Ardi is a million years older than Lucy

A disproof of this find by the eponymous Luskinesque creationist lawyer has been posted by the Discovery Institute. It seems that he can quote people as saying it was found in pieces thus showing it took 15 years to create a media campaign to brainwash all those poor school kids. You evilutionists sure are tricky.

a lurker said: You evilutionists sure are tricky.

So I’m starting out with a basic overview of the main points, organized as an FAQ. Over the next few days I’ll be exploring some of the most central issues in closer detail: in particular, How we now interpret the earliest hominins in light of Ardipithecus. What the skeleton means for our understanding of the human-chimpanzee common ancestor. How Ardipithecus relates to the first australopithecine, Australopithecus anamensis. How the crushed pelvis became a 3-d model, and whether we should believe it. Can Ardipithecus be consistent with genetic estimates of human-chimpanzee divergence time? What was the locomotor adaptation of Ardipithecus really like?

Carl Zimmer has a very lucid writeup over at The Loom. Does a good job of slicing between the Hype and the genuinely cool Science, IMHO.
Dave

I can't see how anyone can believe such sacreligious nonsense. The only reason this thing resembles man is because God made it to look that way. As for it being millions of years old...rot. The world isn't that old. God created it and everything and everyone on it. Read you Bible....the greatest history book every written. It was written by men inspired by God. These are His words. All I have to say about this matter. get a life.

Bonnie said: All I have to say about this matter.

Answers in Genesis shows it has more sense than Luskin -- though that is not saying much -- by just giving saying they will so some "research" before posting an extensive response. They do want to make some hay out “It’s not a chimp. It’s not a human.” I suspect that most non-creationist readers of this blog could have told them this last week and many of the older readers could have told them this a couple decades ago. PZ has commented on that in his blog on Ardi.

--

NPR's Science Friday will feature Ardi on today's show which has just started.

One of the scientists on the team, Dr. Lovejoy, is providing ample ammunition for OECs & IDCs. I'm not sure why.

Larry Moran fisks one report that depended too much on Lovejoy.

And here is a WSJ video where Lovejoy is the only scientist interviewed.

Is Dr. Lovejoy trying to stir the pot for better publicity? Is he unaware of how creationists quote-mine?

The fact that Ardi is an amazing find and why is quickly getting lost in the mix.

a lurker said: Answers in Genesis shows it has more sense than Luskin -- though that is not saying much -- by just giving saying they will so some "research" before posting an extensive response.

Michael Heath said: One of the scientists on the team, Dr. Lovejoy, is providing ample ammunition for OECs & IDCs. I'm not sure why. Is Dr. Lovejoy trying to stir the pot for better publicity? Is he unaware of how creationists quote-mine? The fact that Ardi is an amazing find and why is quickly getting lost in the mix.

Stupidist creationist response yet: "But this report concludes that our common ancestry–still undiscovered–is thrown even further back–with apparently no direct lineage of human beings arising from apes." Wesley J. Smith's inanity will be hard to beat. The media news reports sure tripped him up in a way similar to AiG's case discussed above. Creationists are warned that they really should understand a subject beyond what newspaper reports say before making pronouncements of what scientists think and what their error's are.

And even if we were not apes -- which we are -- it would not mean that humans are not exceptional. We clearly are. Our exceptionalism is not because of ancestry, but rather because we can reason and imagine in a degree that other animals simply can't.

OH! Oh! Me first! Two gaps! Two gaps! :)

Bonnie said: I can't see how anyone can believe such sacreligious nonsense

The world isn’t that old

Read you Bible

the greatest history book every written

get a life

I'm pretty sure Bonnie was satirizing.

It gets worse. Lovejoy's school, Kent State U., put out a press release calling Ardi a hominid, but also quoting Lovejoy that "man did not evolve from apes".

I sent an email to the PR person and Dr. Lovejoy noting there exists either a contradiction in their press release or asking if they are proposing that Hominids should be removed from the superfamily Hominoidae (apes).

Here's the link to the press release with contact info: http://www.kent.edu/news/newsdetail.cfm?customel_dataPageID_9299=27947

Wheels said: I'm pretty sure Bonnie was satirizing.

