Our Danish friend, Karsten Pultz (left), author of Exit Evolution, tackles the big question;
This is the important question ID raises against the neo-Darwinian claim that life came about by random processes. Here I offer some thoughts about the connection between information in the form of digital codes and the products they code for. I thus hope to support the argument for ID and for what seems to me the inescapable fact of teleology in nature.
If a random number generator were set to produce eight digit numbers, and it coincidentally spat out 87958007, which happens to be my phone number, would it then have produced information? Or if a prebiotic soup randomly produced a functional protein, or a string of DNA that coded for a protein (ignoring the low probability of such occurrences), would the soup have produced information?
I would argue no.
The specific sequences that carry information, phone numbers, for example, can only be defined as information in relation to the whole system of which they are a part. There needs to be a translation system with defined rules that sorts out which sequences contains information and which do not.
To claim that information in DNA could arise by random chance is therefore nonsense. A functional sequence could not be regarded as information until we have a complete set of rules which defines that certain sequences are functional and all others are nonfunctional gobbledygook.
It is not reasonable to consider it likely that information can arise by chance without the translation that defines it as information?
A random process producing information is an oxymoron
No matter how many phone numbers that happen to be in service that a random number generator spits out, they wouldn’t be phone numbers because the generator has not chosen them from a defined set of rules. In the same way, proteins randomly produced in a prebiotic soup would not be proteins at all because they would not have been produced in relation to the translation system which defines them as proteins. Equally important, they would not have been produced in relation to the specific task they would serve in an organism.
Phone numbers are only phone numbers because we, the intelligent designers, have made the rules that decide what is required in order for a sequence of digits to function as an actual phone number.
Talking about information detached from the translation system which defines it as information doesn’t make sense.
We don’t get information without the act of choice, a feature that is related only to intelligent agency. A random process producing information is therefore an oxymoronic (or just moronic) concept. The translation system that defines what sequences are functional is obviously intelligently designed because it involves the conscious selection of parameters.
The information-product connection
Not only is the problem that there aren’t enough probabilistic resources to produce the DNA code by random processes but the DNA code would in fact not be information without the translation system. The code, together with the translation system, would still be worthless if it weren’t strictly tied to the last part of the overall system, namely the product, the organism.
In the end, it is the final product that defines that the information which forms the basis of the product can be considered information in the first place.
Code-translation-product
In a modern car factory we have the three part production system which consists of computer code, the machinery (robots) that translate the code into specific movements, and finally the end product, the car. It is obvious that the intelligent designers did not start with the two first items, the code and the translation. It was the final product which initially was in the mind of the intelligent designers. The code and the translation tools were developed in coordination to realize the idea of a car, the idea of which initially was in the mind of the intelligent designer.
Hence I will argue that information is only information if it is related to the end product. The idea (logos) comes first, then secondly the coding and the translation tools are put together simultaneously in order to realize the idea.
I think it is reasonable to argue that information is necessarily tied to a product, an idea (logos) or message, and that the product always is in the mind of the intelligent designer as the first thing. Information can therefore not be the product of a mindless process.
Human-engineered factory production is characterized by initially having a desired object in mind. After the inception of the idea, robots are built that can produce the object, and lastly the coding that is going to operate the machinery is done. The important thing here is that the idea of the end product comes first; the translation (the machinery) and the coding comes after inception of the idea.
A code—which is what we call information—is nothing in itself because it is slave to the idea. I would argue that the same counts for living things, that the DNA code was set up to realize and idea, an organism the intelligent designer already had in mind.
Identifying that something is wrong
It is the end product that defines whether a code sequence carries (“correct”) information or not. If cars leave the production line with only three wheels or with just one headlight, we become aware that something is wrong with the underlying information. So that is how we can evaluate if something can be regarded as information, simply by looking at the end product.
The materialist cannot escape the fact of teleology in nature, because even he or she will recognize illness and defect as something that is “wrong” with an organism, thereby acknowledging the overall idea and purpose of an organism.
