’s based on the “belief” that the reality we can experiment on is the baseline for everything; i.e., if god(s) do(es) exist, they’ll interact naturally with the reality we experience. It’s called the null hypothesis. You know, intellectually honest advancement of human knowledge?

    >>”This is illogical, it is impossible to select something that doesn’t exist.”

    Since you’ve already said you don’t understand evolution, or science in general apparently, you’ve got no leg to stand on with regards to the actual processes and products of evolution; i.e., stop talking out of your ass, your ignorance is showing. Like a hemorrhoid.

    >>”Yes I do see these things, to you it must seem like real good look that in 4.5 billion years our planet hasn’t been destroyed.”

    See, this is how I know you’re incredibly ignorant when it comes to the current scientific knowledge and understanding of our universe. Else you would know our planet has had almost all life obliterated from it several times already because of comets and meteors and volcanic activity. Seriously, educate yourself.

    >>”Do you see the beauty of love involved in our relationships which lead to that reproduction[?]”

    Beauty of love? Why yes, I appreciate the chemicals in our brains, that we have studied for years now, and brain states, all of which signify emotions, especially love, and I can appreciate it all the more because I can understand it, better than you apparently.

    >>”Our reproduction is totally amazing, just the journey for the sperm, with all the help it gets on the way, defies being selected for. It only works if it is all there. The dilation of the womans bones would not of had time to develop and be selected.”

    It’s amusing you talk about evolutionary things when you still don’t know what you’re talking about. Our reproduction is not “totally amazing”, if anything it’s bland and boring, and copied by nearly every male/female species on this planet for the last couple hundred million years. It hasn’t changed, at all, in that time, because for all the faults with our reproductive systems, that I’ve already pointed out and which you’ve casually ignored to spout more preaching ignorance, we produce more offspring regardless, and that is the point that matters.

    >>”But to even begin with the end goal in mind, that something looks designed, therefore no designer, is crazy.
    I think Dawkins wrote about that in the Blind Watchmaker!”

    And of course it’s beginning to dawn on me that I’ve been too kind to you. You, or your intellectual brethren, have yet to even prove anything is “designed” as defined, so you still have no legs to stand on; yet again, because you have admitted you know nothing of evolution (and chemistry too, it seems; along with other major scientific disciplines).

    Like other, more esteemed figures have said, if the intelligent design proponents actually had a case, they might have revolutionized science as we know it. We’ve been waiting for them to show us the design for decades at least. Bring something new to the table, or shut up, because everything you’ve said so far, the links I posted above have dealt with.

    >>”That makes it OK does it.”

    I should have realized you would latch on to this. No, it doesn’t make it okay in every fucking circumstance. But nor is there a one-size-fits-all answer, as even you should have easily recognized had you put some clues together from the links I posted. Educate yourself.

    >>”Not if you believe the Bible.”

    Actually, if you believe the Bible, your god is one of the biggest abortion providers in existence, as nearly 10% of all pregnancies end in premature miscarriage. Additionally, the Bible says nothing definitive on the measure of abortion, unless you take your favorite scriptures out of context.

    >>”And what about the mothers who suffer for the rest of their lives because of the abortions.”

    What about them? Studies have been done that show the only mothers that “suffer” are those that were already “suffering” before they had the abortion, the same for those that have regular pregnancies. That doesn’t mean we toss them aside, unless you’re an uncaring prick; they had a personal decision to make and we as a society need to support them mentally and physically, and not berate them for choosing such a thing.

    >>”Your science stands on the foundation that there is no God[…]”

    It stands on the foundation that the reality we experience is the baseline for which to draw all conclusions. That does not exclude god(s).

    >>”[…]just as my knowledge stands on the foundation of God.”

    Cute.

    >>”The Bible says in Romans, that the power and nature of God are visible in His creation.”

    That’s nice. How about you read some of the Koran, or the Bhagavad Gita?

    >>”[…]why do you bother to try and change the chemistry going on in my brain[?]”

    Because two-way discussions on controversial topics are fun, and learning is fun, but apparently you’re just here to preach, so now I’m here to bite my thumb at you and your ludicrous ideas — ludicrous ideas, might I add, that have no empirical backing and can’t be shown outside of anecdotes, the lowest level of evidence and most easily influenced by personal bias.

    >>”Nothing matters.”

    Maybe to you, but to those of us that don’t know if we’re going to live on in some way after death (“Hello, Buddha!”), this life matters immensely, so we will strive to have as few false beliefs as possible. We care. Do you?

    1. Hi M J Shepherd

      >>”This is illogical, it is impossible to select something that doesn’t exist.” Since you’ve already said you don’t understand evolution, or science in general apparently, you’ve got no leg to stand on with regards to the actual processes and products of evolution; i.e., stop talking out of your ass, your ignorance is showing. Like a hemorrhoid

      I admit I don’t understand the current evolutionary theory, and I am sure I don’t have your level of intelligence, but why do you get offensive, slagging me off, without answering. This is not the most intelligent way of trying to educate someone!
      So perhaps you could answer this?

      I have installed, serviced and repaired printing machinery in high tech automated circuit board manufacturing factories. These facilities are amazing with almost total automation of the process from design to production, even down to stock usage and control.

      When they are asked to produce a printed circuit board to carry out a specific series of tasks, one of their highly paid design engineers endeavors to come up with a solution.
      He starts his design on the server, using a highly specialised and sophisticated CAD program.
      The PCB will have different components in it, some are like gates, which in effect will only open to allow electricity through when a small voltage is applied to the gate catch. Some are like corridors with lots of doors, but dependant on which door electricity enters the corridor limits the door or doors by which it can leave. Storage containers, flow reducers, time delay switches and other types of device are used in the design.

      Once the engineer has come up with a solution he thinks might work, the computer without making the new PCB runs tests on the design to see what is likely to happen. The designer uses these ghost tests to modify and improve his PCB many times, testing it again each time. Eventually after many modifications corrections and improvements, the first PCB is physically made.

      It is powered up, if it appears to basically work, then it is put on full trial, again being modified, components changed or moved, sometimes even going for redesign because of an unforseen error. Eventually the PCB is put into production.

      Now as I have already mentioned the brain has approximately 100,000 billion electrical connections, it can deal with a phenomenal series of tasks. It is say at least 10 billion times more complex than any PCB we have ever made. Yet evolution tells us it appeared without design, because of environmental and genetic pressures.

      You appear to believe in evolution because you understand how it happens. Please without telling me to visit various evolution websites, can you explain in simple language, that some one with average intelligence or below can understand, how, the brain developed without intelligent design.

      As you pointed out, I can just say Goddidit, but I believe that God is perfect in knowledge. Therefore if He designed a PCB, it would not need testing, it would work first time. It appears to me that this capability is required for many of life’s complicated essential processes.

      I look forward to understanding very basically how our brains could develop without a designer.

      Best regards

      Chris

      1. First off, it is mostly from one single site, TalkOrigins, which features properly cited articles disseminating actual scientific papers that were peer reviewed, so if you won’t venture to a place that has that kind of information, especially when you’re spouting the same creationist pap that others have for decades, and apparently gleefully claim you’re here for our salvation, expect some hostility when we have to give a remedial science course in both the basic foundation of the entire modern field of biology, and throw in chemistry, cosmology, abiogenesis, anthropology, and some basic anatomy lessons.

        Evolution, the selective pressures for adaptations that get passed on through the generations, acts pretty straightforwardly: if the organism manages to breed, its genetics gets passed on and it is successful. Combine that with what I wrote above about bacteria gaining immunity to antibiotics, add in the entire surface of our planet with the sun as the major input of energy, allow for millions of years, and selective pressures can and have given us brains and bacteria that can eat plastic byproducts. If you wan more detail than that you’ll have to sit through several college level biology courses or read through TalkOrigins.

      2. Additionally, if you maybe have whatever time available, like I insinuated with the Neanderthal brain size above, look up humanoid brain case sizes since the Australopithecines, they showcase the gradual buildup of brain size over time.

      3. In fact I would highly recommend reading TalkOrigins as that site is written by actual scientists so you won’t have to get knowledge passed around second-hand.

      4. Hi M J Shepherd

        I am sorry you did not try to explain your belief in evolution of just the brain. I have tried to search this topic on Talk origins, without success.
        What I do find is very detailed info on jaw bones becoming ear bones and the like. But I don’t find any reasonable explanation of what could possibly have driven this remarkable change.

        You said that DNA and RNA are not necessarily information, but they are referred to as such on Talk Origins.

