Which one are you?

[Nepenthe]

ummmm phil, you might want to do some research on those horses.......

(1) The fossils said to form the ancestral tree of the modern horse have been put in order of ascending
height, the number of their toes, and their assumed evolutionary age. These specimens have a few
problems which negate their inclusion in the sequence:- the number of ribs varies within the series,
from 15, to 19, and then down to 18; and the number of lumbar vertebrae changes from 6, to 8, and
back to 6. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1992 p:50

(2) As an example of the fact that evolution is not scientifically proven, there are not one, but twenty
different genealogical trees of the so-called horse fossil series. Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1983 p:106

(3) Fossils of three-toed and one-toed animals, which are said to be evolutionary ancestors of the
modern horse, have been found preserved in the same rock formation (Nebraska, USA). This proves
that they lived together at the same time, and it is obvious that one could not have evolved into the
other. Evolution demands that there has to be many millions of years between the three-toed and the
one-toed species in the 60-65 million year evolution of the horse. National Geographic, January 1981 p:74

(4) Two modern-day horses, Equus nevadenis & Equus occidentalis, have both been found in the
same fossil strata as the so-called “Dawn Horse”, Eohippus. This fact is fatal to the notion of the
evolution of the horse, as both horses are equally as old as Eohippus, and therefore could not have
evolved from it. Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1983 p:106

(5) "The supposed pedigree of the Equidae [ie horses, asses, zebras etc] is a deceitful delusion, which
..... in no way enlightens us on the palaeontological origin of the horse". Written by French palaeontologist and evolutionist Charles Deperet in "Transformations of the Animal World", Arno Press: New York, 1980 p:105

(6) "Classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North
America have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information". Written by
palaeontologist and evolutionist Dr David Raup (Curator of the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago) in his article "Conflicts Between Darwin and
Paleontology", in The Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979 p:25

(7) "The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of
generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature ....." Written by ardent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson in his book "Life of the Past", Yale University Press: New Haven (Connecticut), 1953 p:125

(8) "I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance,
the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum] is the exhibit on horse
evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after
textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it
filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem". The view of horse evolution expressed by Dr Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History. Recorded in an interview with Luther Sunderland, and written in his
book "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems", Master Books:California 1988 p:78

[phil]

As an example of the fact that evolution is not scientifically proven, there are not one, but twenty


Add yourself as exhibit no. 21 ... !!

[kmc]

Dee, you're failing to see the main point here, which is that evolution, for all its flaws, remains the most prominent scientific and thus, real-world quantifiable theory we have today. Run with creationism if you want, and continue to poke holes in evolution (as that is what scientific theories are for; many of the ones you have pointed out have already been accounted for by contemporary science), but realize that creationism and evolution do not belong in the same realm of discussion.

[luke]

nymphofantasia said:

luke said:

Well, being that Darwinian evolution is pretty much obsolete, especially when it comes to the really specific stuff like molecular systems, that's a pretty moot point.

Well its about time! The man barely had an education to begin with.

At any rate, Evolution in the purest sense of the word cannot be tested and proven.

You did still get the point, right? That there ARE detailed accounts for the evolution of fundamental biochemical or cellular systems, just not, you know, in the stuff Darwin wrote back in the Gay 90s?
Here's a few:

-Evidence of gene duplications and subsequent functional divergence, or functional loss in the form of pseudogenes.
-Evidence of exon shuffling and modular re-use within proteins.
-Evidence of both natural selection and neutral drift at the molecular level.
-Evidence of the malleable and adaptive nature of molecular evolution itself. For example in recent shocking cases of bacterial drug resistance - the evolution of evolvability.
-Evidence that the phylogeny inferred from protein and DNA sequence comparisons is correlated with the phylogeny inferred from evolutionary biology.
-Evidence that within every studied biochemical system, the "parts" themselves have evolved, and the interactions between those parts have also evolved.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html

And Behe's gotten a lot of criticism in other areas for his clumsy textbook research. The guy's a real douche.

[shin]

3rd time now: Dee, what exactly is evolution?

[Nepenthe]

I don't think you are getting my point. My point is, this stuff is indeed still being taught in the textbooks. This is NOT science, it is blatent false information.

And btw, the peppered moths are STILL in the textbooks as well. It is one of the very first things mentioned in a chapter about Evolution in one of my own textbooks. I laughed my ass off when I saw this, and that is BEFORE I knew it was actually a "doctored" experiment. Why did I laugh? Well for one thing Moths are nocturnal, how many moths do you see outside during the daytime? Also moths do not rest on tree trunks, they go up higher and rest on the leaves of trees. Come to find out it was indeed doctored by the man that did this, he pinned dead moths to tree trunks and made all these bullshit claims. Yes there has actually been a book written about this hoax.