Bonnie said: I can't see how anyone can believe such sacreligious nonsense. The only reason this thing resembles man is because God made it to look that way. As for it being millions of years old...rot. The world isn't that old. God created it and everything and everyone on it. Read you Bible....the greatest history book every written. It was written by men inspired by God. These are His words. All I have to say about this matter. get a life.

Wheels said: I'm pretty sure Bonnie was satirizing.

ben said: I agree. I just doubt she realizes it.

Ever since Raymond Dart showed that the Taung child skull of South Africa demonstrated both the African origins of humankind, and the importance of upright posture and bipedal locomotion (later confirmed), the scientific world has been waiting to push that a bit back, to shortly after the 5-7 million year ago time frame that we diverged from the ancestors of our nearest relatives, the chimps.

Now we have yet another set of fossils to document part of our evolutionary journey. Yes, there is more to be revealed and more hypotheses to be tested .... such is the nature of science.

On the other hand, this find and it's announcement has brought out the creation kooks in a BIG way on just about every blog I've seen. The misunderstanding of evolution, and particularly human evolution (which is at the heart of all objections to evolutionary science), needs to be addressed by better education, and more carefully worded statements from the scientists involved.

Jeff McKee said: On the other hand, this find and it's announcement has brought out the creation kooks in a BIG way on just about every blog I've seen. The misunderstanding of evolution, and particularly human evolution (which is at the heart of all objections to evolutionary science), needs to be addressed by better education, and more carefully worded statements from the scientists involved.

Jeff McKee said: On the other hand, this find and it's announcement has brought out the creation kooks in a BIG way on just about every blog I've seen.

a lurker wrote:

"Our exceptionalism is not because of ancestry, but rather because we can reason and imagine in a degree that other animals simply can’t."

Clearly this is in error, as Bonnie so aptly demonstrates. It should read:

... because some of us can reason and imagine ...

There, all fixed. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

It gets worse. Lovejoy’s school, Kent State U., put out a press release calling Ardi a hominid, but also quoting Lovejoy that “man did not evolve from apes”.

wikipedia: Class: Mammalia Order: Primates Suborder: Haplorrhini Parvorder: Catarrhini Superfamily: Hominoidea Gray, 1825 Families Hylobatidae Hominidae †Proconsulidae †Dryopithecidae †Oreopithecidae †Pliopithecidae An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates.[1] Due to its ambiguous nature, the term ape is less suitable as a means of describing taxonomic relationships. Under the current classification system there are two families of hominoids: the family Hylobatidae consists of 4 genera and 14 species of gibbon, including the Lar Gibbon and the Siamang, collectively known as the lesser apes. the family Hominidae consisting of chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans[1][2] collectively known as the great apes. A few other primates, such as the Barbary Ape, have the word ape in their common names (usually to indicate lack of a tail), but they are not regarded as true apes. Except for gorillas and humans, all true apes are agile climbers of trees. They are best described as omnivorous, their diet consisting of fruit, including grass seeds, and in most cases other animals, either hunted or scavenged, along with anything else available and easily digested. They are native to Africa and Asia, although humans have spread to all parts of the world. A group of apes is called a shrewdness.[3] Most ape species, except humans, are rare or endangered. The chief threat to most of the endangered species is loss of tropical rainforest habitat, though some populations are further imperiled by hunting for bushmeat.

My only question, and I have NO background of expertise so it is merely a question. Would a creature of that age really have had such correct posture? Ardi seems more upright than most humans of today.

Nah, here's the real story:
Darwin's Dilemma Los Angeles Premiere Will Mark 150th Anniversary of Darwin's Origin of Species with Focus on Controversy over Evolution and Intelligent Design
By: American Freedom Alliance (a right-wing "think?" tank).

Link: http://www.discovery.org/a/12701

But this AFA also has a film:
We Are Born of Stars - Premiere!
This extraordinary IMAX film (3D re-mastered) provides a
view of the true structure of DNA never before witnessed in a wide screen format. Once one views DNA in motion, with the full scope, intricacy and supercoiling magnificence of this essential building block of life, the issue of our origins takes on an even deeper mystery and wonder.

This makes me wonder if they're using that doctored Harvard flagellum film Dembski stole.