        The only method of change that seems to be inferred is by mutation, or copying error, yet when talking about the reptile jaw bones becoming the mamalian ear bones, it is spoken about as if the mutations and copying mistakes had a definite direction to go in. Like they had some specific goal in mind when they happened, but they are supposedly chance mutations or faulty copies!

        When I watch nature programs, I hear comments like, ‘so because of the snowy environment the polar bears evolved white fur’. But the truth is, the white fur is a fault in the genetic information, which caused an environmental advantage in white environments. This is not evolution, though it is natural selection. However it is a loss of information. It is impossible for polar bears to have brown cubs, but not for brown bears to have white cubs.

        Just looking at mutations and copying errors for a minute, I read a book by a geneticist, (John Sanford) who worked to genetically modify various crops in agriculture. He was involved in designing the gene gun to facilitate genetic mods.
        Through his in depth understanding and study of genetics he changed from believing in naturalistic evolution, to first believing theistic evolution, and from there, his science led him to become a creationist.

        He wrote a book called ‘Genetic Entropy’. This was because he had observed a continual decline in genetic quality, in line with the law of entropy.

        Nearly all mutations or errors are harmful, I have never heard of a truly beneficial mutation, the sickle cell anemia mutation has been used, but it prevents malaria because the mosquito doesn’t bite someone with this blood defect. It is in effect, the lesser of two evils, as I am sure you understand
        It seems that evolution requires mutation or copying mistakes to advance, but how did all the masses of information, or if you prefer, masses of RNA/DNA arise in the first place to allow mutation. To say it started as RNA by random chemistry just does not make sense, when you consider the volume of information we know exists.

        I believe the odds against forming just one average functional protein by coincidence to be about 1x10to100th. That is for just one protein.
        Yet statisticians appear to have deduced that anything with odds lower than 1x10to50th is impossible.

        I know you think I am foolish to dispute evolution, but I see so many problems with it. Evolutionist Huxley calculated the odds for the evolution of a horse to be 1x10to3,000,000. That is somewhat more impossible than 1x10to50th. But he still believed the horse evolved!

        I have not been able to find an adequate evolutionist explanation of how all this fantastic complexity in life occured and was recorded in the genes without intelligence being needed.

        Best regards

        Chris

  12. Hey Chris,

    Thanks for continuing to return and trying to engage us.

    I’m just returning from holiday, and won’t be back in full swing until next week.

    It’s baffling that you don’t find any of our references helpful. As I’m sure it’s frustrating to some degree that what you write is not helpful for any of us.

    I’m going to stand up and write you off. I’ve read through your responses, and I find repeated self-deprecation unsavory and your defense of the Christian worldview offensive. Surely you’re not impressed with anything we say as you haven’t shed your Christian lining and bounced on our science-loving, atheist trampoline yet.

    You seem to have put a good deal of effort into researching and defending belief, but only from one perspective.

    You’ve put little to no effort into understanding science from the contrary perspective. This alone is a reason to write you off. Most of us here have done great amounts of research into Intelligent Design, and it is you (admittedly and self-deprecatingly) who are floundering to understand the simplest of evolutionary principles.

    If we aren’t approaching the topic from similar understandings — if you haven’t done enough research — even if you don’t accept evolution, then we cannot communicate properly. The moment a creationist admits they don’t understand evolution, whether accepted or not, it unbalances the discussion. It’s the rough and cliché equivalent of arriving at class without having done your homework.

    So go do your homework. Get your mind around a working understanding of evolution. Come on back and stop acting stupid and bashing yourself for self-induced ignorance. It’s unbecoming and certainly not impressive.

    JW

    1. You are right Jeremy that I don’t understand evolution, but whenever I ask, the believers in it to explain how it works, none of you ever do. I am always told to go and do research. No one ever gives me a simple straightforward process.
      From reading I can find out that it happens very slowly over long periods of time, thats why it can’t be seen. So when I ask, if our brain contains 100000 billion connections how can it be a slow process as everything else that is multicellular has also ‘evolved’ over the last 0.5 billion years showing a very rapid progress, I am told to read evolutionary websites. I can’t find the answer there either. Except the punctuated equilibrium position.
      When I mention the probability of just one protein happening being impossible, I don’t get an answer, apart from being told I am being written off.

      ‘Surely you’re not impressed with anything we say as you haven’t shed your Christian lining and bounced on our science-loving, atheist trampoline yet.’