When it comes to information the process always starts with an idea in a mind. The information that’s needed to realize the idea is defined by the idea, not the other way around. This makes it unlikely that information could arise by mindless natural processes, because we need a mind with an idea before we come to the part we call information.
Because human engineers, the only intelligent designers we are familiar with, operate in the described way, with the idea as the primary and the translation and coding as secondary, we have an empirical basis for arguing that life is the product of an idea in the mind of an intelligent designer.
The idea is primary
In human engineering you start with the end-product in mind, for instance a car. Then you set up the machinery that can produce the wanted item, and lastly you program the machinery. In written language you also start with the end-product, namely the message you want to convey, and then you do the “programming”, the sequencing of letters which follows the in advance chosen rules. It is not possible to look at information separated from the translation and the end product. The three parts, code-translation-product, are inherently connected, the idea, product or message in the mind of the intelligent designer being the first to arise.
So even if the chances of a protein arising in a prebiotic soup were not out of reach, it would still not be a protein because a protein is defined by its function in the end-product, the organism. A DNA sequence can only be defined as information if you already have the organism in view. Therefore it makes sense that in the beginning was the idea, the logos.
Conclusion
I think my argument shows that idealism is true and materialism is false, that random processes do not produce information, and that a mind with an idea is the primary means by which everything comes into existence. One can use it to argue for ID and for teleology in nature. I would also not hesitate to use it as argument in a theological debate.
See also: Karsten Pultz: The perils of talking about ID He wonders, should he give up?
Exit Evolution – I’m sad to see, no English language edition yet …
Code-sender-medium-receiver-translation-confirmation-feedback
“Choice” is definitely an aspect.
It is mistaken to think of “information” merely as the code. It’s an informational system or circuit.
Pultz is defining a particular context (that of a logos and then a mechanism to realize the logos, which then needs the information), and then saying that his particular type of information is the kind we should concern ourselves with. Let’s call it p-info (“p” for Pultz). Then he’s saying that p-info does not come about spontaneously, in the absence of a logos.
The first criticism we might find of this idea, is that information certainly exists in other forms. And then it will be argued that those other forms can indeed come about via randomness. But the person arguing for that is probably thinking of a different type of information.
The next challenge for this p-info idea is to find a way to argue that it cannot come about via randomness–not even via some subtle bootstrapping means. One approach would be to argue that the Von Neuman universal constructor mechanism is the simplest possible, and that to realize one with atoms takes more probabilistic resources than our universe can muster. Therefore, p-info isn’t bootstrappable. But we already knew this.
So is this idea truly new, or is it just a reshaping of ideas we’re already familiar with?
EDTA,
It seems to be just a reshaping of ideas we’re already familiar with. Another way to explain or illustrate it.
as to:
This is very similar to the argument that was put forth by Wiker & Witt in their book “A Meaningful World”. Specifically, “The whole is required to give meaning to the part.”
In short, reductive materialism can never provide an explanation for overall ‘context’:
Pastor Joe Boot puts the irresolvable dilemma for reductive materialists as such,
This irresolvable dilemma of ‘context’ for reductive materialists also plays out in mathematics. Specifically, Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem for mathematics can be succinctly stated as such, “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”.
Kurt Gödel also stated this,
Moreover, Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is not just some abstract mathematical and/or philosophical proof, but Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem has now been extended to physics.
Specifically, as the following article states, “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,”
In biology, Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, and this irresolvable dilemma that ‘context’ presents to reductive materialists, plays out in that reductive materialists have no clue why the billions of trillions of protein molecules of any particular organism may cohere as a single unified whole “precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”
Of course the Christian Theist has a ready answer to the question of “What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?” That answer is, of course, that It is the soul that must be providing the singular overall context to the billions of trillions of protein molecules in an organism and gives us a coherent explanation as to exactly “why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death.”
Moreover, the Christian Theist does not have to rely only on the ‘necessity of context’ in order to argue for the reality of the soul, but the Christian Theist can now also, due to advances in quantum biology and quantum information theory, appeal directly to empirical evidence to support his foundational belief in a soul.
Specifically, quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement is not found to be ubiquitous within life. As the title of the following paper states, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules”
As well, at 24:00 minute mark of the following video Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it.
What is so devastating to Darwinian presuppositions with the finding pervasive quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement within molecular biology, is that quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement is a non-local, beyond space and time, effect that requires a beyond space and time cause in order to explain its existence. As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, ““Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
Moreover, as the following study found, the greater the number of particles in a quantum hypergraph state, (which is exactly the type of quantum coherence that we have with protein and DNA molecules), the more strongly it violates local realism, with the strength increasing exponentially with the number of particles.
Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain the non-local quantum coherence and/or entanglement of the cell or of an entire organism in general. Whereas Christians readily do have a beyond space and time cause that they can appeal to. As Colossians 1:17 states, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
To go a bit further, classical information is shown to be a subset of quantum information by the following method. Specifically, in the following 2011 paper, researchers ,,, show that when the bits (in a computer) to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,, In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that (in quantum information theory) an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.
And as the following 2017 article states: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,,
quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,,
Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
Again to repeat that last sentence,“Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
That statement about entropy being a property of an observer who describes the system, for anyone involved in the ID vs. Darwinism debate, ought to send chills down their scientific spine.
These experiments completely blow the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinian evolution, (presuppositions about information being merely ’emergent’ from some material basis), out of the water, and tie the creation of information in an organism directly to the knowledge of the ‘observer’ in quantum theory.
In other words, contrary to the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, information, particularly this ‘thermodynamic positional information’, is now experimentally shown, via quantum information theory, to be its own distinct physical entity that, although it can interact with matter and energy, is its own independent, ‘non-local’ beyond space and time, entity that is separate from matter and energy. On top of all that, this ‘thermodynamic positional information’ is found, via quantum information theory, to be “a property of an observer who describes a system.”
In other words, Intelligent Design, and a direct inference to God as the Intelligence behind life, (via the non-locality of quantum information and/or the non-locality of quantum entanglement ), has, for all intents and purposes, finally achieved experimental confirmation.
One final note. The implication for us personally of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.
That pleasant implication is, of course, the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Verse:
supplemental notes:
It’s interesting — significant, I’d say — that one of the definitions of the Greek “logos” is “story,” which is not really a definition of the English “word” outside of idiomatically (e.g. “What’s the good word?” and “Is there word yet?”). Like the debut of Big Bang cosmology caused thinkers pause at Genesis 1:1, surely the realization of Information Technology will be — has been and is — giving thinkers pause at John 1:1.
Despite it’s defects, strictly speaking as a translation, imagining the in-depth and inescapable rhetorical and linguistic impact inherent in translating “logos” as “story” there, we might get the impact more fully that the word’s use would have on a native speaker of Koine Greek:
“In the beginning was the story, and the story was with God, and the story was God.”
No story = no beginning, no cosmos, no life, no man, no God.
complex functional information
Data Integration in Poplar: ‘Omics Layers and Integration Strategies
ID showoff? 🙂
Wavelet-Based Genomic Signal Processing for Centromere Identification and Hypothesis Generation
ID exuberance ? 🙂
DNA sequence encodes the position of DNA supercoils
Selfish ID? 🙂
The CDK Pef1 and Protein Phosphatase 4 oppose each other for regulating cohesin binding to fission yeast chromosomes
a phone number :))))
HOLD ON ! IT IS NOT THAT SIMPLE !!!!
i am sure that biologists wish it would be that simple…. BUT IT IS NOT !!!
in biology, the problem is much deeper….
in biology, a single ‘phone number’ represents several layers of information…
in biology – the cell is reading ‘the phone number’ backward and forward and always reaches the ‘right person’
and it is getting worse ….
this ‘phone number’ is spliced in various ways …
this way, a single ‘phone number’ can be used to reach several ‘persons’
multiple layers of information in a single phone number by random ? :))))
it seems, that biologists – natural science graduates – believes in miracles … over and over again….
Someone should use this phone number and call the doctor …
Organelles of the Cell
Cell Structure
The Structure of DNA
Cell Cycle Terms
Cell Cycle
Multi Scale Modeling of Chromatin and Nucleosomes
Why is math useful in describing complex biological systems?
Classification-Based Inference of Dynamical Models of Gene Regulatory Networks
The Danish ID proponent cited in this OP should change his mind after reading this recent paper that explains how the gene regulatory networks evolved:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53251-w
Pav said:
Don’t bother. It’s just another Pav citation bluff.
PavelU,
Not so fast, buddy.
You may want to read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor
At best they can model some adaptive changes in a given GRN, but that won’t help to explain any putative “macro-evolutionary” differences. Biological systems are much more complex than physical oscillators or man-made circuits.
Try again.
Millions of monkeys randomly typing would eventually produce the text of Hamlet. BUT, the monkeys wouldn’t recognise it as anything significant and would just carry on typing.
It requires a separate intelligent observer to recognise that the significant event has occurred and act on it.
Aarceng,
Good point.
To think or not to think, that’s the question. 🙂
PavelU claims that,
Yet the paper that PavelU cites does nothing of the sort. The paper is a ‘just-so story’ with no empirical support. It uses computer modelling to “show that fitness landscapes can be modified by the intrinsic properties of dynamical network self-organization, via a simple, biologically plausible mechanism that is compatible with conventional descriptions of evolution by natural selection.”.
They simply have no empirical evidence that their computer model is feasible. As they themselves admit in their discussion section of their paper, “Attractor scaffolding offers a potential mechanism for genetic assimilation; by the gradual evolution of limit cycle dynamics towards point attractor dynamics. Thus, it might support a range of epigenetic phenomena, such as the Baldwin effect(s)
As should be needless to say, “offers a potential mechanism” and “it might support” is a FAR cry from actually empirically demonstrating how gene regulatory networks might have supposedly evolved.
Moreover, for Darwinian computer programmers to claim Intelligent Design is not needed is ludicrous since, number one, computer algorithms don’t write themselves but are instead the “outcome of thousands of human decisions.”
In short, the computer programs themselves are obviously the product of intelligent design.
Secondly, as Robert Marks, William Dembski, and company, have demonstrated, “There exists no (computer) model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution.”,, and “Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a (computer) model have either failed or inadvertently cheated.” since they sneak information into the model which “can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”
Thirdly and most importantly, all the empirical evidence we have to date, (actual empirical evidence and not misleading computer models that were intelligently designed by Darwinian computer programmers), all empirical evidence we have to date says that it is impossible for gene regulatory networks to gradually evolve. Specifically, “”There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.”
Thus in conclusion, PavelU once again, far from explaining how gene regulatory networks supposedly evolved, has, in actuality, referenced a paper that demonstrates the necessity of intelligent design in that computer programmers had to intelligently design a computer model that ‘cheated’ by sneaking active information into the simulation.
In short, PavelU, by offering a biased computer simulation as proof for Darwinian evolution, is basically admitting that gene regulatory networks (GRNs) are an irresolved dilemma for Darwinian explanations, An irresolved dilemma for which they have no real time empirical evidence, (lest they would not have needed the intelligently design the ‘biased’ computer simulation in the first place in order to try to ‘explain away’ the dilemma of GRNs).
Karsten Pultz ?
So creationists are now learning science from music composers?
(facepalm)
Here’s a very recent paper that shows how fish evolved to crawling animals on land:
https://phys.org/news/2019-12-fish-fins-evolved-transition.html
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/12/24/1915983117
Pater K:
No, people are learning that your position is not science because it doesn’t even meet the basic requirement of testability.
Body plan evolution not as simple as once believed
Notice that a whole complex choreography is needed just for minor changes. Same biological system, but with few differences. Perhaps comparable to the case of the different models (LE, XSE, XLE) of a given car (Toyota Rav4, Honda CR-V)? Not sure.
LM
When PavelU provides references, it is a literature bluff. When BA77 provides a reference, it is supporting his assertions.
Ed George, it is a literature bluff for the simple reason that it has no empirical evidence supporting its claims. As I outlined in post 20, it was a computer simulation that had no reference to the real world.