@DavidK:

Probably not. This from BigMovieZone.com:

"Written and co-produced by Roman Kroitor of IMAX Corporation. Computer animation by Dr. Nelson Max of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Dr. Koichi Omura of Osaka University, Japan, and Colin Low of the National Film Board of Canada for the Fujitsu Pavilion at the International Exposition at Tsukuba, Japan, 1985. Distributed by IMAX Corporation."

p.s. 11 minutes long, first released in 1985.

RobLL said: Would a creature of that age really have had such correct posture? Ardi seems more upright than most humans of today.

Don't forget: http://nicedeb.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/patterson_bigfoot.jpg

On the other hand, this find and it’s announcement has brought out the creation kooks in a BIG way on just about every blog I’ve seen.

— Jeff McKee

The misunderstanding of evolution, and particularly human evolution (which is at the heart of all objections to evolutionary science), needs to be addressed by better education, and more carefully worded statements from the scientists involved.

— Jeff McKee

I would imagine Dr. Menton will be working overtime this weekend:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/publicstore/product/LucyShes-No-Lady,4742,229.aspx

It often seems to me that primate paleontologists get a free pass to make pronouncements without doing the necessary science. If you want to use A. ramidus to talk about the human/chimp common ancestor, you need to do a rigorous and complete phylogenetic analysis, incorporating all relevant fossils and a full character matrix. Has that actually been done?

And if it were a parsimony analysis, closeness of A. ramidus to that ancestor wouldn't enter into the reconstruction. These days it's possible to do a likelihood reconstruction in which closeness is a factor. But have they?

If you want to use A. ramidus to talk about the human/chimp common ancestor, you need to do a rigorous and complete phylogenetic analysis, incorporating all relevant fossils and a full character matrix. Has that actually been done?

This week’s Science has a special issue devoted to the fossil hominid Ardipithecus ramidus. It looks as though you may read at least some of the 11 articles free, and you may see a video featuring (mostly) Tim White.

Given the number and scope of the papers presented this week on Ardi, it will take some time before creationists are confident in our conclusions on Ardi and her kin.Based on our first look, however, the facts seem solidly behind the idea that Ardi was a quadrupedal ape with relatively little in common with humans (i.e., no more than most apes); the key basis for the alleged Ardi–human link (which even the authors are hesitant to confirm) is the idea that it walked upright—an idea that even evolutionists have criticized. And we can’t forget that all of these conclusions are inferred from digital reconstructions and fallible reconstructions of bones that were in very bad shape. Without having a live “Ardi” to observe, scientists will only ever be able to come to probabilistic conclusions about its characteristics. As far as we’re concerned, the evolutionary “threat” to creationists from Ardi is no more than that posed by Ida: viz., none.

Answers In Genesis snarked: Without having a live “Ardi” to observe...

"We don't need to see his reconstructions. These aren't the bones we're looking for."

fnxtr said: "We don't need to see his reconstructions. These aren't the bones we're looking for."

Lucy, you've got some 'splainin to do!

Answers In Genesis snarked: Without having a live “Ardi” to observe…

Paul Burnett said:

Answers In Genesis snarked: Without having a live “Ardi” to observe...

Or, to put it more succinctly: "Were you there?"

AIG says... Based on our first look, however, the facts seem solidly behind the idea that Ardi was a quadrupedal ape with relatively little in common with humans (i.e., no more than most apes)...

a lurker said: A disproof of this find by the eponymous Luskinesque creationist lawyer has been posted by the Discovery Institute. It seems that he can quote people as saying it was found in pieces thus showing it took 15 years to create a media campaign to brainwash all those poor school kids. You evilutionists sure are tricky.

Without having a live “Ardi” to observe, scientists will only ever be able to come to probabilistic conclusions about its characteristics.

... About the best that can be said is that he learned well from his mentor, Phillipp Johnson how to lawyer scientific argument.

raven said:

If you want to use A. ramidus to talk about the human/chimp common ancestor, you need to do a rigorous and complete phylogenetic analysis, incorporating all relevant fossils and a full character matrix. Has that actually been done?

I assume you are referring to cladistics analyis using computer programs. Perhaps there is one in the 11 science articles.

Frank J said: Interestingly, I have yet to read any objection that Ardi is a million years older than Lucy. most OECs and IDers don't dispute that of course, but the YECs are stragely silent about it.

The whole set of papers is now open access! You may register here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/ardipithecus/

These papers describe a wonderful treasure of fossils. It's extraordinary to have so much of so many individuals of different ages and genders preserved together. Ardi is much closer in time to the human - chimp split than anything else for which we have nearly so much data. The analysis takes Ardi to be our closest approximation to the common ancestor.

True there is no cladistic analysis or anything close to it. That would require a large character matrix with Ardi having many characters that would be blank for other species, which mostly imho should be Miocene and early Pliocene apes. That's just one of the papers left for to others to do. Perhaps John Hawks will do it.

While awaiting all the other papers let us be glad to make the acquaintance of a very interesting ape.

MPW said:

Without having a live “Ardi” to observe, scientists will only ever be able to come to probabilistic conclusions about its characteristics.

Aren't all scientific conclusions "merely" probabilistic? Actually, many people would say, and I include myself among them, that all conclusions are probabilistic, including, for example, my conviction that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, or that I won't fall through my chair onto the floor the next time I go to sit down.

EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY......I find it humorous and pitiful that some think that somehow a combination of carbon, hydrogen, amino acids etc somehow all came together in a perfect combination to produce a living life-form. what are the odds? No one can explain this. No one has duplicated it. what did that first life-form eat to survive and thrive until somehow a genetic anomaly occurred to produce some other similar but different life-form. what are the odds. A life-form was created somehow out of non living material and managed to survive long enough and reproduce and exist long enough to be genetically altered to have formed all the various life-forms that we have now. What are the odds that a single cell life-form which evolutionist assume was like a virus or bacteria altered itself or was altered by climate change enough to produce apes, dinosaurs, whales, birds, and trees etc. How many climate changes or other type of external stimuli would it take to accomplish this? What are the odds of all this happening? Statistically impossible... keep dreaming...evolutionists say that life only changes to adapt to changing circumstances. Why do we still have such an abundance of various life today? Maybe if you throw in another trillion billion years huh? Evolutionists only apply their own theories of evolution and survival of the fittest when it suits their needs to try to explain this impossibility. Until we can "prove" this or offer reasonable explanations for how life originated there is no point in discussing if we are distant relatives of apes. Keep dreaming and making your wild assumptions and i will keep reading my bible.

Keep dreaming and making your wild assumptions and i will keep reading my bible.

Well, I would guess from that last post that all this Jason Dempsey has ever done is read and re-read the same book.

Apparently he hasn’t even been educated about how to compose sentences and paragraphs.

This is where the educational system would take us if the creationists had their way.

EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY.....charles darwin's beliefs and theories are as old and as applicable as the flat earth theory. Science has yet to convincingly come to an agreement on how life began and why and how that life changed to get us to where we are today. This disagreement among scientists has prevented any other acceptable theories that all can agree on so they cling to it in an effort to reject a Creator and admit that there is a God that cannot be explained merely by science. In the future people will laugh at the idea that people once thought we developed from apes and monkeys just as we laugh about the earth being flat or being the center of our solar system.

Ah, a Loki troll.

funny..you can criticize my capitalization errors and run on sentences...this (another capitalization error..uh oh) is a blog not a formal paper...thats just the answer that I have come to expect from evolutionists. distraction from unanswerable questions. any answer you provide, i (another error) can find another scientist that has a different opinion also claiming to be backed by science. if you could answer these type questions you would be the smartest and most accomplished scientist on earth. (oops). the earth (bet thats driving you crazy) is 72% water. why dont the most intelligent animals live there? that would make sense in a darwinian world right? anyway..this has bored me and i'm moving on to something else. see ya on the other side..

Mike Elzinga said: Ah, a Loki troll.

jason dempsey said: EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY......I find it humorous and pitiful that some think that somehow a combination of carbon, hydrogen, amino acids etc somehow all came together in a perfect combination to produce a living life-form.

At 12:49 am, jason dempsey said: anyway..this has bored me and i'm moving on to something else.

At 1:03 am, jason dempsey said: Had to look that term up. I am flattered.

