^ have a good day too.

Man I can be such a troll when it comes to evolution. I'm only like this with science and politics I swear lol.

OK, I don't want to sound like a d!ckhead. But I'#m going to bump the thread because I never got my 7 proofs of ID or creationism.

highwaystar101 said: OK, I don't want to sound like a d!ckhead. But I'#m going to bump the thread because I never got my 7 proofs of ID or creationism.

@ HS

 

 

As to what you wrote, I begin with:

 

Accordingly to the bulk of things that G. G. Simpson said in the Darwin Centenary Symposium which was held in 1959:

They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution. A great many sequences of two or a few temporally intergrading species are known, but even at this level, most species appear without known immediate ancestors, and really long, perfectly complete sequences of numerous species are exceedingly rare. Sequences of genera immediately successive or nearly so at that level (not necessarily from one genus to the next, are more common and maybe longer than known sequences of species. But the appearance of a new genus in the record is usually more abrupt than the appearance of a new species; the gaps involved are generally larger, that is, when a new genus appears in the record it is usually well separated morphologically from the most nearly similar other known genera. This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known order, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large.”

 

 

Most of your proof is Homology and Morphology:

 

A Homologous- Similar in structure and evolutionary origin.

 

B Morphology- Branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of an organism apart from function.

 

1 The problem with using bone fossils, as a certain indicator of the origin of a species is that structure cannot tell us all. The Tasmanian Wolves (thylacine) and the wolf or The marsupial dog and the placenta dog have similar forms and function but do not share ancestry (or close ancestry) the forms were arrived at 2 different ways, they Converged on similar forms. We know the nature of the beast because they were once alive (now extinct) but their “soft tissue” is known. But in skeleton form they are hard to tell apart and were even “ similar in gross appearance and in skeletal structure, teeth, skull, ect, so similar in fact that only a skilled zoologist could distinguish them.” (I quote M. Denton an Atheist and an Aussie).

 

 2 It does not take in account the genetic frequencies of the animal. If all dogs were extinct and all we had were fossilized bones, would we really be able to tell that every breed was a part of the same species?

 

 

3 Results of Vertebrate Embryology show that different parts of developing vertebrate fetus give rise to different organs and grow legs and arms.

 

4 DNA research shows that categorizing species in accordance by Genes can yield different results depending on which genes you track. For instance a gene in a fruit fly mouse and in

 

 

 

 

Evidence of reptiles evolving into mammals-

 

M. Denton goes into the argument of Fish to Lung Fish to Amphibian to Reptile to Mammal. He compares the hearts of the organism s and finds no clear evolutionary path. The eggs of the species and says that:

“ In some ways, mammalian eggs are closer in their initial pattern of development to those of a frog than to any reptile.”

 

His book is full of quotes but as this is a very long writing, I suggest that you checkout the book at the library and then refute him, as I must with some of your longer articles. 

 

Also, there are no links to the authors or the different theory holders. The article that you gave me has to be the work of a conglomerate of biological theorizes and truths. So, it would be extremely hard to track down all of the various parts of the story. But I promise to continue to do so (I find it interesting).

De Beer an embryologist wrote a book called Homology, An Unresolved Problem. (Oxford press) The over arching theme of the book is that the similar body plans of Vertebrates  (their Homology) does not mean that the developmental mechanisms with in forming embryos a re the same. He says:

“It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated.”

He even documented the eye lens formation in two types of frog embryos and found that cutting out: “the optic cup of the Rana fusca led to a lack of lens development, but in the closely related edible frog, Rana Esculents, the optic cup can be cut out from the embryo, and the lens develops all the same.”

 

Rensch, B. in his book, Evolution above the Species, extensively talks about reptiles with similar body plans as mammals but lack the any change in cranial capacity necessary to show itself a transitory form of the earliest mammals found saying:

“…The earliest mammal for which there is reasonable evidence, Triconodon of the Upper Jurrassic period was apparently already at or near the level of living “primitive” mammals such as the insectivores or the Virginia opossum. It was certainly larger brained than its reptilian ancestors of comparable body size.”

 

Evidence of human evolution from primates:

All you gave me were a successive series of skulls. Without DNA evidence, it is easy to assume things in accordance to form. For example, (barring clear racism) people of different colors are often picked-up due to their description, which is similar to a degree, to the criminal. There are people in jail because they were the only other black man or Iranian on the street that night or because they matched a description. This is why many times DNA has the ability to free men of crimes or make then “more” guiltier.

Is the DNA more compatible with apes or human beings? A series of skulls does not show common descent nor does it discredit it. Watching the TV show Bones, Angela one of the Scientist, is able to look at a skull and immediately tell by characteristics whether it is a male or female, whether it is black, white, Asian, etc. … This is true to life science being used everyday. Even more specifically, we can even break down the groups mentioned above and say what the geographical decent of the human is. Like OK, he is white but what kind of white guy? He is Black but what region of Africa did his ancestors come from?

If they are humans, then what are we really saying? Are we going to make the mistake of Hitler (not with the death) and start thinking that one race is less evolved than the next? You can tell by DNA the “RACE”  (although we all are the human race) of a man. If all life arose from Africa, are we going to say that Europeans are superior to Africans because they manifest later gene expressions of the human race? 

 

Evidence that whales are evolved from land mammals:

As I had said before the problem comes when just tell me something. The web site tells a story but it does not do a great job at telling me how much of what is written is conjecture and how much is fact. Even the language of the author give some clue that not all of the things mentioned are confirmable but is the best guess in accordance to the evidence presented to them.

Also, there are no links to the authors or the different theory holders. The article that you gave me has to be the work of a conglomerate of biological theorizes and truths. So, it would be extremely hard to track down all of the various parts of the story. But I promise to continue to do so (I find it interesting).

Atheist, Microbiologist and Medical Doctor, Michael Denton in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis in Chapter 8 of his book called The Fossil Record, specifically on page 174, say that the fossil record for Whales to land mammals is far from conclusive.

The problem is the story like the one the website you gave me is far too direct for Natural Selection and Random Mutation. On page 175 of the book is a hypothetical linage of the whale from a land animal. He says on the previous page:

“Even from the hypothetical primitive whales to bridge, the not inconsiderable gaps which separate the modern filter feeders and the toothed whales. Moreover, it is impossible to accept that such a hypothetical sequences of species, which led directly from the unspecialized terrestrial ancestral form, gave rise to no collateral branches. Such an assumption would be purely ad hoc, and influence in evolution which would be quite foreign to the spirit of Darwinian theory and defeat its major purpose of attempting to provide a natural explanation for evolution.”

Later he says:

“…all the modifications necessary to convert a land mammal into a whale- forelimb modifications, the evolution of tail flukes, the stream lining, reduction of hind limbs, modifications of skull to bring nostrils to the top of head, modification of trachea, modifications of behavior pattern, specialized nipples so that the young could feed underwater (a complete list would be enormous)- one is inclined to think in terms of possibility hundreds, even thousands, of transitional species on the most direct path between a hypothetical land ancestor and the common ancestor of modern whales.”

In the article itself, it is said that the details are “fuzzy” and then they say that we know because we have a profusion of intermediate forms uncovered in the last decade. Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, Basilosaurus- 4 animal forms/fossils do not make a profusion.

The first is a candidate for eventual whalehood, the Pakicetus, because of it skull show that it has intermediate whale/land animal hearing? Does that truly show the path to whalehood or convergence? Maybe the animal in question liked to be in water like our friend the Hippo.

Ambulocetus, judging by the article itself the different fossils are in no way in the same trek to whalehood.  The Ambulocetus has hooves and fingers but the article does not say that the Pakicetus has that it only talks about the animal’s skull. If it had hooves, they should have mentioned it. Also what about its skull? Does the skull show signs of the directional hearing needed for this animal to be a transitional ancestor of the Pakicetus? No.