      I am glad you admit it is an atheist trampoline. Science means knowledge. Your science is based on the belief in no god existing. My belief in Creation is based on the knowledge I have of God working in my life, to the extent that nothing can make me return to believing there is no God. I know Him personally in my life and could never deny Him.

      I have read and heard the opinion that science deals with facts, therefore as God is supernatural He can not be part of science as He can’t be a proven fact. This is a silly approach, we can’t prove we have a spirit, but most people even evolutionists seem to think they have one.

      May I wish you, your family and friends a good 2012.
      Kind regards

      Chris

      1. — “This is a silly approach, we can’t prove we have a spirit, but most people even evolutionists seem to think they have one.”

        Just because most people believe in something doesn’t make it true.

        — “I am always told to go and do research. No one ever gives me a simple straightforward process.”

        What are you, 10 years old?

        No — you are a grown man, and a seemingly literate one at that.

        This is a blog/discussion forum, not a primary school. We are not responsible for your intellectual laziness, even less so for your utter and shameless ignorance of science.

        ‘It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.’

        Say no more.

      2. >>”Your science is based on the belief in no god existing.”

        I thought I had already corrected you on this matter, but since it bears repeating:

        Science is not based upon the belief that god does not exist. Fucking full stop. In fact, since you don’t seem to like learning, I’m going to give you a crash course in the scientific method, via the talented Potholer54.

        Enjoy.

      3. Watched video, and it points out that if predictions are answered by the evidence, then peer reviewed, they become fact. The predictions about evolution are all aimed at no creator existing. That’s why irreducibly complex systems which logically require design are said to have happened either slowly over time, or in short but very quickly advancing bursts over time.
        If evolution were true surely it should predict an ever increasing amount of information in the genome and an ever increasing quality of health and stability in those genes.

        If the Bible were true it would predict an original vast amount of information in the genes of each species which over time would be corrupted and reduced in quality and quantity.

        We observe that every child has about 100 genetic copying errors passed down to it. Natural selection cannot stop this level of error from eventually wiping us out as a species.

        I could predict from reading the Bible that:
        If I were to have faith in Jesus Christ as my God and Saviour, and turn away from my sin asking Him to cleanse me of my sin by His atoning shed blood and take over my life.
        I would be born again and accepted into His family.
        I did this and my life was changed from the inside out. I became a new creation.
        I know a lot of peers who have also had the faith and courage to try this experiment, and put it to the test. They have all experienced the same result as me. That is how we know the existence of God as a fact. It can be proved.

        Best regards

        Chris

      4. Thanks for the responses, guys.

        Chris makes me want to extend the Yeshua Fog™ beyond America. I thought the folks across the pond were a little more reasonable.

        But apparently they aren’t.

        Oh well.

  13. “If evolution were true surely it should predict an ever increasing amount of information in the genome and an ever increasing quality of health and stability in those genes.”

    Actually, no. Evolution may favour changes that pose a short-term advantage, but may spell extinction in the long run. Example: trees that grow taller have an advantage over shorter trees because in a crowded forest they can hog more of the sunlight. These taller trees also will require more water. So, as long as water is plentiful they have a competitive advantage over their shorter neighbours, but as soon as a drought comes along, these taller sunlight-hoggers will be the first to go.

    Why did so many other species survive when the dinosaurs were wiped out? Creatures of their size and strength would have required a tremendous amount of daily nourishment, and when food became scarcer, their great size became more of a liability than an asset.

    1. Hi Jude and MJ Shepherd
      I agree with most of your reply Jude, but when I speak of evolution, I don’t mean trees adapting to different heights, but chemicals adapting to be mankind. Everyone accepts adaptation of existing life to environments.
      When you speak about dinosaurs dying out because of food shortage, I think you could be right to an extent, but I also think mankind helped to make them extinct. Look at all the dragon killing stories all around the world. The pictures men have made of dinosaurs before we dug them up and assembled their bones. I know you won’t believe the fossil of the human footprint squashed by a dinosaur print, but I don’t believe dinosaurs died out millions of years before mankind.

      MJ
      I am not an ID proponent. I only see the Biblical God as Creator, because the deterioration we see in genes, like my diabetes, is only really explained by the Bible.
      Information has actually been defined by creationist Dr Werner Gitt an information scientist, in his book called, ‘In the beginning was information’, perhaps you should read it.

