Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

You've mixed up posts in your response. The first part was not from me.


That's not true. You are free to consider any explanation. What scientists require of ID is simply a testable statement. They ask that it says something verifiable empirically. Metaphysics cannnot be tested.

Anf yes, the law is defined by democratic rules. Why, you prefer the Torah? Stoning to death people who work on Saturdays and stuff, like Yahweh wanted? Screw your barbaric god... He was immoral and blood thirsty.

Show me where it has been tested or replicated in a model that random mutations can provide the new information in the right order for natural selection to cause the morphology for a new species or new organ systems to come into existence. (macroevolution) Hint: It's not in the fossil record. that is a record of what happened not how it happened.I think scientific laws and theories are not democratic, they are evidence based. If the evidence provides an indisputable fact a theory becomes a law, no democracy necessary but, most people agree on facts anyway.


Would you agree, the only testable example of complex design evolving we can observe and test and model today, is human intelligence? If not please give me another example that is testable. Like you said, that's all science should ask of random mutations being the drivier for natural selection.
If you cannot provide a working model or valid test for random mutations providing the order from anywhere but the fossil record, then without a physical test why is it not metaphysics also?

Man, you really are one of those hypocritical christians who is out to torpedo evolutionary theory, but lie about it. You have called yourself an "evolutionist," but that's a political term, invented by the god botherers, so you tip your hand right there. You say you "accept" evolution (who offered it to you?), and yet you deny that macroevolution is possible, and you keep harping on random mutation, as though that were some kind of knock-down argument. Random simply means that it is unpredictable in each iteration--it does not mean that it is rate or unlikely. You're playing with terms and ideas you don't undertantd, but you're confident in your denial of macroevolution, Mr. "Evolutionist." You're a phony, from start to finish. There is no reason to respect your point of view or your expressed opinions, because you've been lying in order to give yourself a patina of serious skepticism--when in fact your only world view is "god did it." Your a liar and an ignoramus.

The point is that the effect of mutations on genetics have been tested, and keep being tested, while the effects of God on genetics cannot possibly be tested. Or would you like to propose an experiment?

Glad you pointed out the utter hypocracy there. They like 'human values' based on 'democratic principles' on one hand but want 'hard evidence' of anything that their predjuce rejects.

Ya can't win Brian, but you knew that already : )

Jesus ******* Christ... Do you want science to be based on referendums???

Science isn't politics. Science is the study of our environment. It's not socialism, liberalism or conservatism.

Science is fact, creationism is fake! It all comes down to math, if it doesn't compute, it just isn't. What science isn't is neat tales told around campfires for eons, exaggerated in each retelling for "sex appeal".

Well said. I agree 100 percent.

Brian,
you questioned how complexity could be the result of random mutations, I was asking why that was hard for you to accept. The mutations are random, but the selection is not. Complex systems are one possible result. No more or less likely than simple ones.

What was my lie? I believe that evolution, both macro and micro are almost proven facts by the fossil record and other historical records. (It sure seems to eliminate a young earth creationist point of view.) I believe humans model the pattern, that we observe in the fossil record as biological evolution, everyday as human technology evolves. I think it is reasonable to conclude that the reason they look so similar is because they are very similar in how they add new complex information into blueprints and DNA.



How could I not believe in macroevolution? There wouldn't be any complexity or variations in biological organisms if it didn't happen. I believe in macroevolution.

A quick study of biogentics will tell you that Mutations are rare or we'd be seeing big changes over short periods of time. Motoo Kimuru did a study showing 97.8% of all mutations were not beneficial. No model has been provided showing random mutations can provide the information, and store it long enough simple so mutations can combine to provide something as complex as a new organ system.

Please provide me with a study of genetics (please do not provide the fossil record as your only evidence) that supports your argument that random mutations can be the driver to add complexity like new organs or limbs to a biological organism.

I have provided evolution of human intelligence driving complexity in our technological advancements as a working model to show how intelligence can guide macroevolution.

Please be specific and point out exactly how I misused terms, or suggested I don't understand them. I would like to be correct in how I use them.

. That is a false statement. Statistically, complexity is much less likely to happen than simplicity. Complexity requires multiple cell types to either evolve at about the same time or be stored in the DNA as a latent gene until it is needed. (The blood vessels, bone structure, nervous system, processing system in the brain, and I'm sure there is more, all had to happen at about the same time, in the right place, in the right order, for an ear that can hear to develope.) The probability of a good mutation happening and being preserved in DNA is rare. (See my previous post). So for everything to happen as it is needed for macroevolution of the ear and hearing, you must multiply a rare event by a rare event multiple times. After a few mutations having to happen is some sort of sequence alongside supporting organs having to evolve at similar times at similar rates you end up with one over a very big number because of the exponential increase of the denominator. That fraction very quickly approaches zero.

Since our first alternative has a chance of happening that approaches zero, I suggest considering as an alternative explanation some sort of intelligence is adjusting the biological material in the DNA code in a similar way that our intelligence is adjusting the biological material in our brain. Both are undetectable and unexplainable, when describing how something as metaphysical as an intelligent idea, manipulates something as physical as matter. One (human creative intelligence) we can observe the results of in real time and believe the unexplainable without question. One (ID guided biological macro evolution) could have happened in the mostly ancient past over a very long period of time in a very similar way to the human model, and we won't even consider it as a possibility. (Except for Frescoe. He is consistent and believes in nothing but what he sees at the moment.). Instead we chose to limit the possibilities to the one that has a one over a very big number chance of happening. Is there a consensual bias to not consider all logical models among scientists here? If not. Why does it look that way? If there is a bias what is there reason? I don't think this is a religious issue any more than trying to figure out who designed Stonehenge, the great pyramid or the sphinx. Maybe it was an ancient man and he just designed every body else's body before his own. Seems like a logical candidate since man is the only creative intelligence we observe today.