Of the Rhodocetus the article says, “Rhodocetus shows evidence of an increasingly marine lifestyle. Its neck vertebrae are shorter, giving it a less flexible, more stable neck -- an adaptation for swimming also seen in other aquatic animals such as sea cows, and in an extreme form in modern whales. The ear region of its skull is more specialized for underwater hearing. And its legs are disengaged from its pelvis, symbolizing the severance of the connection to land locomotion.” So accentually, the article is saying that this animal is already quiet at home in the water. BUT did it say that the animal had Vestigial hooves like the Ambulocetus? No.

So by the time we get to the Basilosaurus we have not 3 huge gaps but 3 animals that have nothing to do with one another but have whale like qualities in their bones.

The article confirms my rambling by saying the following:

“None of these animals is necessarily a direct ancestor of the whales we know today; they may be side branches of the family tree.”

If these animals are side branches then they are not predecessors of the whale. So where is this profusion of intermediate forms?

Its like saying, “I have a profusion of evidence that this men killed Laura Palmer.”

Then I go on to explain:

1^st Police officer Mark Ferrman found a bloody glove in the bushes.

2^nd 9/11.

3^rd A Muslim store clerk was robbed at gunpoint. (From the news recently)

4^th There is violence against women in the world.

            6^th Men kill.

7^th Women die everyday.

8^th And Lara Palmer was found dead.

“Must I paint a picture Ladies and gentlemen of the jury this man is a killer (whale).”

All of the things that I mention above are like the evidence the article present each thing is only vaguely related by an aquatic resemblance. They are in no way related to one another, just random points on a map that do not show us how we got to land animal to the whale. Random points on the map that look like they assume must be. FUZZY.

 

 

 

 

Snakes showing reptilian legs during early development... another leftover from an earlier species.

  The article that you gave me was ambiguous about the evolution of snakes. One finding was that it was a predecessor of the modern snake and another was that it was an advanced snake. So, the evidence presented is in conflict with on another. If there were, a tiebreaker or some reason stated in the article as to why the 1^st group was unable to reach the same conclusion as the following group the findings would have more weight.

The first group who thought that the fossil was a missing link of snake’s evolution, findings were in stark conflict to previous thoughts on the evolution of snakes as well.

The only thing that may or may not be credible in this article is the reference to the organ on modern day boa- but since neither the longer held theory of snake evolution, or the new theory that flew in the face of that fact, or the newest theory that believed the fossil to be a progenitor of the modern snake are in agreement it is hard for me to say that the piece of cartilage and bone that it uses to fight and during mating, is a residual visage of a leg. 

Now since the conflictions are so great it leads me to believe that the story is not 100 percent fleshed-out, meaning it is not FACT. If it were fact, the place of the new fossil would not be so easily displaceable.

The conjoining of the 2 theories to suggest that the snake is capable of evolving and “de-evolving” if you will is also just an assumption. Nor is there anything in the theories to suggest that the Serpent is not related to the snake in anyway but rather has a similar design as the legless creature.

But a word of advice to you, if you argue with a Creationist or ID person who believes in the Hebrew God, you had better not bring up the evolution of snakes, seeing as how ancient “mythology” had already speculated that theory long before the word “scientist” was coined. 

 

 

The full evolution of paramecium (which co-incidently destroys slimebeasts bacteria arguements)

On Paramecium your websites, findings were submitted online 12/1/2006 later developments have different results 12/11/2008 please click link cast a dubious light on the miraculous findings of the group. Showing that the ideas of the group are in no way widely accepted by the scientific community and at best, the previous results are downplayed.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/misc/terms.shtml

 

Genetic Diversity in the Paramecium aurelia Species Complex

Francesco Catania^*, François Wurmser ^,, Alexey A. Potekhin, Ewa Przybo^|| and Michael Lynch^*

^* Department of Biology, Indiana University
Laboratory Evolution, Genomes and Speciation; CNRS-UPR9034, Gif sur Yvette Cedex, France
Universitè Paris-Sud 11, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France
Laboratory of Protozoan Karyology, Faculty of Biology and Soil Science, St Petersburg State University; Oranienbaumskoye sh., 2, Stary Peterhof, 198504 Saint Petersburg, Russia
^|| Department of Experimental Zoology, Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland

E-mail: fcatania@indiana.edu .

Accepted for publication November 11, 2008.

 

Current understanding of the population genetics of free-living unicellular eukaryotes is limited, and the amount of genetic variability in these organisms is still a matter of debate. We characterized—reproductively and genetically—worldwide samples of multiple Paramecium species belonging to a cryptic species complex, Paramecium aurelia, whose species have been shown to be reproductively isolated. We found that levels of genetic diversity both in the nucleus and in the mitochondrion are substantial within groups of reproductively compatible P. aurelia strains but drop considerably when strains are partitioned according to their phylogenetic groupings. Our study reveals the existence of discrepancies between the mating behavior of a number of P. aurelia strains and their multilocus genetic profile, a controversial finding that has major consequences for both the current methods of species assignment and the species problem in the P. aurelia complex.

Key Words: Paramecium • genetic diversity • effective population size • speciation • cryptic species • mating group switching

Laura Katz, Associate Editor

 

Michael Behe add on page 40 of his book Darwin’s Black Box:

“In Biochemistry, a mutation is a change in the DNA. To be inherited the change must occur in the DNA of a reproductive cell. The simplest mutation occurs in when a single nucleotide (nucleotides the building blocks of DNA) in a creature’s DNA is switched to a different nucleotide. Alternatively, a single nucleotide can be added or left out when the DNA is copied during cell division. Sometimes, though, a whole region of DNA- thousands or millions of nucleotides- is accidentally deleted or duplicated. That counts as a single mutation, too, because it happens at one time, as a single event. Generally, a single mutation can, at best, make only a small change in a creature- even if the change impresses us as a big one. For example, there is a well known mutation called antennapedia that scientist can produce in a laboratory fruit fly: the poor mutant creature has legs growing out of its head instead of antennas. Although that strikes us as a big change, it really isn’t. The legs on the head are typical fruit fly legs, only in a different location.

 An analogy may be useful her: Consider a step-by-step list of instructions. A mutation is a change in one of the lines of instructions. So instead of saying, Take a ¼-inch nut,” a mutation might say, “Take a 3/8 inch nut.” Or instead of “Place the round peg in the round hole”, we might get “Place the round peg in the square hole.” Or instead of “Attach the seat to the top of the engine”, we might get “Attach the seat to the handlebars” (but we could only get this if the nuts and bolts could be attached to the handlebars). What a mutation cannot do is change all the instructions in one step- say, to build a fax machine instead of a radio.”

 

 

Also, I ask what effect did the “New Functions” of the proteins have on the organism as a whole? Proteins in our cells can have mutations and new functions but generally, that leads to a problem in the over-all organism. There can even be segregated populations of human beings who pass on protein mutations to their progeny but the result is rarely desired or beneficial.