      However I am happy to allow you to remove the word information from my questions and replace it with just DNA.
      Now can you please explain how DNA grew to such a level.
      EG: 12 base pairs in our DNA can form over 16 million variations. We have 3.2 billion base pairs I believe.
      1 addition or deletion can remove a complete gene. This could cause a major health problem, even death.
      How did all this vast amount of DNA come about without a designer, allowing succesful life, when all we see is deterioration of the gene pool?
      Beneficial mutations are virtually none existent, and even if we did find one, it would be so out numbered by damaging or temporarily neutral mutations that this method could never account for what we see today.
      Best regards

      Chris

      1. When you speak about dinosaurs dying out because of food shortage, I think you could be right to an extent, but I also think mankind helped to make them extinct. Look at all the dragon killing stories all around the world. The pictures men have made of dinosaurs before we dug them up and assembled their bones. I know you won’t believe the fossil of the human footprint squashed by a dinosaur print, but I don’t believe dinosaurs died out millions of years before mankind.

        I am not an ID proponent. I only see the Biblical God as Creator, because the deterioration we see in genes, like my diabetes, is only really explained by the Bible…How did all this vast amount of DNA come about without a designer

  14. I keep hearing this thing about “information” but Chris has yet to define it in a meaningful way such that we might be able to use it to benefit our scientific understanding of evolution and genetics.

    I therefore call bullshit until such a time comes wherein Chris, and other ID proponents, can show that “information”, as bludgeoningly subtly put forward, is some sort of proof of creationism, and not some artifact of a human mind looking for patterns to suit a preconceived notion and faith position.

  15. Hi Tim
    I am sure you understand exactly what I mean about the ID movement and the Biblical God. Just in case you don’t, I will explain. The ID theory,has no logical explanation for the many harmful mutations and poor health we see today. The Bible does. The original creation did not consist of death and disease, this came about because of our disobedience to God.

    It is funny how you guys find excuses to avoid answering the points I make about DNA, and proteins existing. You laugh at the fossil I mention, but it has been extensively tested by CT scan, and appears to be genuine. It is available for inspection and testing, by evolutionists if they wish too, but under strict supervision to prevent its destruction.
    There are quite a few books showing drawings of dinosaurs from around the world. Dire Dragons has hundreds of pictures. The oldest book in the Bible, Job, describes two animals that sound very like dinosaurs. In communist Russia evolutionist scientists discovered footprints of dino’s and humans together. They thought this would mean that mankind was perhaps 150 million years older.

    Please forgive me for all the infantile misunderstanding and stupidity I apper to show,to your amusement, but please just answer this question.
    How did the massive amount of DNA accumulate by mutation to define a human being (3.2 billion base pairs), when nearly every mutation we see is harmful?
    Best regards
    Chris

    1. Proof that all mutations are harmful please. Also peer reviewed and published papers regarding your footprints. If you’re referring to what I think you are you’re about as mistaken as you were with everything else.

    2. >>”It is funny how you guys find excuses to avoid answering the points I make about DNA, and proteins existing.”

      Avoid…answering…the points…YOU…made…about DNA…

      What points? You keep saying it “looks designed” and that it’s got “information”, and you’ve brought nothing to the table to support your ridiculous beliefs other than “it looks that way, therefore god, or something”. You haven’t even defined information or how it looks designed such that a designer would be the only way to show DNA formed the way you think it did, and you’ve yet to formulate a falsifiable hypothesis that has these two very important points in it.

      You’ve still got nothing. You started with nothing, you continue with nothing, and you’ll leave with nothing.

  16. A simple Google search: “Evolution of DNA” yields 127,000,000 results, the top result of which is:
    http://www.evolutionofdna.com/

    A simple Google search: “Harmful mutations” yields 1,460,000 further results:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

    It is funny how you guys find excuses to avoid answering the points I make about DNA, and proteins existing.

    What is even funnier is your quoting Bronze Age mythology as, I quote, “logical explanation for the many harmful mutations and poor health we see today.”

    [Picard Facepalm goes here, if only Jeremy would allow it.]

  17. Hi Tom

    http://www.evolutionofdna.com/

    Just love this link, was reading about the first protein. I was not sure if it was meant to be serious, or you were testing how gullible I might be. Anyway, I found it hilarious.
    When I wrote a protein happening by chance is 1×10-100, this link makes it sound more like 1×10-1000000 or more. Now if you believe that life started like that and developed to what we know today, then I am very impressed, in fact astounded by your faith.
    Best regards

    Chris

    1. Faith?

      I’m quite sure you didn’t read that link if that’s what you pulled from it.