THAT my dear friend is not science. Same goes for phil's horses. This is not science and it is indeed still being put in textbooks, along with several other instances of false information.

As for your Biology experiments....well again these are done in extremely controlled situations.


(1) The classic experiment carried out by Stanley Miller (& Urey) in 1953 where amino acids were synthesized in the laboratory, is now largely regarded as a dead end. Similarly regarded today is Sydney Fox's production of proteinoids, which were circular blobs that he claimed were protocells.
Scientific American, February, 1991 p:100-109

(2) "The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisaged." A statement by Stanley Miller (the researcher who rose to world fame in 1953 by creating amino acids in the laboratory)
Scientific American, February 1991, p:100-109

(3) A study of rocks of all ages shows overwhelmingly that they were formed under the influences of an atmosphere containing oxygen. As this is the case, the early atmosphere definitely contained oxygen. Therefore, the 'primordial soup' could never have happened.
Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick acknowledges this fact.
New Scientist, Vol. 87, July 10, 1980 p:112; Geology, Vol. 10, March 1982 p:141

(4) "It is suggested that from the time of the earliest dated rocks ..... Earth had an oxygenic
atmosphere."
Written by Harry Clemmey & Nick Badham in their article "Oxygen in the Precambrian Atmosphere:
An Evaluation of the Geological Evidence" in Geology, Vol. 10, March 1982 p:141

(5) The 'first cells' could not have survived the high solar ultraviolet radiation levels that would have existed in an oxygen-less environment, as there would have been no ozone to absorb the rays and shield them.
Science News, December 24 & 31, 1988 p:423

(6) "..... in the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the primitive earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals, that chemical evolution rates would have been negligible. The soup would have been too dilute for direct polymerization to occur. Even local ponds for concentrating soup ingredients would have met with the same problem."
Written by biochemists Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley & Roger L. Olsen as a statement thatbiogenesis (chemical evolution) could not have formed in the way evolutionary theory demands.
Written in their book "The Mystery of Life's Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories", Philosophical Library: New York, 1984 p:66

(7) The chemical reaction in biogenesis that is supposed to have joined amino acids into peptides is a reversible reaction. This means that the reaction goes backwards and turns the peptides immediately back into amino acids. In the non-living environment both the forward and reverse reaction would have been going on at the same time. If the conditions were such that the reverse reaction went faster, then the effect over a long period of time would be that no amino acids would have formed.
A.E. Wilder-Smith, "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution", Master Books: San Diego, 1981 p:9-14

(8) Although amino acids may form in watery conditions, the next step where amino acids
spontaneously joining to form peptides, requires dry conditions. Under dry conditions, the subsequent steps to form cells containing a large percentage of water could not proceed.
Science News, Vol. 134, 1988 p:117;
Nature, August 18, 1988 p:609-611

(9) "The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled togive rise to the highly ordered structures and to the co-ordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous generation of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred."
Written by Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis & Agnes Babloyants in "Thermodynamics of Evolution", Physics Today, Vol. 25, November
1972 p:23.

(10) "There is a hitch ..... proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without
proteins. To those pondering the origins of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem?"
From John Horgan's article "Trends in Evolution: In the Beginning ....", in Scientific American, February 1991, p:100-109

(11) "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."
Written by Michael Denton in his book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Alder & Alder: Bethesda
(Maryland),1986 p:261

(12) "Furthermore, no geological evidence indicates an organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet. It is becoming clear that however life began on earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis. We may therefore with fairness call this scenario 'the myth of the prebiotic soup'."
Written by biochemists Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley & Roger L. Olsen in their book "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories", Philosophical Library: New
York, 1984 p:66

(13) "The notion that not only the biopolymers, but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."
Written by Sir Fred Hoyle in his article "The Big Bang in Astronomy" in New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280, November 19, 1981 p:527

(14) "In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth."
Written by world-famous physicist and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle in his book "The Intelligent Universe",Michael Joseph: London, 1983 p:23

(15) "However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet."
Written by David E. Green (Institute for Enzyme Research,University of Wisconsin, USA) & Robert F. Goldberger (National Institutes of Health, Maryland, USA) in their book "Molecular Insights into the Living Process", Academic Press: New York, 1967 p:406

(16) "It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available."
Written by Professor G.A. Kerkut (Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Southampton) in the
book "Implications of Evolution", Pergamon Press: London, 1960 p:150

(17) The probability that a self replicating protein (one with at least 400 linked amino acids) forms by chance has been calculated as 1 chance in 10450. The rational probability for this is zero. If as the theory of evolution proposes, these amino acids come together through chance step-by-step processes, then the probability for this protein forming is the sum of the probabilities for the formation of each step. The probability for this is enormously larger than the 10450 probability for it happening in one step. This means that it is even more unlikely to have occurred.
Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 33, June, 1961 p:23

(18) Without oxygen in the atmosphere there would be no ozone to filter out most of the cosmic rays. As a result, all of the ammonia and methane would have been destroyed in a few thousand years.
NASA Atmospheric Scientists’ opinion in Origins of Life, Vol 12, 1982

And shin, will you please stop with the stupid "what is evolution" The problem with the neo-darwinists is they desperately try to use ANY form of change to prove Macroevolution. It doesn't fly!

[Nepenthe]

Evidence of the malleable and adaptive nature of molecular evolution itself. For example in recent shocking cases of bacterial drug resistance

Yes this is true, unfortunately because of overuse of antibiotics germs can build up an immunity to antibiotics. Kind of like how druggies build up an immunity to how much drugs they are taking and they need more and more. Or pain patients get to the point where pain medication doesn't work anymore...needing more and more. Or the fact that headlice have grown immune to RID and aren't affected by it anymore. Or how alcoholics need more and more booze.

Don't tell me about antibiotics dear, I was hospitalized with an infection and due to the use of Clindamycin (through an iv) I developed an antibiotic resistant SUPER GERM. I had a deep space neck infection, either a lymph node or a congenital cleft cyst (that swelled to 10 cm and almost cut off my breathing), they aren't really sure. Yes this happened last year in 2004. I was extremely lucky! And I recovered very quickly considering. Oddly my temperature only went up to 100.4, the doctors were spellbound!!

Scientists think that the use of Clindamycin (one of the strongest antibiotics out there) can make your own body flora react (yes our bodies have small amounts of these super germs already in them). That is only one way these super germ illnesses can be acquired.

[Galactus]

Ok, I'm sorry I thought you were arguing FOR creationism...since I haven't seen a single argument FOR creationism I'm going to assume I was mistaken.

[phil]

Don't tell me about antibiotics dear, I was hospitalized with an infection and due to the use of Clindamycin (through an iv) I developed an antibiotic resistant SUPER GERM. I had a deep space neck infection, either a lymph node or a congenital cleft cyst (that swelled to 10 cm and almost cut off my breathing), they aren't really sure. Yes this happened last year in 2004. I was extremely lucky! And I recovered very quickly considering. Oddly my temperature only went up to 100.4, the doctors were spellbound!!


Was that before or after seeing your brain scan ??

[shin]

So you have personal experience with microbiotic cellular evolution and yet you don't believe in evolution. Good thing you don't have sickle cell anemia or this would really get surreal.

[Nepenthe]

shin said:

So you have personal experience with microbiotic cellular evolution and yet you don't believe in evolution. Good thing you don't have sickle cell anemia or this would really get surreal.

Actually, no one really ever figured it out shin. For one thing they kept saying I had cellulitis. But I knew differently, I had this small node or cyst for 19 years, asked many doctors about it and they said no need to worry. Eventually they did understand that it was either a cyst or a lymph node once the infection was easing and the swelling was going down.

As for VRE, they weren't sure how I developed it. They were actually thinking I had it when I came in, but being that this is a SUPER GERM, usually acquired in a hospital setting.... I think their biggest concern was that it may have been community acquired....therefore posing a very perplexing situation.

I demanded to come home after being in the hospital for one week and the nasty little thing (8 cm at this point) abscessed the day I was coming home, that is when they discovered VRE. I came home anyway though. After having it aspirated 3 times, they finally had to cut a hole and insert a drain and I had to have that in for like another week, plus oral antibiotics for about 2 more months (tetracycline). But then I was a bit worried that this could indeed be contagious to the kids or Ian. So I called the CDC, they told me that someone would literally have to have direct contact with the germs in the wound in order to be contaminated with it. You know the usual hygiene was in order, lots of hand washing after changing the bandage ect...

Anyway, they really fully do not understand this correlation between Clindamycin and VRE, they are still trying to figure it all out. But there is some information about the use of Clindamycin and other very strong antibiotics, and the body flora overproduction. The doctors didn't tell me this, I researched it myself. You would be surprised what I found, besides the correlation with the use of antibiotics. the germ I had is an ingredient in cat and dog food, as well as some of the feed products used for cows.

[Nepenthe]

As for evolution, on the macro level... NO I do not believe it.

[Nepenthe]

Good thing you don't have sickle cell anemia or this would really get surreal.

I am very well aware of sickle cell anemia, and it still does not prove Macroevolution.

[Galactus]

Ok but the orginal claim was that you were a creationist, wasn't it? But you just seem to not agree with certain aspects of evolution...I'm sure you beleive in god but what I think Shin was looking for was someone who could explain how creationists want ID to be taught in the science classroom, not how we could better teach evolution.

[shin]

Microevolution IS evolution. That's why I keep asking you if you even fucking know what it means.