 

 

Vestigial tails, a left over gene from an older species

I know what it looks like the coccyx/ tailbone but the problem we have is the way you are looking at it. If you believe in Macroevolution and categorizing things by appearance then it would be easy to say that it is a vestigial tail. But the only way you could prove that to me (who believes in intelligent design) is to show me that it has no function in our bodies. If it was a tail then it should serve no purpose for us since we have no tails. The problem is that it does serve a purpose in tailless primates. So, would that be an example of Evolution or Intelligent Design? Here is a Wikipedia defining of the function of the Tailbone/Coccyx  (I did not delete the author’s confirmation of your theory because I hope that you know I would say the same thing to he or she):

Function

In humans and other tailless primates (e.g. great apes) since Nakalipithecus (a Miocene hominoid)^[2], the coccyx is the remnant of a vestigial tail, but still not entirely useless;^[3] it is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments  — which makes it necessary for physicians and patients to pay special attention to these attachments when considering surgical removal of the coccyx.^[1] Additionally, it is also part of the weight-bearing tripod structure which act as a support for a sitting person. When a person sits leaning forward, the ischial tuberosities and inferior rami of the ischium take most of the weight, but as the sitting person leans backward, more weight is transferred to the coccyx.^[1]

The anterior side of the coccyx serves for the attachment of a group of muscles important for many functions of the pelvic floor (i.e. defecation, continence, etc): The levator ani muscle, which include coccygeus, iliococcygeus, and pubococcygeus. Through the anococcygeal raphé, the coccyx supports the position of the anus. Attached to the posterior side is gluteus maximus which extend the thigh during ambulation.^[1]

Many important ligaments attach to the coccyx: The anterior and posterior sacrococcygeal ligaments are the continuations of the anterior and posterior longitudinal ligaments that stretches along the entire spine.^[1] Additionally, the lateral sacrococcygeal ligaments complete the foramina for the last sacral nerve.^[4] And, lastly, some fibers of the sacrospinous and sacrotuberous ligaments (arising from the spine of the ischium and the ischial tuberosity respectively) also attach to the coccyx.^[1]

 

^{(emphasis added by Chyuii)}

 

 

Here is you seven examples of what you would call macro-evolution... read this, 26 examples including...

Below is a quote from the 6-page (web page) article that you gave me; I have included this quote as credibility for the quote from Francis Crick that is to follow.

Here is a part of the article you gave me:

“The scientists who cracked the genetic code in the 1950's and 1960's worked under the assumption that the code was universal or nearly so (Judson 1996, p. 280-281). These scientists (which included Francis Crick, Sydney Brenner, George Gamow, and several others) all made this assumption and justified it based upon evolutionary reasoning, even in the complete absence of any direct experimental evidence for a universal code.

"Crick urged on his companions two other simplifying assumptions of great audacity. ... they assumed, with some apprehension, that the genetic code would be the same for all living things. There was no evidence whatever for this; .... Yet universality seemed inevitable for an obvious reason: since a mutation that changed even one word or letter of the code would alter most of a creature's proteins, it looked sure to be lethal." (Judson 1996, p. 280-281)”

 

Here is what Nobel Peace Prize winner biochemist Francis Crick says in his book Life Itself:

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. “

 

 

Richard Dawkins (Atheist) in his book Climbing Mount Improbable says:

 

“ Physics books may be complicated, but… the object and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consist of trillions of those cells, many of them different from each other, organized with intricate architecture and the precision-engineering into a working machine capable of writing a book… Each nucleus ... Contains a digitally coded database larger in information content than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of the body put together. “

 

 

 

Let’s be honest please.

 

Sorry Highway this is not done, you gave me a lot of stuff.
This is my reply (well as much as I have prepared).


http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm



HS,
.

I also ask that you not be a Troll, I see you all of the time saying that I am such a Troll and though you apologize for it, (even by a personal letter that you sent me) it seems more like you are bragging about it.

The over arching problem with all these theories is astronomical “luck” necessary to produce Phylum, sophisticated, and systems. Add that luck to the fine-tuning of the universe and our planet’s own posh fate to be in a universe that supports life, in a spiral galaxy, in the proper position in that spiral, with a benign sun, with giant planets to pull away most asteroid threats, proper size, proper distance from the sun (unlike it’s sister Venus or brother Mars), Correct atmosphere… etc.

Theory and Hypothesis-
As I spoke with the pair of you on said Evolution is a Theory because like the Einstein’s Theory of Relativity all that the Theory puts forth has not been proven.
I said that I do not believe in Macroevolution but Micro, so in reality I have only said exactly what you have said.
As to Highwaystar put forth, the assertion that everything with in the Theory is fact and that would be a wrong.

My point is that I believe in good science and not the bad- It is not ALL or Nothing with science it is only what is proven and unproven. To say that something that is not proven is a truth is to put faith in an idea, and that is not science but it is human.

Macroevolution and Microevolution are in my spell check and I have pretty old copy of Word Perfect. To argue that Creationist or Intelligent Designers only makes the distinction is ludicrous. Both terms are in my 1978 Webster Dictionary.

My argument has never been against all that Darwin has proposed but against the idea that Natural Selection and Random Mutation bring about great changes in a species over time, in such away the new phylum are created from the accumulations of those processes. What proceeds from this line of thinking is that all life are a common ancestor and “Adam” of a self-replicating single Cell Organism (organized).


The LAWS of Thermo Dynamics –

ZERO Thermal Equilibrium: Two objects are in Thermal Equilibrium if heat can pass between them, but no heat is doing so.

I Conserving Heat and Energy- Heat is a form of energy. Energy can change forms but cannot be created nor destroyed


II The second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of the universe always increases, or (equivalently) that perpetual motion machines are impossible. Heat flows from hot to cold.

III The third law of thermodynamics, which concerns the entropy of an object at absolute zero temperature, and implies that it is impossible to cool a system all the way to exactly absolute zero. If all energy were to be removed, absolute zero would be reached. (This cannot actually be done).


Anthropic Principle

In SPACE



1) Birth of the Universe-

I am starting from the beginning because the formation of life is only possible because the Universe exist and benevolently allowed such a small world as Earth good home.

Nobel Peace Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg said in his book The First Three Minutes:
“In the beginning there was an explosion. Not an explosion like those familiar on Earth, starting from a definite center and spreading out to engulf more and more of the circumambient air, but an explosion which occurred simultaneously everywhere, filling all space from the beginning with every particle of matter rushing apart from every other particle.”

For Every action must have a cause. We know this as truth, not necessarily as scientist but as men. All things that occur happen for a reason or are caused by something. So, it is illogical that “nothing” caused the universe to exist.

The universe had a beginning and is not eternal. How do we know?
1) Computer models show that stars and galaxies are moving (the Universe is expanding).
2) Models show that everything comes from a common center.
3) The Universe has Radiant Heat and background radiation that hint from the cataclysm that birthed it.
4) The conversion rates of light materials of stars to heavy (Hydrogen to Helium) show also demonstrate the age of the stars.
5) Spectrum Analysis allow us to take inventory of the amount of “star fuel” (Hydrogen and in rare cases, in huge stars, Helium) because of this we know the age of stars and the estimated time of their deaths.


The Big Bang is proof of an answer that must transcend the known Laws of physics.

The Theories created to refute this are:
1) Oscillating Theory – that contradict known laws of physics. String Theory/ The Theory of Everything /M-Theory

The idea of the Oscillating Universe is widely discredited and is against the 2nd Laws of Thermo- dynamics that state the: that the entropy of the universe always increases, or (equivalently) that perpetual motion machines are impossible.
We also know that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating. We know that there is not enough mass in the universe to support its re-convergence. Theoretical Models of the Oscillating Universe show a succession of shrinking balls that would characterize a perpetual system as the theory puts forth. After numerous Big Bangs the system would yield smaller and smaller results.

If you watch the science series, the Elegant Universe (a show about String Theory) you will see admitted by even by some of the theories strongest proponents that the theory is murky. When I say “murky”, I actually quote Edwin Witten of Institute of Advance Study. He is widely respected and is the one who unified competing String Theory models into the M-Theory. The series is very frank about the highly speculative nature of the plan.

Nevertheless, all of these theories only serve to push back the question, because it is always necessary to ask where did the Universes come from or how did this mother universe or quantum universe making machine arise. The most logical answer is that whatever the cause of the Universe it must transcend Space/Time/(and Matter).