      And the guy that you’re writing to is Tim, not “Tom.”

      It’s the little things that add up to making you a full-fledge, minuscule-brained dim bulb.

      Yes, ad hom, Chris. I called you a name. You’re as dense as they get. If you’re laughing at the link above, you’re likely doing it out of nervousness, because your efforts are poor at best to establish your deity as the one that “did it” and hiding behind laughter is the only way you can mask being wrong.

  18. It’s sad when creationists fly the old statistical chances of life happening flag.

    Granted, this is not an easy concept to understand but I’ll try to make it as palatable as possible.

    The concept here is that of anterior and posterior probability.

    Anterior probability says that given a set of data, circumstances, number, etc., then if we are to randomly select a subset of that set then every combination has the exact same chances of occurring as any other subset.

    Only once the subset is selected can we then make evaluations of it’s probability occurring based on the information contained within – posterior probability.

    Let’s use the lottery as an example.

    In the Powerball lottery, there are 195,249,054 possible combinations or subsets of the total data.

    Prior to the numbers being drawn, every single subset has the same probability of occurring, because they haven’t been drawn yet. So, 1 2 3 4 5 6 has the exact same probability of being drawn as does 5 9 12 13 25 53.

    However, many would look at 1 2 3 4 5 6 and say it’s impossible for it to occur. No, it’s not. Remember, it has the same exact probability since it is a random selection.

    Posterior probability only comes into play once the numbers are drawn and we can then evaluate their likelihood of occurring based on other similar subsets.

    In fact, the Powerball site lists this exact data. How many times each number has been drawn in the past. But that’s the catch, it’s the past. Since the drawing is random, then past selection is not a predictor of future selection.

    To say that life only has a 1×10-100 or 1×10-10000 probability is using posterior probability to look at what we actually have rather than what could have been which is where the logic falls apart.

    It doesn’t matter how high the odds were against it, it still had the exact same probability of occurring as any other combination. And, it did.

    This actually gives more credence to the random selection than it does to that of some mystical outside force.

    1. “In the Powerball lottery, there are 195,249,054 possible combinations or subsets of the total data.

      Prior to the numbers being drawn, every single subset has the same probability of occurring, because they haven’t been drawn yet. So, 1 2 3 4 5 6 has the exact same probability of being drawn as does 5 9 12 13 25 53.

      However, many would look at 1 2 3 4 5 6 and say it’s impossible for it to occur. No, it’s not. Remember, it has the same exact probability since it is a random selection.

      Posterior probability only comes into play once the numbers are drawn and we can then evaluate their likelihood of occurring based on other similar subsets.

      In fact, the Powerball site lists this exact data. How many times each number has been drawn in the past. But that’s the catch, it’s the past. Since the drawing is random, then past selection is not a predictor of future selection”.

      Interesting, the drawing here is not quite random. This is a machine designed to draw six numbers. The idea of life starting in rock pools over massive amounts of time is different.There is nothing trying to draw the numbers of amino acids andselect them.

      The reactions described in the’ evolution of dna .com’ are reversible, so each time water splashed into the pool, it would desolve what if anything, had managed to assemble.So as you mention, past selection is not a predictor of future selection. Therefore length of time or number of reactions does not matter.

      I notice that the site mentions the original rocks were destroyed, so you don’t have any record of the prebiotic soup! Convenient for your belief, but my belief is supported by no prebiotic soup!

      But say this imaginary soup existed, and chance molecular condensation occurred in a rock pool, to believe that Fred and Sofia just happened to arise as next door neighbours at exactly the same time then without being disolved managed to end up in the same pool and combine to bring about life is very far fetched.
      Especially as not only are these combinations reversible in water, but to form life they are optically pure, as I am sure you are all aware!
      These molecules are chemically identical, but only the left handed types are needed in life, one right handed type being in a chain can prevent life. Yet there is no difference chemically. There is no reason for only one type to be selected.

      I am afraid the ‘evolution of dna.com’ is naturally selected out!