There, now someone who thinks ID should at least be considered, offered an alternative theory.

No, just pointing out that these 'referendums' here in this thread are anything but scientific. It's more like a lynching mob. Just because the mob is chanting 'Science!, Science!' Doesn't make it based on it.

Because nowhere else do we see that happen without intelligent intervention. Things go from order to disorder, not the other way around.

You can say "But biological life is different!" , to which I would say "Yer ****'n right it's different, it takes intelligent design to make something like that happen."

Life does the 'impossible', it alone reverses entropy. There is something fundamentally different about it. Nature can't even arrange stones in a circle and build a fire in the middle, let alone create life.

I don't think you understood any of it, quite frankly. And so I doubt you're in a position to assess how scientific any of the arguments put forth are. You just reject and deny everything we say, without paying attention.

The effect of mutations is not what we are discussing here. If you mutate the DNA organisms change. That's not even a theory, that's a law. How the DNA manages to randomly mutate correctly to provide the complex information for natural selection to select has not been replicated or modeled. That has not been tested, it has been assumed as possible because evolution has happened. It also has been decided ID is not an option because of a biases. And to make sure these biases rule they close down departments and ridicule people instead of discussing the facts (like you just did with Leadfoot).

We test for intelligent designers daily. That's what anthropologists, police detectives, and anybody that deals with history, is doing when they complile data to determine who did what, how they did it, and usually try to see if they can figure out why. The more ancient it gets the harder it is to put the story together. One thing is for sure, you won't figure out who built Stonehenge if you automatically assume it is a rock formation caused by erosion. And then when somebody comes along with an explanation that ancient humans built it, the geologists say here comes those anthropologists again, sticking there intelligent design noses in our science and causing all kinds of problems. Next thing those nuts are going to force us to all be Druids.

At least quit ridiculing the research and closing down departments doing the research like they did at Baylor University. Granted they didn't have the right person in charge. So replace him, don't close down the whole department. That is what happens when you put a small group of biased people in charge of a whole university.

I'm sorry but when you or leadfoot keep misunderstanding people and playing fools, I'm gona mention it.

For the upteenth time, ID needs to be testable before it can become science. Please provide a way to test it. Otherwise the default assumption remains that ID is pure metaphysics. I am not even saying metaphysics are bad, but they are essentially speculative since they can't be tested empirically.

Science cannot provide an answer to certain types of questions. It won't tell you if a poem is beautiful or not. It won't tell you whom to marry, or how to live your life. It cannot explain why the universe exists. And these questions are important to people, that's why there's plenty of room for art, philosophy, ethics, metaphysics and spirituality.

We don't need to cram everything under science. The question of whether gods exist has no scientific answer. God can't be treated as a laboratory mouse.

Very elementary, Mr Watson. Concise and to the point; it's between science and hokey pokey which has no proof.

We already understand the process intelligent design uses. We replicate it every time we mutate blueprints create a new and improved model of cars or anything else. We are the only beings with enough intelligence to replicate biological evolution. Daily, we model the process that somebody must of used in the ancient past to improve and to add complexity to biology.

We know the process works. The process is tested by our modeling. We already proved our thoughts change biological matter in our mind so that our bodies can create things. We just don't know how our thoughts do that, and probably never will. When we understand how our thoughts change the matter in our brain we will understand the process behind ID.

Since we understand the process behind ID providing the correct mutations to DNA for natural selection to choose from, by our modeling it daily, WHY CAN'T WE ASSUME the pattern follows in biological evolution. Is it science to say, somebody didn't do something and it happened by chance, but not provide a workable model that stands up to mathematical analysis showing how it could happen by chance. WHY MUST WE ASSUME WHAT YOU WANT, without a scientific working model, and can't assume what I want even though it has a scientific working model. Why are the universities saying ID is not science when its model fits the description of a scientific model better than random mutations.

What we don't have, is a model showing how random mutations provide the complex information for natural selection to choose. That model would make that biological evolution from natural selection of random mutations testable.

I am not asking to erase the theory of evolution, I just want people to be honest and, admit that as of now we can't explain or model how chance mutations the provided the new information for natural selection to choose from, and admit ID as the provider of the information for natural selection to choose from is a logical alternative to be researched alongside because the evidence is pointing us in that direction.

Otherwise Olivier, could you provide me with a model showing me random mutations can do it?

So that's the test you are proposing? How much evolution looks like human engineering?

It doesn't. Not at all. Evolution is overly reliant on past solutions, like the DNA code, which basic structure remained unchanged over the eons. In the space of a few decades, how many computer coding languages were invented? Do you think we store data today on the exact same material that the ancient egyptians used?

Even car design is much more varied than biology. Eg you can design a vehicule with three wheels, but you won't find a species with three legs. You can design a vehicle with two engines, but you can't see an animal with two abdomens (reason for which centaurs cannot exist).

Most terrestrial vertebrate have four legs, all insects have six legs. Why? Why not insects with four legs and vertebrates with six?

Etc. The fundamental character of evolution is incremental change, with a constant reliance on the progressive tweeking of old solution into new ones. In contrast, the chief characteristic of good human design is innovation. It's not like the iphones of today use a modified version of the old rotary phone dials.