2) The Fine Tuning of the Universe (For Life)-
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

Skeptic, Martin Rees a professor of astronomy at Cambridge (Astronomer Royal by Queen Elizabeth) says if the six numbers that underlie the fundamental physical properties of the universe were altered:
“Even the tiniest degree there would be no stars, no complex elements, no life.”

Bill Bryson in a Short History of Nearly Everything says:

“For the universe to exist as it does requires that hydrogen be converted to helium in a precise but comparatively stately manner- specifically, in a way that converts seven one-thousandths of its mass to energy. Lower that value very slightly- from 0.007 percent to 0.006 percent, say- and no transformation could take place: the universe would consist of hydrogen and nothing else. Raise the value very slightly- to 0.008 percent- and bonding would be so wildly prolific that the hydrogen would long since have been exhausted. In either case, with the slightest tweaking of the numbers the universe as we know and need it would not be here.”


The idea that the Universe is acutely fine-tuned to support life, and seems to be set- up with that aim from the Bang (Start):

1) The expansion rate of the Universe is fine tuned to 1 part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion if the expansion rate was changed 1 part 1 way or the other – faster or slower the universe could not support life. (A one followed by 60 zeroes)

2) The Cosmological Constant has been estimated to be fine tuned to be 1 part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion (A ten followed by 53 zeroes).

3) The force strengths in nature fine-tuned to 1 part in ten thousand billion billion billion (A ten followed by 39 zeroes).

These are not good odds and these are only 3 examples of 20. If we were able to tweak the dials of the universe, even the slightest change would eliminate its ability to support life.
The only explanation of this outside of Intelligent Design is chance and a yet unproven theory called the Theory of Everything/ Grand Unified Theory.


On EARTH

3) The Fine Tuning of the Planet (For Life)-

http://www.privilegedplanet.com/
Add that luck to the fine-tuning of the universe and our planet’s own posh fate to be in a universe that supports life, in a spiral galaxy, in the proper position in that spiral, with a benign sun, with giant planets to pull away most asteroid threats, proper size, proper distance from the sun (unlike it’s sister Venus or brother Mars), Correct atmosphere… etc.
The Habitable Zone is an idea coined by the authors of the Privileged Planet.



On Life

6) Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design -

It is often theorized that a primordial/prebiotic soup of chemicals gave rise to life. This theory arose from ignorant ideas of the age that cells where extremely simple and in such able to “spontaneously form” from substances. Though it seems foolish to us it also is evident to us that they also previously believed that insects had no internal organs and could spontaneously manifest from rotted food. Now we know better.

So, the new theories that take on the origins of life- not the transitions of life- but try to explain where life actually comes from are:
1) Stanley Miller’s Experiment- Where he created Amino Acids in a test tube, using process that where once believed to be on early earth.
2) Sidney Fox’s Proteinoid Theory- that is widely panned by Creationists and Chemist alike. Even the ideological father of the theory, Stanley Miller, rejects Fox’s offshoot.
3) Thomas Cech’s RNA-World – a theory that thinks RNA and not Proteins started life on Earth.

All of the above theories are flawed. 1 and 2 have all been disproved as explanations of an unguided evolution. And option 3 is extremely “unlikely”. According to Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel in Prospects of Understanding RNA-World says that man in the scientific community believe “that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive earth would have been a near miracle. Further, they say even if the miracle occurs (from random unguided chance) then another miracle would have to take place to that would produce intact RNA with the ability to self-replicate.

The over arching problem with all these theories is astronomical “luck” necessary to produce Phylum, sophisticated, and systems. Add that luck to the fine-tuning of the universe and our planet’s own posh fate to be in a universe that supports life, in a spiral galaxy, with a benign sun, with a giant planets to pull away most asteroid threats, proper size, proper distance from the sun (unlike it’s sister Venus or brother Mars), Correct atmosphere… etc.

Mathematician Shutzenberger (M.P.) in Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution argued that it was not mathematically possible for the amount of mutations to arise needed to create the human-eye:
“ There is a considerable gap in the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology.”

Nobel Peace Prize winner, biochemist Francis Crick in his book Life Itself says:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”



Still others have speculated life coming from Mars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc&feature=related

DNA is a code it is information or at least it looks that way- Adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine.
Darwin believed that life came from primordial/prebiotic soup.

The “soup” was rich with amino acids because of this there would have been much nitrogen, since amino acids are nitrogenous. So, the early sediments of rock should have nitrogen-rich minerals but you know what it does not.

Scientist J. Brooks wrote in Origins of Life:

“The nitrogen in content of early organic matter is relatively low- just .015 percent.”
&
“From this we can be reasonably certain that there never was any substantial amount of ‘ primitive soup’ on Earth when pre-Cambrian sediments were formed; if such a soup ever existed it was only for a brief period of time.”

Later Atheist Michael Denton wrote the following in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis “Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.”

The odd of a “simpler “protein forming by chance are 1 chance in a hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is a 10 with 125 zeroes- good odds. It would all have to take place with in 100 million years, which is the rough time between the Earth cooling and the first microfossil found.

4) The Machines of the Cell-

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm
http://www.discovery.org/a/54
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm



HS,
.

I also ask that you not be a Troll, I see you all of the time saying that I am such a Troll and though you apologize for it, (even by a personal letter that you sent me) it seems more like you are bragging about it.

The over arching problem with all these theories is astronomical “luck” necessary to produce Phylum, sophisticated, and systems. Add that luck to the fine-tuning of the universe and our planet’s own posh fate to be in a universe that supports life, in a spiral galaxy, in the proper position in that spiral, with a benign sun, with giant planets to pull away most asteroid threats, proper size, proper distance from the sun (unlike it’s sister Venus or brother Mars), Correct atmosphere… etc.

Theory and Hypothesis-
As I spoke with the pair of you on said Evolution is a Theory because like the Einstein’s Theory of Relativity all that the Theory puts forth has not been proven.
I said that I do not believe in Macroevolution but Micro, so in reality I have only said exactly what you have said.
As to Highwaystar put forth, the assertion that everything with in the Theory is fact and that would be a wrong.

My point is that I believe in good science and not the bad- It is not ALL or Nothing with science it is only what is proven and unproven. To say that something that is not proven is a truth is to put faith in an idea, and that is not science but it is human.

Macroevolution and Microevolution are in my spell check and I have pretty old copy of Word Perfect. To argue that Creationist or Intelligent Designers only makes the distinction is ludicrous. Both terms are in my 1978 Webster Dictionary.

My argument has never been against all that Darwin has proposed but against the idea that Natural Selection and Random Mutation bring about great changes in a species over time, in such away the new phylum are created from the accumulations of those processes. What proceeds from this line of thinking is that all life are a common ancestor and “Adam” of a self-replicating single Cell Organism (organized).


The LAWS of Thermo Dynamics –

ZERO Thermal Equilibrium: Two objects are in Thermal Equilibrium if heat can pass between them, but no heat is doing so.

I Conserving Heat and Energy- Heat is a form of energy. Energy can change forms but cannot be created nor destroyed


II The second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of the universe always increases, or (equivalently) that perpetual motion machines are impossible. Heat flows from hot to cold.

III The third law of thermodynamics, which concerns the entropy of an object at absolute zero temperature, and implies that it is impossible to cool a system all the way to exactly absolute zero. If all energy were to be removed, absolute zero would be reached. (This cannot actually be done).


Anthropic Principle

In SPACE



1) Birth of the Universe-

I am starting from the beginning because the formation of life is only possible because the Universe exist and benevolently allowed such a small world as Earth good home.

Nobel Peace Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg said in his book The First Three Minutes:
“In the beginning there was an explosion. Not an explosion like those familiar on Earth, starting from a definite center and spreading out to engulf more and more of the circumambient air, but an explosion which occurred simultaneously everywhere, filling all space from the beginning with every particle of matter rushing apart from every other particle.”

For Every action must have a cause. We know this as truth, not necessarily as scientist but as men. All things that occur happen for a reason or are caused by something. So, it is illogical that “nothing” caused the universe to exist.

The universe had a beginning and is not eternal. How do we know?
6) Computer models show that stars and galaxies are moving (the Universe is expanding).
7) Models show that everything comes from a common center.
8) The Universe has Radiant Heat and background radiation that hint from the cataclysm that birthed it.
9) The conversion rates of light materials of stars to heavy (Hydrogen to Helium) show also demonstrate the age of the stars.
10) Spectrum Analysis allow us to take inventory of the amount of “star fuel” (Hydrogen and in rare cases, in huge stars, Helium) because of this we know the age of stars and the estimated time of their deaths.


The Big Bang is proof of an answer that must transcend the known Laws of physics.

The Theories created to refute this are:
2) Oscillating Theory – that contradict known laws of physics. String Theory/ The Theory of Everything /M-Theory

The idea of the Oscillating Universe is widely discredited and is against the 2nd Laws of Thermo- dynamics that state the: that the entropy of the universe always increases, or (equivalently) that perpetual motion machines are impossible.
We also know that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating. We know that there is not enough mass in the universe to support its re-convergence. Theoretical Models of the Oscillating Universe show a succession of shrinking balls that would characterize a perpetual system as the theory puts forth. After numerous Big Bangs the system would yield smaller and smaller results.

If you watch the science series, the Elegant Universe (a show about String Theory) you will see admitted by even by some of the theories strongest proponents that the theory is murky. When I say “murky”, I actually quote Edwin Witten of Institute of Advance Study. He is widely respected and is the one who unified competing String Theory models into the M-Theory. The series is very frank about the highly speculative nature of the plan.

Nevertheless, all of these theories only serve to push back the question, because it is always necessary to ask where did the Universes come from or how did this mother universe or quantum universe making machine arise. The most logical answer is that whatever the cause of the Universe it must transcend Space/Time/(and Matter).

2) The Fine Tuning of the Universe (For Life)-
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

Skeptic, Martin Rees a professor of astronomy at Cambridge (Astronomer Royal by Queen Elizabeth) says if the six numbers that underlie the fundamental physical properties of the universe were altered:
“Even the tiniest degree there would be no stars, no complex elements, no life.”

Bill Bryson in a Short History of Nearly Everything says:

“For the universe to exist as it does requires that hydrogen be converted to helium in a precise but comparatively stately manner- specifically, in a way that converts seven one-thousandths of its mass to energy. Lower that value very slightly- from 0.007 percent to 0.006 percent, say- and no transformation could take place: the universe would consist of hydrogen and nothing else. Raise the value very slightly- to 0.008 percent- and bonding would be so wildly prolific that the hydrogen would long since have been exhausted. In either case, with the slightest tweaking of the numbers the universe as we know and need it would not be here.”


The idea that the Universe is acutely fine-tuned to support life, and seems to be set- up with that aim from the Bang (Start):

1) The expansion rate of the Universe is fine tuned to 1 part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion if the expansion rate was changed 1 part 1 way or the other – faster or slower the universe could not support life. (A one followed by 60 zeroes)

2) The Cosmological Constant has been estimated to be fine tuned to be 1 part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion (A ten followed by 53 zeroes).

3) The force strengths in nature fine-tuned to 1 part in ten thousand billion billion billion (A ten followed by 39 zeroes).

These are not good odds and these are only 3 examples of 20. If we were able to tweak the dials of the universe, even the slightest change would eliminate its ability to support life.
The only explanation of this outside of Intelligent Design is chance and a yet unproven theory called the Theory of Everything/ Grand Unified Theory.


On EARTH

3) The Fine Tuning of the Planet (For Life)-

http://www.privilegedplanet.com/
Add that luck to the fine-tuning of the universe and our planet’s own posh fate to be in a universe that supports life, in a spiral galaxy, in the proper position in that spiral, with a benign sun, with giant planets to pull away most asteroid threats, proper size, proper distance from the sun (unlike it’s sister Venus or brother Mars), Correct atmosphere… etc.
The Habitable Zone is an idea coined by the authors of the Privileged Planet.



On Life

6) Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design -

It is often theorized that a primordial/prebiotic soup of chemicals gave rise to life. This theory arose from ignorant ideas of the age that cells where extremely simple and in such able to “spontaneously form” from substances. Though it seems foolish to us it also is evident to us that they also previously believed that insects had no internal organs and could spontaneously manifest from rotted food. Now we know better.

So, the new theories that take on the origins of life- not the transitions of life- but try to explain where life actually comes from are:
4) Stanley Miller’s Experiment- Where he created Amino Acids in a test tube, using process that where once believed to be on early earth.
5) Sidney Fox’s Proteinoid Theory- that is widely panned by Creationists and Chemist alike. Even the ideological father of the theory, Stanley Miller, rejects Fox’s offshoot.
6) Thomas Cech’s RNA-World – a theory that thinks RNA and not Proteins started life on Earth.

All of the above theories are flawed. 1 and 2 have all been disproved as explanations of an unguided evolution. And option 3 is extremely “unlikely”. According to Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel in Prospects of Understanding RNA-World says that man in the scientific community believe “that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive earth would have been a near miracle. Further, they say even if the miracle occurs (from random unguided chance) then another miracle would have to take place to that would produce intact RNA with the ability to self-replicate.

The over arching problem with all these theories is astronomical “luck” necessary to produce Phylum, sophisticated, and systems. Add that luck to the fine-tuning of the universe and our planet’s own posh fate to be in a universe that supports life, in a spiral galaxy, with a benign sun, with a giant planets to pull away most asteroid threats, proper size, proper distance from the sun (unlike it’s sister Venus or brother Mars), Correct atmosphere… etc.

Mathematician Shutzenberger (M.P.) in Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution argued that it was not mathematically possible for the amount of mutations to arise needed to create the human-eye:
“ There is a considerable gap in the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology.”

Nobel Peace Prize winner, biochemist Francis Crick in his book Life Itself says:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”



Still others have speculated life coming from Mars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc&feature=related

DNA is a code it is information or at least it looks that way- Adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine.
Darwin believed that life came from primordial/prebiotic soup.

The “soup” was rich with amino acids because of this there would have been much nitrogen, since amino acids are nitrogenous. So, the early sediments of rock should have nitrogen-rich minerals but you know what it does not.

Scientist J. Brooks wrote in Origins of Life:

“The nitrogen in content of early organic matter is relatively low- just .015 percent.”
&
“From this we can be reasonably certain that there never was any substantial amount of ‘ primitive soup’ on Earth when pre-Cambrian sediments were formed; if such a soup ever existed it was only for a brief period of time.”

Later Atheist Michael Denton wrote the following in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis “Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.”

The odd of a “simpler “protein forming by chance are 1 chance in a hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is a 10 with 125 zeroes- good odds. It would all have to take place with in 100 million years, which is the rough time between the Earth cooling and the first microfossil found.

4) The Machines of the Cell-

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm
http://www.discovery.org/a/54
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm

This section is about the new challenge to Macroevolution from the relatively new field of Microbiology.


But in the relatively new field of Micro Biology, it is no longer acceptable to explain evolution along the lines of the overall physical structure of an organism. Why? Because now that we can see the insides of cell and now those we can see molecules and proteins in the body, we now must explain the evolution of every one of those processes as well.


Charles Darwin stated in Origin of the Species in the section that called “Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication” Darwin thought that evolution could not build an organ such as the human eye quickly but had to do it in slow gradual steps. If the human eye appeared rapidly, it, in his opinion; would be a miracle.