      Best egards
      Chris

      1. More like your understanding and willingness to learn something has been self-selected out.

        You clearly want to throw about the word random and the odds of life arising as being too far removed to be anything other than chance but then you have no concept of what random or chance means.

        It doesn’t matter how the Powerball numbers are chosen, it’s still random. In the case of the first existence of amino acids, polypeptides, and eventually DNA, random encounters of different molecules was what brought it all about. Regardless of the mechanism.

        Reread the section of evolutionofdna.com that you are criticizing. It says that Freds were disseminated due to water splashing not dissolved.

        As far as chirality is concerned, they only use leucine as an example with a very specific explanation that it is a modern well known amino acid and the type that may have existed in primordial times was possibly entirely different.

        Additionally, D-Leucine has only been observed 6 times out of 187,000,000 amino acids. Using posterior probability we can say that it’s chances of occurring naturally are hellaciously low. But to use my original point, it doesn’t matter whether is was dextrorotatory (D) or levorotatory (L) either had the same exact chance of existence prior to being formed (50/50 for simplification) and the L version was what formed.

        Also, if you read a bit more about chirality in biology there is nothing that says life would not have formed in the presence of D molecules. In fact life may have occurred just the same but would have been much different than what we have today.

        Also, the atmosphere on Earth was different in primordial times and could have produced a higher fraction of polarized light/radiation from the sun creating an environment that favored L isomers over D isomers.

        Remember, they’re offering up an non-supernatural (“not outside of nature” if you need a quick definition) explanation of abiogenesis. This is opposed to the faithful throwing up their hands, claiming they just don’t know, and screaming “God did it!”

        It’s obvious yet again that you are here to proselytize rather than learn. You are so blinded by your belief that you’ll cherry pick anything you can to try and prop it up even though you honestly lack the understanding needed to critically examine abiogenesis.

        Hopefully with enough reading and research you can gain a better understanding and stop plugging your ears with your fingers and shaking your head from side to side.

  19. >>”The predictions about evolution are all aimed at no creator existing.”

    No. Your fundamental misunderstanding of science is showing. Educate yourself, as I’ve already discussed this and which you’ve yet to understand. If anything your creator god is unfalsifiable and is left out of the necessary science, as I wrote before. Why do you keep going on about this? Is it so important to have your god sticking his fat dick in everything to cock up all of our scientific understanding?

    >>”That’s why irreducibly complex systems which logically require design[…]”

    No. Nothing “logically requires design”. Everything that the ID creationist movement has fingered inappropriately to be “irreducibly complex” has been shown by actual scientists to not be irreducibly complex, as defined by ID proponents. Seriously:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

    I know now you’ve seen the basics behind scientific inquiry. Now tell me how irreducible complexity is falsifiable.

    >>”If evolution were true surely it should predict an ever increasing amount of information[…]”

    No, just fucking stop it with the information. You haven’t defined it, and until you do you’re just tossing around a loaded jargon word that can mean anything to you or us.

    And still no, it doesn’t “predict increasing” “information”. It predicts changes in genetics in populations over time, which is exactly what we see in labs and in the wild. Increasing “information” means nothing in terms of evolution.

    >>”[…]ever increasing quality of health and stability in those genes.”

    No. It predicts nothing of the sort unless you’re trying to back up your creationist presupposed point of view against actual science.

    >>”If the Bible were true it would predict an original vast amount of information in the genes of each species which over time would be corrupted and reduced in quality and quantity.”

    Prove it. How would we falsify that kind of post-diction?

    >>”We observe that every child has about 100 genetic copying errors passed down to it. Natural selection cannot stop this level of error from eventually wiping us out as a species.”

    Prove it. I know you’ve yet to prove anything you’ve said thus far, whereas every link from TalkOrigins is written by actual scientists that have the evidence to back up what they’re putting forward.

    So come on, stop with all the claims and actually go back over each and every one and show us the research.

    >>”If I were to have faith in Jesus Christ as my God and Saviour, and turn away from my sin asking Him to cleanse me of my sin by His atoning shed blood and take over my life.”

    I know now you’ve watched that video, so falsify the concept of sin. Go on. I’m waiting.

    >>”I know a lot of peers who have also had the faith and courage to try this experiment, and put it to the test.”

    Congratulations. That does not lend any credence whatsoever to your claims.

