Wasted Lives

_{Gil Dodgen

August 26, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It is now clear that the two essential foundations of Darwinian speculation are in a state of complete evidential and combinatorial mathematical collapse.

The first foundation of Darwinian speculation is gradualism, which is nowhere to be found in the fossil record, unless one has an incredibly creative imagination and a propensity for making up unsubstantiated stories.

The second foundation of Darwinian speculation is that random errors can produce highly sophisticated computer code. This is transparently absurd and illogical.

It is really pathetic, when one thinks about it, that so many intellectual and investigative resources have been squandered on what is now known to be complete nonsense.

Many brilliant people, who could have done something productive and creative with their lives, have squandered their lives pursuing the phantom of Darwinian speculation. They’ve earned Ph.D.’s in something that never happened, and earn their salaries in academia “teaching” others to pursue a dead-end, archaic, 19th-century philosophy that has nothing to do with legitimate science.

Comments

Nick, that website you linked contains ZERO confirmed information that many ID proponents would object to! It provides evidence of common descent and "macroevolution", which many of us agree with. The question is the MECHANISM of this change, and to that it offers this question-begging claim:
Extremely extensive genetic change has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. We have seen genomes irreversibly and heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions (Futuyma 1998, pp. 267-271, 283-294).
The question it begs, of course, is: "Why should we believe that these "extremely extensive" changes (i.e. saltation) have anything to do with natural, Darwinian evolution?"uoflcard_{August 29, 2011
August
08
Aug
29
29
2011
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Nick, The "evidences" on the TO site do not have anything to do with any mechanism- ie is not wed to natural selection and random mutation nor genetic drift. Also I can and have taken those "evidences" and used them to support a common design. IOW Nick, if that is your "evidence" then Intelligent Design is at least just as scientific as your position.Joseph_{August 29, 2011
August
08
Aug
29
29
2011
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

Nick you state: 'The scientific ~~for~~ warrant for evolution is well-known and very well-published.' Nick, after careful investigation, it is found that there is not any 'scientific' warrant for neo-Darwinian evolution whatsoever, but only a atheistic/materialistic philosophy parading as science which mandates that no matter how damning the evidence is against neo-Darwinian evolution, the evidence will be force fitted into the atheistic worldview no matter what. This practice of dogmatically clinging to a preconceived philosophical conclusion, no matter what the evidence says, goes against the very heart and soul of the scientific method.,,, For starters it is found that the materialistic philosophy, upon which neo-Darwinism has laid its foundation, is not even a true description of reality in the first place;
Theism compared to Materialism within the scientific method https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9
Moreover, 'science' is not even possible within the atheistic/materialistic worldview of neo-Darwinism since materialism ultimately denies that truth even exists as the foundation of reality. i.e. how do you seek truth if you don't truly believe that it exists?:
This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place. Proof That God Exists - easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php Infinite Multiverse vs. Uniformity Of Nature - Presuppositional Apologetic - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6853139 Materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place: Dr. Bruce Gordon - The Absurdity Of The Multiverse & Materialism in General - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5318486/ Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind “Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning...” CS Lewis – Mere Christianity What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw Can atheists trust their own minds? - William Lane Craig On Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin - Letter To William Graham - July 3, 1881 “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” J. B. S. Haldane ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.
Moreover, neo-Darwinism is now completely falsified by 'science' by the finding of non-local quantum information, on a massive scale, in molecular biology, since it is impossible for 'non-local' quantum information to be explained by the materialistic/atheistic framework of neo-Darwinism;
Quantum Entanglement – The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/
bornagain77_{August 29, 2011
August
08
Aug
29
29
2011
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT}

The scientific for warrant for evolution is well-known and very well-published. Your problem is that you just can't be bothered to read it or learn enough biology to evaluate it objectively. You instead prefer to sit in your armchair and throw insults. Here's a starter for you: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/NickMatzke_UD_{August 28, 2011
August
08
Aug
28
28
2011
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT}

it is now shown that the same exact structures are produced by completely different developmental pathways;
And what does that tell us about the density of function in sequence space?Petrushka_{August 28, 2011
August
08
Aug
28
28
2011
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

Nick besides 50% of genes telling one evolutionary story and 50% of genes telling another evolutionary story, thus severely compromising your 'just so' story, it is now shown that the same exact structures are produced by completely different developmental pathways; Evolution Vs. Gene Comparison - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4181835/ A Primer on the Tree of Life (Part 4) Excerpt: "In sharks, for example, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from cells on the floor of the cavity. And in frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. This discovery—that homologous structures can be produced by different developmental pathways—contradicts what we would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. - Explore Evolution http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_3.html#more The 'anomaly' of completely unique ORFan genes is found in every new genome that has been sequenced thus far (including humans): Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references http://www.vimeo.com/17135166 Human Gene Count Tumbles Again - 2008 Excerpt: the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080113161406.htm As well, completely contrary to evolutionary thought, these 'new' ORFan genes are found to be just as essential as 'old' genes for maintaining life: Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010 Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216142523.htm New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. - December 2010 Excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6011/1682.abstract I would like to reiterate that evolutionists cannot account for the origination of even one unique gene or protein, much less the over one thousand completely unique ORFan genes found distinctly imbedded within the 20,000 genes of the human genome: Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene? "our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)." http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds” 2004: - Doug Axe ,,,this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences." How to Play the Gene Evolution Game - Casey Luskin - Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/how_to_play_the_gene_evolution.html Assessing the NCSE’s Citation Bluffs on the Evolution of New Genetic Information - Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/assessing_the_ncses_citation_b.htmlbornagain77_{August 28, 2011
August
08
Aug
28
28
2011
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT}