He presented a series of eyes:
1 Jelly Fish Eye (a light sensitive spot)- sensing light
2 A marine Limpets Eye (A cupped eye)- sensing light and the direction from which it comes.
3 Eye of a marine snail (an eye with a lens)- sensitivity to light increased by gelatinous fluid.

He believed that this might show Evolution but it does not, microbiology has shown that flesh is not like matter. So while an eye may have a form likened to a video camera in reality, there is an extremely complex dance of chemicals that must activate, shut-off, and replenish just in order that we may see even a fraction of a second of light.

http://www.discovery.org/a/54

Darwin also thought that if it could be proven that a system of the body is irreducibly complex (All part of the system are necessary for its function) then his theory is at fault. Things like the Blood Clotting Cascade, the Human Immune System, and Intercellular Transport Systems all show system that are irreducibly complex. These systems also show that a system

5) What the Cambrian Era Says About The Fossil Record - Time and The Transitional Big Bang:

The Cambrian Explosion called the Biological Big Bang- Shows fossils of many body plans in fully evolved, appearing suddenly in rocks dating to the Cambrian Age without transitional forms.

Paleontologist Niles Eldredge in 1995 Reinventing Darwin said:
“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change- over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet, that is how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.”

The time allowed for all of the beneficial Genetic Mutations necessary to bring about chordates from a singled cell organism has become shorter from 50 million year to 10 million years (The Cambrian Explosion is about 10 million years in length).
Because of the fact of the Cambrian Explosion theories like Punctuated Equilibrium, a theory in existence since the 70, postulated 2 things:
1 Species go through little observable change
2 When change does happen it is rapid and concentrated in small, isolated populations.

Now there is Complexity Theory (championed by Straut Kauffman of the Sante Fe Institute) that theorizes that living systems are created by self-organization, the tendency for complex systems to arrange themselves into patterns- not by natural selection. The Theory has few followers as an explanation for the complexity of irreducibly complex living eternal systems.
The theory is actually based on, computer programs and the variations in output generated by variation in the code or in unexpected “mutations”. The thinking that is that perhaps small changes in DNA somehow propagates massive, and coordinated biological changes. Complexity Theory is fine on paper and as a computer program but in the real world, the experiment would meet the same fate a Stanley Miller’s (Origin of Life Theories and the offshoots) See section 6 under “ The WHO or WHAT” below.


Kaufman in Origins of Order (Pub. by Oxford Uni. Press) says:
“Darwin and evolution stand astride us, whatever the mutterings of creation scientist. But is the view right? Better, is it adequate? I believe it is not. It is not that Darwin is wrong, but that he got hold of only part of the truth.”

Evolutionary Biologist Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders says in Beyond Neo-Darwinism- An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution:
“Yet the successes of the theory are limited to the minutia of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths; while it has remarkably little to say on the question which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place.”

Aussie Evolutionary Geneticist George Miklos says in The Emergence of Organizational Complexities During the Metazoan Evolution: Perspectives for Micro Biology, Paleontology, and Neo-Darwinism:
“What then does the all-encompassing theory of evolution predict? Given a handful of postulates, such as random mutations, and selection coefficients, it will predict changes in (gene) frequencies over time. Is this what a grand theory of evolution ought to be about?”

Jerry Coyne of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago says in The Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment:
“We conclude- unexpectedly- that there is little evidence for the Neo- Darwinian view; its theoretical foundation and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.”

University of California geneticist John Endler ponders in The Process of Evolution: A Newer Synthesis how mutations that are beneficial come about, saying:
“Although much is known about mutation, it is still largely a ‘black box’ relative to evolution. Novel biochemical functions seem to be rare in evolution, and the basis for their origin is virtually unknown.”

Mathematician Shutzenberger (M.P.) in Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution argued that it was not mathematically possible for the amount of mutations to arise needed to create the human-eye:
“ There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology.”


This section is about the new challenge to Macroevolution from the relatively new field of Microbiology.


But in the relatively new field of Micro Biology, it is no longer acceptable to explain evolution along the lines of the overall physical structure of an organism. Why? Because now that we can see the insides of cell and now those we can see molecules and proteins in the body, we now must explain the evolution of every one of those processes as well.


Charles Darwin stated in Origin of the Species in the section that called “Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication” Darwin thought that evolution could not build an organ such as the human eye quickly but had to do it in slow gradual steps. If the human eye appeared rapidly, it, in his opinion; would be a miracle.

He presented a series of eyes:
1 Jelly Fish Eye (a light sensitive spot)- sensing light
2 A marine Limpets Eye (A cupped eye)- sensing light and the direction from which it comes.
3 Eye of a marine snail (an eye with a lens)- sensitivity to light increased by gelatinous fluid.

He believed that this might show Evolution but it does not, microbiology has shown that flesh is not like matter. So while an eye may have a form likened to a video camera in reality, there is an extremely complex dance of chemicals that must activate, shut-off, and replenish just in order that we may see even a fraction of a second of light.

http://www.discovery.org/a/54

Darwin also thought that if it could be proven that a system of the body is irreducibly complex (All part of the system are necessary for its function) then his theory is at fault. Things like the Blood Clotting Cascade, the Human Immune System, and Intercellular Transport Systems all show system that are irreducibly complex.

5) What the Cambrian Era Says About The Fossil Record - Time and The Transitional Big Bang:

The Cambrian Explosion called the Biological Big Bang- Shows fossils of many body plans in fully evolved, appearing suddenly in rocks dating to the Cambrian Age without transitional forms.

Paleontologist Niles Eldredge in 1995 Reinventing Darwin said:
“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change- over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet, that is how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.”

The time allowed for all of the beneficial Genetic Mutations necessary to bring about chordates from a singled cell organism has become shorter from 50 million year to 10 million years (The Cambrian Explosion is about 10 million years in length).
Because of the fact of the Cambrian Explosion theories like Punctuated Equilibrium, a theory in existence since the 70, postulated 2 things:
1 Species go through little observable change
2 When change does happen it is rapid and concentrated in small, isolated populations.

Now there is Complexity Theory (championed by Straut Kauffman of the Sante Fe Institute) that theorizes that living systems are created by self-organization, the tendency for complex systems to arrange themselves into patterns- not by natural selection. The Theory has few followers as an explanation for the complexity of irreducibly complex living eternal systems.
The theory is actually based on, computer programs and the variations in output generated by variation in the code or in unexpected “mutations”. The thinking that is that perhaps small changes in DNA somehow propagates massive, and coordinated biological changes. Complexity Theory is fine on paper and as a computer program but in the real world, the experiment would meet the same fate a Stanley Miller’s (Origin of Life Theories and the offshoots) See section 6 under “ The WHO or WHAT” below.


Kaufman in Origins of Order (Pub. by Oxford Uni. Press) says:
“Darwin and evolution stand astride us, whatever the mutterings of creation scientist. But is the view right? Better, is it adequate? I believe it is not. It is not that Darwin is wrong, but that he got hold of only part of the truth.”

Evolutionary Biologist Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders says in Beyond Neo-Darwinism- An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution:
“Yet the successes of the theory are limited to the minutia of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths; while it has remarkably little to say on the question which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place.”

Aussie Evolutionary Geneticist George Miklos says in The Emergence of Organizational Complexities During the Metazoan Evolution: Perspectives for Micro Biology, Paleontology, and Neo-Darwinism:
“What then does the all-encompassing theory of evolution predict? Given a handful of postulates, such as random mutations, and selection coefficients, it will predict changes in (gene) frequencies over time. Is this what a grand theory of evolution ought to be about?”

Jerry Coyne of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago says in The Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment:
“We conclude- unexpectedly- that there is little evidence for the Neo- Darwinian view; its theoretical foundation and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.”