Dan said:

At 12:49 am, jason dempsey said: anyway..this has bored me and i'm moving on to something else.

ok i lied, even christians do that you know. i had to check back before going to bed. it is irrelevant what darwin thought or believed. do you (not you personally) believe God created man or not? there is no in-between. many evolutionist have taken to the belief that a God created life as a single cell life-form and made creatures change and become varied in appearance and action. those are the worst. it cant be proved scientifically or biblically but they feel better hedging their bets. many people want to make up their own belief or religious system that fits them and makes them feel comfortable. read through these previous blogs and read the misconceptions about people who read the bible. the fact remains that although his work is outdated scientists still cling to the notion that he was correct. what if he got it wrong? At 1:03 am, jason dempsey said: Had to look that term up. I am flattered.

Well, that lasted 5 minutes.

fnxtr said:

Keep dreaming and making your wild assumptions and i will keep reading my bible.

(kmpf!) (pfft!) HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Wow. Jordan you bring the meaning of BTI to a whole new order of magnitude. Evolution is unlikely? but you'll believe GODDIDIT with zero evidence??? Oh, wait, I forgot, a re-re-retranslation of two-thousand-year-old stories told by pre-scientific pastoral nomads is "evidence". Right. If you ever have the balls to read the work of people who, you know, actually do things to learn about the world, instead of number-juggling and hiding behind their Bibles (it's traditional to capitalize that, by the way), you will get answers to many of these questions. You will not be spoon fed here.

evolution as it is today would be akin to aliens landing in roswell, new mexico study and to find out about planet earth.

any answer you provide, i (another error) can find another scientist that has a different opinion also claiming to be backed by science

all religions have a creation tale. hindu, islam they also hold that life was created by God and not the result of many random miracles of nature converging over and over. miracles that cant be reproduced or even agreed upon with all of our science and technology. why do you single out the christian bible? I know why, if you you read and understood the bible you too would know why this is. according to the religion of islam, failure to accept God, and convert to islam is a reason for you to be treated like a second class citizen or even to be killed. but you do not have a problem with that? the quran was written by a man in a cave but that does not bother you. people get more upset with the christian bible than any other writing. the bible was not meant to be a scientific journal. the christian bible holds no more special power than the works of William Shakespeare but stirs more controversy than any other book written. regardless of ones religious views your evolution myth has more holes and inconsistencies and requires more faith than the bible according to many who are familiar with both. dont hate a book in which you have relied on other peoples opinions/interpretations about in order to formulate your beliefs. it is a book filled with words but has inspired millions of people long before darwin was a twinkle in his dad's eye. the words in the bible are as true today as they were 2000 years ago. time has nothing to do with the truth. this discussion began about creation and how impossible it is for it to happen the way evolutions claim. even evolutionists do not know how creation began. the story in the bible is as good of an explanation as the story of evolutionists.

Oh, I thought you might want to have a rational conversation, where one person would make a logical point with supporting evidence, and the other person would respond with a logical rebuttal, also with supporting evidence. You just want to ramble on about Jebus, my mistake. Why do it here?

jason wrote:

"...dont hate a book in which you have relied on other peoples opinions/interpretations about in order to formulate your beliefs."

Right jason, don't do that. Don't rely on the third generation translation of an ancient text to answer scientific questions. Don't rely on charlatans and known liars in order to get your information about biology. Look at the evidence man. When you do, you will realize that the evidence is what has convinced people that evolution is true, not some authority or some book.

As for holes and inconsistencies, religion has many more than modern evolutionary theory. Of course, the big difference is that real scientists can admit that they don't have ulitmate knowledge, in general religions cannot.

No one hates the Bible, but everyone should object to it being used as an excuse to ignore, denigrate and negate science.

the story in the bible is as good of an explanation as the story of evolutionists

fnxtr wrote:

"You hate science but you use it every day. Get a grip."

No, you just don't get it man. He doesn't hate science, he just doesn't understand it. Why should he even try, after all he's got a book with all the answers already. It's easier to denigrate that which you don't understand than actually trying to learn something, don't you know. Now jason might try to deny this, but in a thread about fossil hominids he has gone on for twenty posts about the Bible. Way to deal with the evidence jason.