Nick; Evolution Vs. Gene Comparison - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4181835/ A Primer on the Tree of Life (Part 4) Excerpt: "In sharks, for example, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from cells on the floor of the cavity. And in frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. This discovery—that homologous structures can be produced by different developmental pathways—contradicts what we would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. - Explore Evolution http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_3.html#more The 'anomaly' of completely unique ORFan genes is found in every new genome that has been sequenced thus far (including humans): Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references http://www.vimeo.com/17135166 Human Gene Count Tumbles Again - 2008 Excerpt: the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080113161406.htm As well, completely contrary to evolutionary thought, these 'new' ORFan genes are found to be just as essential as 'old' genes for maintaining life: Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010 Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216142523.htm New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. - December 2010 Excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6011/1682.abstract I would like to reiterate that evolutionists cannot account for the origination of even one unique gene or protein, much less the over one thousand completely unique ORFan genes found distinctly imbedded within the 20,000 genes of the human genome: Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene? "our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)." http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds” 2004: - Doug Axe ,,,this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences." http://www.mendeley.com/research/estimating-the-prevalence-of-protein-sequences-adopting-functional-enzyme-folds/ How to Play the Gene Evolution Game - Casey Luskin - Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/how_to_play_the_gene_evolution.html Assessing the NCSE’s Citation Bluffs on the Evolution of New Genetic Information - Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/assessing_the_ncses_citation_b.htmlbornagain77_{August 28, 2011
August
08
Aug
28
28
2011
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT}

woodford, I'm not holier than anyone; I'm a sinner. What annoys me is that purveyors of Darwinian pseudoscience demand and require -- through intimidation, vilification, and publicly funded sanction -- the same status as those involved in real science, who must justify their claims and theories when challenged. Darwinism is the creation myth of the state-sponsored religion of materialistic humanism, and it cannot be challenged under penalty of excommunication. That pretty much explains the entire situation.GilDodgen_{August 27, 2011
August
08
Aug
27
27
2011
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

Nick, I'll tell you what. I'll take a course in comparative genomics and you take a course in computational fluid dynamics (which is real science, not speculation pretending to be science). We'll both take the exit exams and see what happens. Actually, in order to pass the comparative genomics exit exam all I'd have to do is memorize what I've been told and sold, and regurgitate it. This would require nothing but memorization. I'm pretty good at that, but I prefer to use that capability for something useful, like memorizing mathematical formulae that are applicable in my job as an aerospace R&D software engineer. I'll write a CFD program that can be demonstrated to accurately reflect reality through empirical testing. How will you demonstrate that comparative genomics has empirically verified that evolution came about in tiny steps as opposed to profound discontinuities (the overwhelming testimony of the fossil record), and that the mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection produced sophisticated computer code with error-correction algorithms and the machinery required to implement them? You won't be able to, and that is why the two main claims of Darwinism -- incremental gradualism and computer code evolved through natural selection of random errors -- have nothing to do with legitimate science.GilDodgen_{August 27, 2011
August
08
Aug
27
27
2011
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

Hi GIl, I know you are very earnest and sincere about this, and I appreciate too that you have at times been willing to admit when you're wrong. But truthfully these kinds of polemic posts come across as, well, rather supercilious and holier-than-thou. Not sure what you're trying to achieve other than sound rather self-righteous.woodford_{August 27, 2011
August
08
Aug
27
27
2011
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Comparitive genomics could be for a common design Nick. I would love to go to an evolutionary meeting and ask them how to test the claims of the theory.Joseph_{August 27, 2011
August
08
Aug
27
27
2011
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

Nick you state:
'Talk to any actual person who does original research in comparative genomics. I dare you. Evolution is science just like any other science.'
No Nick, other sciences offer actual observational proof that their theories are correct, whereas evolution offers no observational proof that its theories are correct, but merely offers examples of imagined relationships, such as what you are trying to do with 'comparative' genomics. In fact just using comparison I can undermine your claim,,,
Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: - 21 January 2009 Excerpt: "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says. ."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html
In fact Nick, to give you an idea what 'real' science is, here is actual observational proof, not imagined comparisons, that prove that the materialistic premise of neo-Darwinism, that all information 'emerges' from a material bases, is false; ,,,This following research provides solid 'scientific' falsification for the contention that information encoded in a computer, or encoded in DNA, is merely ‘emergent’ from a material basis;
Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
Nick I really like this statement: The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement,,, Nick, how in the world does quantum entanglement have 'more than complete knowledge' about an entangled particle??? Does it somehow know the complete history and future of the particle??? ,,,This 'more than complete knowledge' statement also sort of reminds me of that old argument that 'random chance', upon which neo-Darwinism is built, does not really exist, but it is merely our incomplete knowledge of all parameters going into a measurement that is incomplete!!! footnotes: here is the empirical confirmation that quantum information is 'conserved';,,, Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html and this provides solid support for Dembski and Marks's work: LIFE'S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II http://evoinfo.org/publications/lifes-conservation-law/bornagain77_{August 27, 2011
August
08
Aug
27
27
2011
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT}

You have no idea what you are talking about. Go to an actual evolution meeting. Hang out in an actual department that does evolutionary biology. Talk to any actual person who does original research in comparative genomics. I dare you. Evolution is science just like any other science.NickMatzke_UD_{August 27, 2011
August
08
Aug
27
27
2011
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT}

So true. Whenever I read about a 'scientist' marveling how a complex biological trait evolved by purely naturalistic means, I just shake my head and mourn for science. Darwinists truly can't see the forest for the trees.Blue_Savannah_{August 26, 2011
August
08
Aug
26
26
2011
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply