Evolution is False

[Lev Muishkin]

Darwin did not predict DNA, so you can stand up and wipe the brown stains off your lips. He predicted a mechanism by which the characteristics of critters could be changed. He did not specify the details of that mechanism..

He did more than that. He predicted the need for something like DNA. He predicted the need for genes as units of inheritability.
It is the mark of great understanding when a theory predicts something upon which it is ultimately based.

[Greylorn Ell]

...
Darwin did not predict DNA, so you can stand up and wipe the brown stains off your lips. He predicted a mechanism by which the characteristics of critters could be changed. He did not specify the details of that mechanism. ...

How could he? As he didn't know the mechanism, what he did do was predict that there was one and lo' and behold we found it.

Did you now?

DNA contains code for the construction of proteins. However, no scientist has identified how DNA codes for structure, i.e. the arrangement of those proteins within a body. I'm certain that the structural blueprints are in there, but no scientist smart enough to figure them out has yet to appear.

DNA is a code, and only a code. By itself it is useless. What accounts for the cellular machinery that decodes the DNA, generates the proteins, carries them safely from the cell that constructed them and transports them to the parts of the body wherein they are needed?

I've written computer code for a living for better than 50 years. Back in the sixties, the code consisted of rectangular holes punched in Hollerith cards, or circular holes punched into a strip of paper tape. These days the codes consist of tiny bits of ferrite material on a rotating disk, or electronic states within a flash stick. These codes all require one thing in common-- a machine capable of translating them in a useful and functional manner.

I have an old strip of punched paper tape in storage. The codes on that tape were once decoded by a small computer, which transmitted some of them through a NASA telemetry system to another computer that was part of a telescope in orbit around the earth. The codes were then further decoded to reposition the telescope to point at a particular star, and then to execute a precise observing sequence. The project was successful. So what good are the codes on my paper tape?

The telescope has long since fallen into the ocean and disintegrated. If a version of the computer I used still exists, it would be in a museum, and probably no longer functions. Likewise its paper tape reader. The electronic boxes that formed the heart of NASA's telemetry systems have long since been scrapped, the control room in which they lived long ago dismantled and put to different uses. So the codes on my paper tape are useless. They can sit around for a trillion years and will never, by themselves, generate the computer that once made sense of them, the intermediate control systems, or the two ton telescope they were engineered to control.

The same is true of DNA. You can leave a strip of it around forever and it will do nothing. It only functions in the context of the decoding mechanisms within a cell. From whence arose the cell and those mechanisms? That is the real question that anyone actually looking for an honest understanding of the nature and purpose of life must answer.

Darwinism offers a potential mechanism of how DNA might change so as to produce an ongoing series of new critters without the intervention of intelligent engineering. It is the equivalent of a computer programming course employing random-change principles to create effective new programs, in which the students do not actually think about codes and purpose, but merely throw darts at old Hollerith cards tacked to the wall, then remove the cards with their randomly scattered holes and feed them into a computer, in hopes that the computer will make sense of them.

The students' job in such a course would be to act as the "Natural Selectors," to alert the professor whenever a stack of the randomly punched cards actually does something interesting. (The computer cannot do this itself.)

The question that goes begging, both in the context of Darwinism and my silly random-programming course, is, from whence do the translating mechanisms come? That is the only important question. Development of the codes themselves is barely relevant to the question.

So, good Darwinist. Tell us how the first cell, complete with its protective membrane, internal decoding and transport mechanisms, a storeroom full of the amino acids needed for protein assembly, another storeroom containing enough nucleotides to assemble RNA and tRNA, plus the initial snippet of DNA necessary to replicate itself, came to be.

And kindly stop calling me names. Name-calling is the hallmark of those who are too futile to intelligently defend their cherished beliefs with legitimate information and cogent logic. You are better than that.

Thank you,
Greylorn

[Wyman]

The other unexplained mystery is consciousness, right?

Dumb question - how is evolution not just "everything proceeds by chance?"

[Greylorn Ell]

The other unexplained mystery is consciousness, right?

Wyman,
Wrong, sorry about that. I've already explained consciousness, and rather elegantly, if I must say so myself. Shit. I just wrenched my shoulder patting myself on the back. Another $60 for the chiropractor.

Dumb question - how is evolution not just "everything proceeds by chance?"

We need to get the terminology straight before asking questions like this, as I've tried unsuccessfully to explain to at least one nincompoop. It is important to distinguish between the factual process (evolution of species and varieties) and theories that try to explain the process (e.g. Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, Lamarckism, Creationism, and ultimately, Beon Theory).

How about reformulating your last question in that context? Doing so might be helpful to others.
Thanks,
Greylorn

[Wyman]

The other unexplained mystery is consciousness, right?

Wyman,
Wrong, sorry about that. I've already explained consciousness, and rather elegantly, if I must say so myself. Shit. I just wrenched my shoulder patting myself on the back. Another $60 for the chiropractor.

Dumb question - how is evolution not just "everything proceeds by chance?"

We need to get the terminology straight before asking questions like this, as I've tried unsuccessfully to explain to at least one nincompoop. It is important to distinguish between the factual process (evolution of species and varieties) and theories that try to explain the process (e.g. Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, Lamarckism, Creationism, and ultimately, Beon Theory).

How about reformulating your last question in that context? Doing so might be helpful to others.
Thanks,
Greylorn

Evolution in the first sense - organisms (in this context, that's why I thought biological evolution was appropriate) change over time.

I think of the Buttes or Window Rock in Arizona. They were shaped over millions of years by the wind. Whatever shape they are, is a matter of chance, although imperfect explanations are possible (obviously, it's the wind, but tracing the scene back or predicting the future exactly would be difficult).

Natural selection seems to be one explanation of what we see in the evidence collected - one causal factor working along with others, making exact predictions and explanations difficult.

And what do you base your odds of a human cell developing, above? It is very unlikely that one would pop out of thin air, but are you applying your analysis to each incremental change - I have doubts as to the possibility of any such analysis.

[Lev Muishkin]

...
Darwin did not predict DNA, so you can stand up and wipe the brown stains off your lips. He predicted a mechanism by which the characteristics of critters could be changed. He did not specify the details of that mechanism. ...

How could he? As he didn't know the mechanism, what he did do was predict that there was one and lo' and behold we found it.

Did you now?

DNA contains code for the construction of proteins. However, no scientist has identified how DNA codes for structure, i.e. the arrangement of those proteins within a body. I'm certain that the structural blueprints are in there, but no scientist smart enough to figure them out has yet to appear.
...

Thank you,
Greylorn

Gosh - it must be god doing all that!

[jackles]

God is death and death is the means by which forms are are changed in evolution. So god by means of himself death changes forms in his happening event. Man was made in the image of god which is death. But death is life and life is death. You must give up your life to save your life. The words of jesus gods messenger. And if you would not give up your life you will lose it.

[Greylorn Ell]

The other unexplained mystery is consciousness, right?

Wyman,
Wrong, sorry about that. I've already explained consciousness, and rather elegantly, if I must say so myself. Shit. I just wrenched my shoulder patting myself on the back. Another $60 for the chiropractor.

Dumb question - how is evolution not just "everything proceeds by chance?"

We need to get the terminology straight before asking questions like this, as I've tried unsuccessfully to explain to at least one nincompoop. It is important to distinguish between the factual process (evolution of species and varieties) and theories that try to explain the process (e.g. Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, Lamarckism, Creationism, and ultimately, Beon Theory).

How about reformulating your last question in that context? Doing so might be helpful to others.
Thanks,
Greylorn

Evolution in the first sense - organisms (in this context, that's why I thought biological evolution was appropriate) change over time.

I think of the Buttes or Window Rock in Arizona. They were shaped over millions of years by the wind. Whatever shape they are, is a matter of chance, although imperfect explanations are possible (obviously, it's the wind, but tracing the scene back or predicting the future exactly would be difficult).

Natural selection seems to be one explanation of what we see in the evidence collected - one causal factor working along with others, making exact predictions and explanations difficult.

And what do you base your odds of a human cell developing, above? It is very unlikely that one would pop out of thin air, but are you applying your analysis to each incremental change - I have doubts as to the possibility of any such analysis.

Wyman,
Thank you. I am learning a lot from these series of questions. Not about theories of evolution, but about how effectively the Darwinist machine has sold normally intelligent people on a theory that does not work. They've used misdirection. They've focused upon NS (Natural Selection) as the essential component of Darwinism, as if this simple principle was somehow exclusive to Darwinists. That is absurd.

Natural selection is a principle that is so natural, so inevitable, that it cannot be relevant to Darwinism or any other theory designed to explain the existence of biological life.

Let's suppose, for example, that evolutionary mechanisms produced a small animal that ate lots of greens and produced lots of fat and protein. Let's call it a "quiklunch." The quiklunch has poor eyesight, just enough to enable it to see the greens that comprise its diet. It has broad flat teeth for munching greens, no fangs or incisors that might be useful for defensive purposes. It's legs are fat and short so that it can stay close to the ground where its food is. Its legs terminate in the equivalent of diminutive fingers and toes, useful for grabbing vegetables but not worth much as defensive mechanisms. Its fastest speed is about 4 kilometers per hour. It cannot burrow into the ground or climb trees. What is the likelihood that the quiklunch will survive as a species?

We all know the answer. It cannot possibly survive.

Now suppose that instead of the quiklunch coming into existence by Darwinian mechanisms, that it was created by an Almighty God, instantly. In a single mighty act of creation, millions of quiklunches were created on every continent. How long would they survive? A week? Perhaps a month in locales bereft of predators?

Surely you get the idea. Natural Selection is irrelevant to the real question-- the mechanisms of biological creation. It makes no difference to N.S. how a particular critter happens to show up on this planet. Therefore, N.S. is completely irrelevant to Darwinism.

The only relevant aspect of Darwinism is its mechanisms for the generation of the species and varieties to be selected. Darwin postulated the need for a mechanism that would preserve a species' essential characteristics, allowing it to stabilize, yet also permit its evolution into varieties, and into entirely new species. That mechanism was, according to Darwin and his followers, some kind of random change to whatever structures determined the characteristics of a critter.

As I've demonstrated many times before, and which I detail extensively in my book, given the nature and structure of genomes, and particularly the size (900-1500 base pairs) of most individual genes, the probability that these code sequences can change, randomly, into new and useful forms, is mathematically impossible. 1.4 x 10exp-542 for a single, small, 900 base-pair gene to even come into existence.

If you do not approve of that analysis, do your own or read my damned book. Pretend for a minute that you are thinking like a scientist and basing your arguments on facts and logic. If you persist in thinking like a philosopher who merely argues for the belief system programmed into his undeveloped brain in school, there's not a damned thing that I can do to help.

[Lev Muishkin]

Now suppose that instead of the quiklunch coming into existence by Darwinian mechanisms, that it was created by an Almighty God, instantly. In a single mighty act of creation, millions of quiklunches were created on every continent. How long would they survive? A week? Perhaps a month in locales bereft of predators?

Surely you get the idea. Natural Selection is irrelevant to the real question-- the mechanisms of biological creation. It makes no difference to N.S. how a particular critter happens to show up on this planet. Therefore, N.S. is completely irrelevant to Darwinism.
.

It's like saying that god is irrelevant to Christianity.


Thank you. I am learning a lot from these series of questions. Not about theories of creationism (there are none), but about how effectively the Religous machine has sold normally intelligent people on a non-theory that does not mean anything. They've used misdirection. They've focused upon God as the essential component of the universe, as if this simple fantasy was somehow exclusive to biology. That is absurd.

[Greylorn Ell]

Now suppose that instead of the quiklunch coming into existence by Darwinian mechanisms, that it was created by an Almighty God, instantly. In a single mighty act of creation, millions of quiklunches were created on every continent. How long would they survive? A week? Perhaps a month in locales bereft of predators?

Surely you get the idea. Natural Selection is irrelevant to the real question-- the mechanisms of biological creation. It makes no difference to N.S. how a particular critter happens to show up on this planet. Therefore, N.S. is completely irrelevant to Darwinism.
.

It's like saying that god is irrelevant to Christianity.


Thank you. I am learning a lot from these series of questions. Not about theories of creationism (there are none), but about how effectively the Religous machine has sold normally intelligent people on a non-theory that does not mean anything. They've used misdirection. They've focused upon God as the essential component of the universe, as if this simple fantasy was somehow exclusive to biology. That is absurd.

Hey, Munchkin,

You're not learning a damned thing, because you are interpreting everything you read according to your brain's programming. You do not actually comprehend any of the posts to which you reply.

Your attitude is reflected by the icon you've chosen to display by way of a face; stolid, mindless, well bred, absolutely certain, and totally superficial.

I will not waste further time commenting upon any of your irrelevant comments.
GE

[Wyman]

Natural selection is a principle that is so natural, so inevitable, that it cannot be relevant to Darwinism or any other theory designed to explain the existence of biological life.

That's kind of what I was saying when I said isn't it really just as well explained by a more mundane appeal to chance, which would encompass NS. I do not have any strong opinion as to the mechanism for change, which you are apparently quite interested in. I would provisionally believe what I'm fed by scientists that it is based on genetic mutation, but I have no qualms admitting that this is just a belief based on authority, as I know nothing about genetics.

[Greylorn Ell]

Natural selection is a principle that is so natural, so inevitable, that it cannot be relevant to Darwinism or any other theory designed to explain the existence of biological life.

That's kind of what I was saying when I said isn't it really just as well explained by a more mundane appeal to chance, which would encompass NS. I do not have any strong opinion as to the mechanism for change, which you are apparently quite interested in. I would provisionally believe what I'm fed by scientists that it is based on genetic mutation, but I have no qualms admitting that this is just a belief based on authority, as I know nothing about genetics.

Wyman,
I appreciate your honesty. There's hope for you!

I honestly think that Darwinists have pulled a con job. At the heart of every good con lies confusion about what's really happening. In that context, please consider taking a close look at the core of your first sentence, "...it really [is] just as well explained by a more mundane appeal to chance, which would encompass NS."

According to the Darwinists for whom you've chosen to become a spokesman, under their authority, random chance is the primary force behind species change and varietal adaptations. Put simply, something must produce the DNA mutations upon which NS gets to operate. Without some change in a critter, NS is irrelevant. By analogy, if a store puts several brands of beer on its shelves, NS goes to work-- the beers that sell best will be restocked and their breweries will thrive, while competing breweries fail. But if no beer is put on the shelves, nothing happens. NS of beer varieties cannot operate in a supermarket that does not stock beer. Moreover, NS cannot create beer.

There is no notable chance involved in Natural Selection. NS is complicated, like a supermarket, because it involves an environment within which a new variety or species of critter might have the opportunity to survive. The environment drives selection. If a newly mutated critter can survive within the environment's range of stability, it will flourish. The environment does not affect mutations-- at least not according to Darwinist principles. Therefore, random chance has little or no effect in the selection process.

Chance might be involved in terms of location and timing, but it is the job of the mutating critter to mutate in a suitable environment. And if the environment changes, it is the critter's job to find a better one, or get the fortuitous random mutations that allow it to survive.

So, I propose that you revisit your sentence so as to remove the clause, "...which would encompass NS." Doing so would allow you to correctly understand Darwinism and become smarter than the authorities who have conned you into believing a false and inherently religious theory. You could see the two core aspects of Darwinism for what they are:

• Mathematically random changes to germ-level DNA that cause related changes to a critter's structure, adaptability, or behavior.
• Favorable selection of the new changes by the environment, a process that is absolutely independent of how the critter came into existence. A critter designed by God will have to bounce itself off the environment in order to survive, just as a critter that appeared by random changes to DNA.

It is this final point that is important. It means that NS has no bearing upon the validity of Darwinism, as compared to Creationism. Both belief systems can be evaluated only upon the basis of their theories about the creation of life.

It is my considered opinion that when evaluated accordingly, Darwinism and Creationism are equally worthless as explanations for biological life.

Having done something that few others in this forum have the integrity to do, admitted ignorance on a subject that you've chosen to discuss, perhaps it is time for you to remove the ignorance. Why trust authority figures on a subject in which they are clearly confused but you are capable of understanding? What's your mind good for? In the interest of intellectual integrity it might be a good time to carefully peruse "Darwin's Black Box," or even my inept book, or abandon the topic.

As Obama voters have begun to discover, votes have consequences. Fundamental beliefs, the ideas that we use to shape our understanding of ourselves and our relationship to the universe have even greater consequences. Would it not make sense to get them right?

G

[jackles]

Death is gods way of changing life form to suite the convienience of the event. God is death

[Lev Muishkin]

Death is God's way of telling you to slow down a bit.

God is cancer.
God is polio.
God is Ebola.

All things venomous and pestilent.

[Lev Muishkin]

Now suppose that instead of the quiklunch coming into existence by Darwinian mechanisms, that it was created by an Almighty God, instantly. In a single mighty act of creation, millions of quiklunches were created on every continent. How long would they survive? A week? Perhaps a month in locales bereft of predators?

Surely you get the idea. Natural Selection is irrelevant to the real question-- the mechanisms of biological creation. It makes no difference to N.S. how a particular critter happens to show up on this planet. Therefore, N.S. is completely irrelevant to Darwinism.
.

It's like saying that god is irrelevant to Christianity.


Thank you. I am learning a lot from these series of questions. Not about theories of creationism (there are none), but about how effectively the Religous machine has sold normally intelligent people on a non-theory that does not mean anything. They've used misdirection. They've focused upon God as the essential component of the universe, as if this simple fantasy was somehow exclusive to biology. That is absurd.

Hey, Munchkin,

You're not learning a damned thing, because you are interpreting everything you read according to your brain's programming. You do not actually comprehend any of the posts to which you reply.

Your attitude is reflected by the icon you've chosen to display by way of a face; stolid, mindless, well bred, absolutely certain, and totally superficial.

I will not waste further time commenting upon any of your irrelevant comments.
GE

Hey, Greyporn,

Obviously you don't like you own shot thrown back in your face, brain dead twat.