University of California geneticist John Endler ponders in The Process of Evolution: A Newer Synthesis how mutations that are beneficial come about, saying:
“Although much is known about mutation, it is still largely a ‘black box’ relative to evolution. Novel biochemical functions seem to be rare in evolution, and the basis for their origin is virtually unknown.”

Mathematician Shutzenberger (M.P.) in Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution argued that it was not mathematically possible for the amount of mutations to arise needed to create the human-eye:
“ There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology.”



By WHO or WHAT




















As to what you wrote I begin with:

Accordingly to the bulk of things that G. G. Simpson said in the Darwin Centenary Symposium which was held in 1959:
They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution. A great many sequences of two or a few temporally intergrading species are known, but even at this level, most species appear without known immediate ancestors, and really long, perfectly complete sequences of numerous species are exceedingly rare. Sequences of genera immediately successive or nearly so at that level (not necessarily from one genus to the next, are more common and maybe longer than known sequences of species. But the appearance of a new genus in the record is usually more abrupt than the appearance of a new species; the gaps involved are generally larger, that is, when a new genus appears in the record it is usually well separated morphologically from the most nearly similar other known genera. This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known order, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large.”


Most of your proof is Homology and Morphology:

Evidence of reptiles evolving into mammals-

Denton rips into the argument of Fish to Lung Fish to Amphibian to Reptile to Mammal. He compares the hearts of the organism s and finds no clear evolutionary path. The eggs of the species and says that: “ In some ways, mammalian eggs are closer in their initial pattern of development to those of a frog than to any reptile.”
The book is full of quotes but as this is a very long writing, I suggest that you checkout the book at the library and then refute him, as I must with some of you longer articles.

Also, there are no links to the authors or the different theory holders. The article that you gave me has to be the work of a conglomerate of biological theorizes and truths. So, it would be extremely hard to track down all of the various parts of the story. But I promise to continue to do so (I find it interesting).
De Beer an embryologist wrote a book called Homology, an Unresolved Problem. (Oxford press) The over arching theme of the book is that the similar body plans of Vertebrates (their Homology) does not mean that the developmental mechanisms with in forming embryos a re the same. He says:
“It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated.”
He even documented the eye lens formation in two types of frog embryos and found that cutting out: “the optic cup of the Rana fusca led to a lack of lens development, but in the closely related edible frog, Rana Esculents, the optic cup can be cut out from the embryo, and the lens develops all the same.”


Evidence of human evolution from primates:
All you gave me were a successive series of skulls. Without DNA evidence, it is easy to assume things in accordance to form. For example, (barring clear racism) people of different colors are often picked-up due to their description, which is similar to a degree, to the criminal. There are people in jail because they were the only other black man or Iranian on the street that night. This is why many times DNA has the ability to free men of crimes or make then “more” guiltier.
Is the DNA is more compatible with apes or human beings? A series of skulls does not show common descent nor does it discredit it. Watching the TV show Bones, Angela one of the Scientist, is able to look at a skull and immediately tell by characteristics whether it is a male or female, whether it is black, white, Asian, etc. …This is true to life science being used everyday. Even more specifically, we can even break down the groups mentioned above and say what the geographical decent of the human is. Like OK, he is white but what kind of white guy? He is Black but what region of Africa did his ancestors come from?
So what I am saying is do these skulls show Ape to Man- or just many types of Ape (living and extinct) and /or many races of human being (living and extinct)? Perhaps, some of the populations and the genes for these men are now lost or extinct. As in the Neanderthals who were once thought to be our predecessors then our contemporaries; or thought biological incompatible with humans then later theorized that their genes have been absorbed and subdued by our more dominant genes and/or natural selection.
If they are humans, then what are we really saying? Are we going to make the mistake of Hitler (not with the death) and start thinking that one race is less evolved than the next? You can tell by DNA the “RACE” (although we all are human) of a man. If all life arose from Africa, are we going to say that Europeans are superior to Africans because they manifest later gene expressions of the human race?

Evidence that whales are evolved from land mammals:
As I had said before the problem comes when just tell me something. The web site tells a story but it does not do a great job at telling me how much of what is written is conjecture and how much is fact. Even the language of the author give some clue that not all of the things mentioned are confirmable but is the best guess in accordance to the evidence presented to them.
Also, there are no links to the authors or the different theory holders. The article that you gave me has to be the work of a conglomerate of biological theorizes and truths. So, it would be extremely hard to track down all of the various parts of the story. But I promise to continue to do so (I find it interesting).
Atheist, Microbiologist and Medical Doctor, Michael Denton in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis in Chapter 8 of his book called The Fossil Record, specifically on page 174, say that the fossil record for Whales to land mammals is far from conclusive.
The problem is the story like the one the website you gave me is far too direct for Natural Selection and Random Mutation. On page 175 of the book is a hypothetical linage of the whale from a land animal. He says on the previous page:
“Even from the hypothetical primitive whales to bridge, the not inconsiderable gaps which separate the modern filter feeders and the toothed whales. Moreover, it is impossible to accept that such a hypothetical sequences of species, which led directly from the unspecialized terrestrial ancestral form, gave rise to no collateral branches. Such an assumption would be purely ad hoc, and influence in evolution which would be quite foreign to the spirit of Darwinian theory and defeat its major purpose of attempting to provide a natural explanation for evolution.”
Later he says:
“…all the modifications necessary to convert a land mammal into a whale- forelimb modifications, the evolution of tail flukes, the stream lining, reduction of hind limbs, modifications of skull to bring nostrils to the top of head, modification of trachea, modifications of behavior pattern, specialized nipples so that the young could feed underwater (a complete list would be enormous)- one is inclined to think in terms of possibility hundreds, even thousands, of transitional species on the most direct path between a hypothetical land ancestor and the common ancestor of modern whales.”



Snakes showing reptilian legs during early development... another leftover from an earlier species.
The article that you gave me was ambiguous about the evolution of snakes. One finding was that it was a predecessor of the modern snake and another was that it was an advanced snake. So, the evidence presented is in conflict with on another. If there were, a tiebreaker or some reason stated in the article as to why the 1st group was unable to reach the same conclusion as the following group the findings would have more weight.
The first group who thought that the fossil was a missing link of snake’s evolution, findings were in stark conflict to previous thoughts on the evolution of snakes as well.
The only thing that may or may not be credible in this article is the reference to the organ on modern day boa- but since neither the longer held theory of snake evolution, or the new theory that flew in the face of that fact, or the newest theory that believed the fossil to be a progenitor of the modern snake are in agreement it is hard for me to say that the piece of cartilage and bone that it uses to fight and during mating, is a residual visage of a leg.
Now since the conflictions are so great it leads me to believe that the story is not 100 percent fleshed-out, meaning it is not FACT. If it were fact, the place of the new fossil would not be so easily displaceable.
The conjoining of the 2 theories to suggest that the snake is capable of evolving and “de-evolving” if you will is also just an assumption. Nor is there anything in the theories to suggest that the Serpent is not related to the snake in anyway but rather has a similar design as the legless creature.
But a word of advice to you, if you argue with a Creationist or ID person who believes in the Hebrew God, you had better not bring up the evolution of snakes, seeing as how ancient “mythology” had already speculated that theory long before the word “scientist” was coined.



Gene Expression:
The full evolution of paramecium (which co-incidently destroys slimebeasts bacteria arguements)
On Paramecium your websites, findings were submitted online 12/1/2006 later developments have different results 12/11/2008 please click link cast a dubious light on the miraculous findings of the group. Showing that the ideas of the group are in no way widely accepted by the scientific community and at best, the previous results are downplayed.