Now about all these holes and inconsistencies. Obviously our friend jason knows more about science than real scientists, so they have no chance of fooling him into believing something he doesn't want to believe. For example, the law of gravity says that objects attract and yet the moon does not collide with the earth, man what a whopping inconsistency. No way jason is going to fall for that one. Here is a news flash for you jason, scientists don't care what you believe.

somehow a combination of carbon, hydrogen, amino acids etc somehow all came together in a perfect combination to produce a living life-form. what are the odds?

original texts of the gospels were found in the dead sea scrolls

Jason--Have you READ it? Your Bible? All the way through, cover to cover, in one go (not picking and choosing selected verses to "study")? I would give long odds that you haven't. Very few creationists or biblical literalists have.

Furthermore, I bet you CAN'T. I challenge you to do it. I don't mean in one sitting. But start at Gen 1:1, don't interrupt it with any other major reading, and keep at it until you've read every word and finished with Revelation. It might take a couple of months unless you have plenty of time to read.

If you think you can do that, then try this as you go. Use a couple of highlighters and mark in one color anything that you, personally, see as wrong, or immoral, or unjust. DON'T give God an automatic pass! If it would be wrong if I did or said that thing, then it's wrong for God, too. (You can assume, if you want, that God didn't really do that atrocity, that He's being falsely accused by human writers or editors.) Then use a second color to mark anything that makes you wonder why it is even in the Bible.

As you undertake this project, DON'T go to some other source (books by apologists, websites, your pastor) to get an "explanation" of what it "really means." Take it at face value, assume it means what it says, and use your own conscience.

Good luck.

Oh, yeah, and use a third color to mark any statement that you know to be factually wrong if taken literally (like how many legs grasshoppers have, or the mountaintop from which one could see "all nations of the earth.")

eric said: Any time conditions are right, the chances become 100% that something improbable is going to happen.

eric said: Seven posts by Jason. Dembski must be awarding extra credit for additional posts.

jason dempsey trolls thusly.... EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY.….charles darwin’s beliefs and theories are as old and as applicable as the flat earth theory.

stevaroni said: What is your explanation for why all the worlds mammals use the same set of bones to do vastly different jobs? ... (Yes, I know, I know, I'll be waiting forever...

I guess Jason has started reading. Then again, do you get any fundie credit for reading the Bible WITHOUT someone telling you what it "means" and what you're supposed to believe about it? Actually, I think that's forbidden, or at least strongly discouraged, since the reader might come to believe the wrong things about it, or take it literally where he's not supposed to. And then ask embarrassing questions.

Dan said:

At 12:49 am, jason dempsey said: anyway..this has bored me and i'm moving on to something else.

At 1:03 am, jason dempsey said: Had to look that term up. I am flattered.

Well, that lasted 5 minutes.