    1. [quote]Is it so important to have your god sticking his fat dick in everything to cock up all of our scientific understanding?[/quote]

      Given his ego-maniacal, genocidal, narcissistic, petulant behavior and demands, I’m not sure that fat is the word I’d describe this imaginary deity’s genitalia. 😉

      1. Damn….wrong tag.

        [blockquote]Is it so important to have your god sticking his fat dick in everything to cock up all of our scientific understanding?[/blockquote]

  20. >>”I only see the Biblical God as Creator, because the deterioration we see in genes, like my diabetes, is only really explained by the Bible.”

    Prove it. Falsify that hypothesis.

    >>”Now can you please explain how DNA grew to such a level.”

    I already did. Given time and incoming energy and a large surface area we can easily get life from simple chemistry. It’s been done in several different experiments and theorized many other ways.

    I can see from your answer to Tim’s link that, of course, any further discourse on this matter is irrelevant, because while you won’t, or can’t, accept basic chemistry over millions of years, your beliefs matter more than honest inquiry.

    Also, see Steve’s post below. Statistical probabilities is not my forte, but generalities.

    >>”1 addition or deletion can remove a complete gene.”

    Mutations, mother fucker? Have you understood them yet?

    >>”This could cause a major health problem, even death.”

    Or it might not! This is how we can tell you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    PS, they’re called mutations, and they happen all the time. Also, junk DNA, have you heard of it?

    Also, prove it or you’re full of shit.

    >>”How did all this vast amount of DNA come about without a designer, allowing succesful life, when all we see is deterioration of the gene pool?”

    Basic chemistry. Everything is chemistry on the level of molecules. I wish you would pay attention.

    Also, prove our “gene pool” is “deteriorating”.

    >>”Beneficial mutations are virtually none existent, and even if we did find one, it would be so out numbered by damaging or temporarily neutral mutations that this method could never account for what we see today.”

    Prove it. Mutations happen all the time, almost every time our DNA replicates, but I wonder if you even understand cell reproduction and death anyway.

    >>”I am not an ID proponent.”

    Yes, you are. If you’re going to keep parroting their talking points, at least be honest about your intentions.

    >>”Dr Werner Gitt”

    You mean this Dr. Gitt?

    http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/12/idiotic_gitt_aig_and_bad_infor.php

  21. Remember, they’re offering up an non-supernatural (“not outside of nature” if you need a quick definition) explanation of abiogenesis. This is opposed to the faithful throwing up their hands, claiming they just don’t know, and screaming “God did it!”

    I’m glad you admit that evolution, is an explanation formed on atheism,God is not allowed to be involved.
    In your answer above you use the words; may, possibly, hellaciously low, could, chance, you say the early atmosphere was different, the web article admits there is no evidence of a primordial soup. Your science is not fact, but it is a theory to remove belief in God.
    Remember I’m offering up a supernatural explanation of abiogenesis. This is opposed to the faithful throwing out insults at unbelievers, and screaming chance did it!
    Remember I know the God of the Bible as an active force in my life, I know from experience that He is involved in life today, if you let Him in.

    Best regards

    Chris

    1. You keep saying the evolution is an excuse not to believe in God. That’s silly. I’d be perfectly happy to believe in God if there were enough credible evidence to do so.

      So far, I haven’t found any.

    2. First Chris, abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution has happened and is happening- whether life first appeared by way of abiogenesis, panspermia, or divine intervention.
      Because of this, your opening paragraph in the last comment makes no sense at all. Evolution allows God to be involved- but only if God can offer predictable and testable proof of His involvement.

      Your science is not fact, but it is a theory to remove belief in God.

      Theory does not mean conjecture- at least not in the educated as opposed to colloquial use of the word. Conflation of the two usages betrays either your ignorance or malice.
      When you try to expose someone’s couched language as being indicative of uncertainty when they are having a conversation about probability with you, you make Jesus cry.
      You do realize that probability deals with probability, and not certainty, right?
      Evolution is a theory in that it is a collection of factual evidence that taken together leads to a single inescapable conclusion. That conclusion allows us to formulate testable hypotheses that further vindicate the theory.

      The only people you fool with your arguments are those who are happy to bask in their own ignorance.
      You don’t get to define your terms outside of reality, and you don’t get to vindicate your ignorance with incredulity.

      1. Did I say something wrong?
        Maybe it was the “Jesus crying” comment. I meant, of course, the Baby Jesus.

        We all know that adult Jesus is tough as nails.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s