Genetic Diversity in the Paramecium aurelia Species Complex
Francesco Catania*, François Wurmser , , Alexey A. Potekhin , Ewa Przybo || and Michael Lynch*
* Department of Biology, Indiana University
Laboratory Evolution, Genomes and Speciation; CNRS-UPR9034, Gif sur Yvette Cedex, France
Universitè Paris-Sud 11, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France
Laboratory of Protozoan Karyology, Faculty of Biology and Soil Science, St Petersburg State University; Oranienbaumskoye sh., 2, Stary Peterhof, 198504 Saint Petersburg, Russia
|| Department of Experimental Zoology, Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland
E-mail: fcatania@indiana.edu .
Accepted for publication November 11, 2008.

Current understanding of the population genetics of free-living unicellular eukaryotes is limited, and the amount of genetic variability in these organisms is still a matter of debate. We characterized—reproductively and genetically—worldwide samples of multiple Paramecium species belonging to a cryptic species complex, Paramecium aurelia, whose species have been shown to be reproductively isolated. We found that levels of genetic diversity both in the nucleus and in the mitochondrion are substantial within groups of reproductively compatible P. aurelia strains but drop considerably when strains are partitioned according to their phylogenetic groupings. Our study reveals the existence of discrepancies between the mating behavior of a number of P. aurelia strains and their multilocus genetic profile, a controversial finding that has major consequences for both the current methods of species assignment and the species problem in the P. aurelia complex.
Key Words: Paramecium • genetic diversity • effective population size • speciation • cryptic species • mating group switching

Laura Katz, Associate Editor
Vestigial tails, a left over gene from an older species
I know what it looks like the coccyx/ tailbone but the problem we have is the way you are looking at it. If you believe in Macroevolution and categorizing things by appearance then it would be easy to say all that it is a vestigial tail. But the only way you could prove that to me is to show me that it has no function in our bodies. If it was a tail then it should serve no purpose for us since we have no tails. The problem is that it does serve a purpose in tailless primates. So, would that be a example of Evolution or Intelligent Design? Here is a Wikipedia defining of the function of the Tailbone/Coccyx (I did not delete the author’s confirmation of your theory because I hope that you know I would say the same thing to he or she that I say to you):
[edit] Function
In humans and other tailless primates (e.g. great apes) since Nakalipithecus (a Miocene hominoid)[2], the coccyx is the remnant of a vestigial tail, but still not entirely useless;[3] it is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments — which makes it necessary for physicians and patients to pay special attention to these attachments when considering surgical removal of the coccyx.[1] Additionally, it is also part of the weight-bearing tripod structure which act as a support for a sitting person. When a person sits leaning forward, the ischial tuberosities and inferior rami of the ischium take most of the weight, but as the sitting person leans backward, more weight is transferred to the coccyx.[1]
The anterior side of the coccyx serves for the attachment of a group of muscles important for many functions of the pelvic floor (i.e. defecation, continence, etc): The levator ani muscle, which include coccygeus, iliococcygeus, and pubococcygeus. Through the anococcygeal raphé, the coccyx supports the position of the anus. Attached to the posterior side is gluteus maximus which extend the thigh during ambulation.[1]
Many important ligaments attach to the coccyx: The anterior and posterior sacrococcygeal ligaments are the continuations of the anterior and posterior longitudinal ligaments that stretches along the entire spine.[1] Additionally, the lateral sacrococcygeal ligaments complete the foramina for the last sacral nerve.[4] And, lastly, some fibers of the sacrospinous and sacrotuberous ligaments (arising from the spine of the ischium and the ischial tuberosity respectively) also attach to the coccyx.[1]

(emphasis added by Chyuii)


Here is you seven examples of what you would call macro-evolution... read this, 26 examples including...
Below is a quote from the 6 page (web page) article that you gave me; I have included this quote as credibility for the quote from Francis Crick that is to follow.
Here a part of the article you gave me:
“The scientists who cracked the genetic code in the 1950's and 1960's worked under the assumption that the code was universal or nearly so (Judson 1996, p. 280-281). These scientists (which included Francis Crick, Sydney Brenner, George Gamow, and several others) all made this assumption and justified it based upon evolutionary reasoning, even in the complete absence of any direct experimental evidence for a universal code.
"Crick urged on his companions two other simplifying assumptions of great audacity. ... they assumed, with some apprehension, that the genetic code would be the same for all living things. There was no evidence whatever for this; .... Yet universality seemed inevitable for an obvious reason: since a mutation that changed even one word or letter of the code would alter most of a creature's proteins, it looked sure to be lethal." (Judson 1996, p. 280-281)”

Here is what Nobel Peace Prize winner biochemist Francis Crick says in his book Life Itself:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. “

Richard Dawkins (Atheist) in his book Climbing Mount Improbable says:
“ Physics books may be complicated, but… the object and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consist of trillions of those cells, many of them different from each other, organized with intricate architecture and the precision-engineering into a working machine capable of writing a book… Each nucleus ... Contains a digitally coded database larger in information content than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of the body put together. “

CHYUII said: For every action must have a cause.  We know this as truth, not necessarily as scientists but as men.

I've seen a lot of scientific and logical errors in your above posts.  I do apologize though, as I really dont want to get in a strewn out debate that will never go anywhere.  I have a scientific understanding of the universe that I cannot put aside, and you have a spiritual understanding of the unvierse that you cannot put aside.

I would, however, like to point this quote out.  You assume every action has a cause, but that is not true.  The logical problem to that is that God would require a cause too.

There is a scientific problem with that too.  In quantum physics, there are is uncertainity associated with the behaivor of particles.  This was upsetting for many athiest scientists at the time, because it meant that determinism was incorrect and that a scientific explanation of 'free will' was possible.  However, it also means that not everything has a cause.  Quantum fluctuations, which occur because of Hesinburg's Uncertainity Principle, have no cause, and it is believed by scientists that they played a role in the Big Bang.

Even the major proponents of Intelligent Design in the scientific community are giving up on ID. That shows you how sound its logic is.

"Are we going to make the mistake of Hitler (not with the death) and start thinking that one race is less evolved than the next?"

Is that really a mistake? All races are more or less evolved in some areas.

im going with science as its slightly more credible than a book written by random people 2000 years ago, then found in a cave hundreds of years later.

evolution may not be 100 percent right yet, however given the size of the universe, the creation thing is arrogant and self centered wishful thinking in my eyes.

evolution baby.

If we were intelligently designed, our designer wasn't very intelligent...

Evolution happens every day, all around us. Almost everyone accepts that, some people just have difficulty seeing it in a larger timescale.

Sign me up for evolution. Portugal.

 

ManusJustus said: CHYUII said: For every action must have a cause.  We know this as truth, not necessarily as scientists but as men. I've seen a lot of scientific and logical errors in your above posts.  I do apologize though, as I really dont want to get in a strewn out debate that will never go anywhere.  I have a scientific understanding of the universe that I cannot put aside, and you have a spiritual understanding of the unvierse that you cannot put aside. I would, however, like to point this quote out.  You assume every action has a cause, but that is not true.  The logical problem to that is that God would require a cause too. There is a scientific problem with that too.  In quantum physics, there are is uncertainity associated with the behaivor of particles.  This was upsetting for many athiest scientists at the time, because it meant that determinism was incorrect and that a scientific explanation of 'free will' was possible.  However, it also means that not everything has a cause.  Quantum fluctuations, which occur because of Hesinburg's Uncertainity Principle, have no cause, and it is believed by scientists that they played a role in the Big Bang.

What you are talking about is part of String Theory- as I said in all the text- the Theory is not proven and considered by some to be unprovable and thus phylosophy. (Even Witten the unifier of the 5 major theories of string theory said that the theory was murky.)

The top advocates all say that the theory is only speculation. (Even Witten)

The same justification that you give String Theory is infact an excuse that you should allow the Designer.

The Designer would not be subject to the LAWS of the system that they designed.

It is the same reason why people need String Theory to be (not that it bothers me ) and put their faith in it.

But why allow for eternity in one case and then revolk it in another?