i'll try to answer as many as i can before i have to pick my daughter up at school. but remember i was the one asking questions when this started and now you want me to answer your questions which you guys seem to have a lot. that is just my point. there are no concrete answers about the origins of life. regardless of if you are an evolutionist or creationist fan, the evidence is the same, only the interpretations are different. please read my earlier posts and some of you guys questions will be answered i think. the bible is not a scientific book. it was a collection of books individually written over a period of approximately 800 yrs depending on who you believe. these authors did not know that these writings would become part of what we call "the bible". these stories and poems were pulled together from hundreds of writings. there are many more texts from that period but only a few were selected. the new testament books were selected because those people had first hand knowledge of Jesus. it took me right at a year to read the bible. i used various dictionaries, commentaries, history and sociology books etc. it is important to know the nuances of the language, culture, and social practices of the time in which they were written. for example the word "love". this can have different meanings even in our time. the hebrews had different words for different meanings. it is important to know why they chose one word over the next. i am not going to argue the word to word translation of the bible because as i said before it is irrelevant. the message does not change. the bible is not a scientific book written to give us the secrets of the universe. the books of the bible are a literary accomplishment whether you believe the words or not. what we are discussing is evolution. before you can have evolution there must be creation. if the base of creation is not accurate then everything built on top of it is likely to crumble. the authors used lots of parables and different literary styles in their writings. when it says "the mountaintop from which one could see “all nations of the earth.”)" the author is only stating in this instance that satan was tempting Christ with ruling over the world if He would serve him instead of God. the bible is not a text book. He was not literally on a mountain top where he could see the whole world! is that really so hard to grasp? but for the scientists pull out your freshman biology/physics books and keep up. the second law of thermodynamics- in regards to dna as information degrades the products derived from the information also degrades. complexity should decrease over time. as we move from the complexity of single cell organisms to mammals obviously the complexity is increased. how have biological systems advanced against the second law of thermodynamics. by mutations? mutations almost exclusively degrade genetic information rather than increase it. trilobites....look that up. the cambrian strata is the bottom most layer of the geological column of rocks bearing fossils of multi cellular life. darwinian crap says we should expect to see only the simple life forms here. the trilobite had a modern arthropod body and the most complex visual system known in the entire animal kingdom - living or extinct. i can take you through the process required to obtain the first step of darwins scheme the light sensitive spot but suffice it to say if any of those steps, the reconfiguration of rhodopsin protein, the binding to protein call transducin to form a new molecule which gets replaced by a GTP molecule to stabilize it, this now megamolecule is able to bind to a molecule of photodieterase on the wall of the cells outer membrane. etc etc blah blah but if just one of those steps or components, which there are more than i went through, were missing the process doesnt work. everything had to be in place at once or the system would have been useless and cannot have been selected by the natural selection process which only selects for functional systems that offer advantage to the organism. look and consider our ecosystem. organisms practice give and take in order to achieve the most workable design for all parties involved this complexity is clearly the product of supreme engineering and not chance. ramapithecus in a good example. when first discovered it was the "missing link". turned out to be an ordinary sivapithecus. but you didnt hear about that in the media. "lucy" australopithecus afarensis (i think) also though to be a missing link. only 3.5' tall, v shaped jaw, arms longer that legs, brain case size of a chimps eventually convinced experts that lucy is not an ancestor to humans. neanderthal- test on neanderthal dna from fossilized bones indicate that the human genome does not include neanderthal dna which means they were not humans. chimpanzees are known to use tools,sticks for getting food, fracture rocks to open shelled food that does not make them human. fossil data gives support to the notion that life appeared very rapidly. large scale biological change through genetic mutation cannot occur so rapidly. the theory of punctuated equilibrium gives a more reasonable account of the fossil record that traditional darwinian views, if you are interested. think about it the right gravity, the right distance from the sun, the right amount of electromagnetism, the right amount of nuclear forces, the expansion rate of the universe, the right amount of mass density of the universe, come on. how many coincidences until you have to say- maybe someone is in charge. for a study in probabilities check out the adam equation and you will see it takes more faith to disbelieve in a creator than to believe in him. also see the kalam cosmological argument advocated by william lane craig. consider the possibility of assembling amino acids into the sequence required to produce a functioning protein. cytochrome c enzyme is merely 110 amino acids (a short one). the odds of getting a specific chain of 100 amino acids by chance would be the probability of selecting the right amino acid (1 out of 39 possibilities) 100 times in a row with a 50% chance of the chemical bond forming between each. thats about (1/39)100 x (1/2)99 (that is to the 100th power and to the 99th power). still think life arose by chance?

still think life arose by chance?

jason dempsey said: the odds of getting a specific chain of 100 amino acids by chance would be the probability of selecting the right amino acid (1 out of 39 possibilities) 100 times in a row with a 50% chance of the chemical bond forming between each. thats about (1/39)100 x (1/2)99 (that is to the 100th power and to the 99th power).

ben said:

still think life arose by chance?

Do you seriously think regurgitating the same old creationist talking points, none of which are anywhere near original to you, would really cause anyone interested in science to change their minds about anything? Also, please look up the concept of paragraphs. Seriously, your screed is completely unreadable, which might ultimately turn out to be its biggest virtue.

the bible is not a scientific book written to give us the secrets of the universe.

Oh yeah PS: What's the probability of life arising by some miracle? From the known rate of the occurrence of miracles I would have to calculate ZERO.

Now if there's a problem with my basic assumptions in that calculation, please let me know.

Nature builds on what is already available, guy. If you have a 99-amino-acid protein that does one thing, adding the correct #100 to do something else is 1 chance in 20.

Where'd the other 19 come from? Are there more amino acids discovered recently that I didn't know about?

Now who will bet that our little evobasher here will come back and keep reciting the same old trash even after being shot full of holes?