Whereas my citations that refuted his claim did reference real world observations. For instance:
In other words, my refutation of his paper was not a literature bluff, as his paper was, since I referenced real world empirical evidence to refute his computer simulation..
Perhaps, (since you can not tell the difference between when you are being hoodwinked by evidence free Darwinian propaganda and what the empirical evidence itself is actually telling you), that goes a long way towards explaining why you are so gullible as to accept evidence free Darwinian propaganda in the first place? (Your inherent animosity towards God explaining why you would be prone to that gullibility towards Darwinism most likely also plays a major role as well)
Ed:
Because the references never support his assertion. We always say why it’s a literature bluff.
Because they do. And he makes the case as to why/ how they do.
Ed George admits he cannot follow a discussion.
Pater Kimbridge @ 21
Of course. And lawyers, neurosurgeons, journalists, domestic appliance repairmen, engineers (lots of engineers). Why not?
Sev@28
and how are biologists – natural science graduates – qualified to talk about a good/ bad design ?
Biologists -they never made anything…
PavelU is a very confused guy… however, it is not his fault…
biologists – natural science graduates – misinterpret everything …what’s worse, they making up stories, and calling it ‘science’…. we see it all the time…
i doubt that biologists will ever understand what they are looking at….
.
Seversky, you can stand directly in front of famous predictions, experimental results, and well-recorded history — all in unambiguous support of design in biology — and you cannot even speak the words.
You are left to nothing but your rhetoric, Sev, rhetoric over documented empirical evidence.
Sev, pray, tell me, who are experts on communication systems? Then, explain to me how a serious argument on well founded observations and analysis loses probative force due to who says it? In the OP, there is something highly significant: meaningfulness of a highly contingent result is tied to a system of symbols, often with linguistic character. In the case of music, there is a famous remark by a theologian (though it was likely to be a commonplace instructional example on the law of identity and close corollaries in the schools of 2,000 years ago):
A musical example, cited by a theologian. Does sneering at the man now undermine the merits of the point? Patently, not. And just so, when we see complex, coded, 4-state digital information in the heart of the living cell, functioning in literally vital processes such as protein synthesis, we are well within epistemic rights to infer to the only credible, empirically warranted source of complex, meaningful, functional, coded linguistic information, i.e. intelligently directed configuration. KF
interesting discussion
Kf@32 said:
Then, explain to me how a serious argument on well founded observations and analysis loses probative force due to who says it?
This is where the intersectionality and Id politics and. Pc folks got their approach to who is permitted to say what.
Pav@22
And that’s relevant to the OP just how?
From Stephencmeyer.org
PavelU @22
to be honest, i don’t know how fish-out-water-article is related to this debate, however, by now we all know that you are a very confused guy, and you have no idea what you are talking about.
Anyway, Pavel, fish-out-of-water …. get this:
“Fish have evolved the ability to live on land many times, challenging the perception that this extreme lifestyle shift was likely to have been a rare occurrence in ancient times, new UNSW Australia research shows.”
“”A fish out of water might seem an extraordinary thing, but in fact it is quite a common phenomenon,” says study first author and UNSW evolutionary ecologist Dr Terry Ord. ”
HA-HA-HA …
fish-out-of-water is a common phenomenon ?????
if this story is true, it sounds to me more like an intelligent design feature :)))))
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160622102129.htm
Latemarch @35 & Martin_r @36,
I like your pertinent comments on the issue PavelU brought up above. Thanks.
It takes more than fin-to-leg transformation in order to survive on land. Shouldn’t the breathing machinery be adjusted too?
Note this reply to a similar post by PavelU in the “fossils” thread:
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/11/johnsons-darwin-on-trial-as-fresh-and-relevant-as-ever/
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/08/pbs-eons-teaches-nonsense-about-evolution/
Here’s the link to the other thread:
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/science-newss-top-fossils-in-2019-show-a-diminishing-darwin/#comment-690615
and PavelU …
if you like fish, also get this:
“Air bladders or lungs in different groups of fishes evolved multiple times” (independently)
Pavel, you don’t have to be a genius to see, that all these features (lungs and air bladders) where designed, created, and not evolved (repeatedly) by some random mutations, unless you believe in miracles … :)))
full article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15547792
P.S.
Pavel, did you know that the icon of evolution – the appendix, also evolved multiple times independently in various species ? Scientists say, that it happened at least 30 times independently (go and google it)
Martin_r:
You brought up excellent points.
FYI- I copied your comment @36 to the “fossils” thread. Maybe your comment @38 would help in that other thread too? Thanks.
JAWA @39
thanks.
If you look for more miracles, go and visit my new blog on repeated (convergent) evolution:
http://www.stuffhappens.info
Martin_r:
Thanks for the link to your new blog:
http://www.stuffhappens.info
Will look into it. I see you’ve done some interesting research. 🙂
BTW, you may want to follow up at the “fossils” thread too.
“A major problem for evolution is that the first mudskipper in the fossil record is morphologically a modern mudskipper.
Long assumed to be a transitional animal between a swimming fish and a tetrapod (four footed) animal, a recent study by Kutschera and Elliott (2013, p. 1) concluded that, although some walking fishes such as mudskippers “shed light on the gradual evolutionary transition of ancient fishes to early tetrapods … they are not the ancestors of tetrapods, because extant organisms cannot be progenitors of other living beings.”
And to have the following finding, just makes the claim from Darwinists all the more comical
Convergent evolution is simply a hard and devastating failure for Darwinists:
Jawa@41
yes, i was collecting repeated-evolution-articles for many years… it is crazy what these guys (biologists) claim…. i really doubt that these people are mentally intact (and they calling us stupid ?)
e.g. have a look at this, this guy even understands the issue:
“Molecular phylogenetic evidence for the independent
evolutionary origin of an arthropod compound eye”
“These results illustrate exactly
why arthropod compound eye evolution has remained controversial,
because one of two seemingly very unlikely evolutionary
histories must be true. Either compound eyes with detailed similarities
evolved multiple times in different arthropod groups or
compound eyes have been lost in a seemingly inordinate number
of arthropod lineages
http://www.pnas.org/content/pn.....6.full.pdf
And, of course, 99% lay atheists have no idea about repeated evolution issues … and i can assure you, i have debated lots of them ..
in time, i will publish everything what i found, i am glad you like my comments…
Martin_r,
Wow! That’s an excellent work you’ve done. Definitely you should publish it, but in the meantime, you may want to associate your posting name Martin_r with the link to your interesting blog? Just a suggestion. Thanks.
BTW, are you in Europe or across the big pond? Just curious. 🙂
BA77 @42:
Excellent commentary in reply to PavelU’s comment.
I think your comment should be posted in the “fossils” thread too. Just a thought. Thanks.
Jawa @44
it is Europe (i apologize for my English grammar, it is not my first language)
Yes, i also like your suggestion – linking my nickname to my blog, it is done.
Martin_r,
I don’t have any problem with your grammar. It seems fine to me. Do you recognize the language in this video? 🙂
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-we-keep-sending-music-to-extraterrestrials/#comment-690623
BTW, your name in your latest comment does not show any link yet. At least not for me.
For example, Bornagain77 is associated with a link to his blog.
Martin_r
I have done it also and found the same.
They have no answer to the problem. They change the topic or just respond with silence. I think many have never even heard of it. When they discover the problem, they know it is absurd and absolutely incredible. But what can they say?
Years ago when I first heard about convergent evolution I burst out laughing.
They seriously expect people to believe that. And evolutionists do believe it, without daring to question.
A 5 year old child can see how ridiculous that story is. In fact, a 5 year old could make up a more convincing one.
Martin_r
Your name now contains a link to your blog. Well done! Thanks.
‘Exit Evolution’. Love the title!
‘Exit Left Evolution’, might have added an ironic hint of the vapid histrionics of its devotees, strutting and fretting their hour upon the stage. I hope one day the money-bags, the principals of the multinationals, who fund much of scientific research, are called to account for imposing a patently phony and exhaustively-discredited, ‘Brave Old World’ paradigm on modern science, holding it back, for goodness knows how long.