Nobody would be dumb enough to take that bet.
"'Tis but a scratch! A mere flesh wound! Come back here you coward, I'll bite your knees off!"

jason dempsey said: regardless of if you are an evolutionist or creationist fan, the evidence is the same,

before you can have evolution there must be creation. if the base of creation is not accurate then everything built on top of it is likely to crumble.

how have biological systems advanced against the second law of thermodynamics. by mutations? mutations almost exclusively degrade genetic information rather than increase it.

look and consider our ecosystem. organisms practice give and take in order to achieve the most workable design for all parties involved this complexity is clearly the product of supreme engineering and not chance.

the theory of punctuated equilibrium gives a more reasonable account of the fossil record that traditional darwinian views,

the bible is not a scientific book written to give us the secrets of the universe.

what we are discussing is evolution.

but for the scientists pull out your freshman biology/physics books and keep up. the second law of thermodynamics- in regards to dna as information degrades the products derived from the information also degrades.

the cambrian strata is the bottom most layer of the geological column of rocks bearing fossils of multi cellular life.

i can take you through the process required to obtain the first step of darwins scheme the light sensitive spot …

look and consider our ecosystem. organisms practice give and take in order to achieve the most workable design for all parties involved this complexity is clearly the product of supreme engineering and not chance.

when first discovered it was the “missing link”. turned out to be an ordinary sivapithecus. but you didnt hear about that in the media.

think about it the right gravity, the right distance from the sun, the right …

the troll writes... Thats about (1/39)100 x (1/2)99 (that is to the 100th power and to the 99th power). still think life arose by chance?

Mike E writes... He has no clue about thermodynamics. Scratch that.

So what have we seen so far?

The standard opening salvo of taunting. This is apparently the Christian thing to do; lope on over to the enemy camp and stomp on some toes.

Then a barrage of bullshit about evolution, containing every conceivable misconception and misrepresentation in the ID/creationist lexicon of bullshit.

Then some more taunting (apparently the Christian thing to do).

I’d say we have the standard shtick of the fundamentalist hero wannabe taking up the sword and shield; and with a truculent sneer, loping into the bar to tread on the toe of Ivan Skavinsky Skivar.

Jordan wrote (or at least copied from somewhere paying no attention whatsoever to punctuation, capitialization, etc.):

"mutations almost exclusively degrade genetic information rather than increase it."

Really. Perhaps you could venture a guess as to how often mutations do increase genetic information. Would it be one in one thousand, one in one million, one in one billion? Are there any beneficial mutations? Enquiring minds want to know.

"neanderthal- test on neanderthal dna from fossilized bones indicate that the human genome does not include neanderthal dna which means they were not humans."

Right. And creationists have been claiming that they are humans for the last one hundred years. Now why do you think that it is that there are species that are genetically, morphologically and culturally intermediate between humans and their closest living relatives?

"the theory of punctuated equilibrium gives a more reasonable account of the fossil record that traditional darwinian views,"

Really. And do you think that punctuated equilibrium is better or worse at explaining the fossil record than young earth creationism? Do you really think that punctuated equilibrium is a problem in any way shape or form for modern evolutionary theory?

Look Jordan, rehashing tired old creationist crap is not going to work here. No one is gong to be fooled by this nosnense. You are just wasting your time. Why don't you go into the lab and do some real science, then come back and share your results with us. We'll all be waiting patiently.

DS said: We'll all be waiting patiently.

fnxtr said: Nature builds on what is already available, guy. If you have a 99-amino-acid protein that does one thing, adding the correct #100 to do something else is 1 chance in 20. Where'd the other 19 come from? Are there more amino acids discovered recently that I didn't know about?

you know....the more of these comments i read the more you make your case...you are not far removed from chimpanzees after all. so smug and full of yourselves like any of you have actually made a scientific or otherwise point in 2 days. you say i have no clue but i am the one offering evidence from your own scientific journals you hold so dear. go back through and sl-o-w-l-y reread the posts and you will see (maybe) how silly some of you sound. grow up.

jason dempsey said: i dont know where wile coyote (cute name) went to school but that is the same likelihood that every person ont the planet would win the powerball once per second for the next 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years!!

jason dempsey said: go back through and sl-o-w-l-y reread the posts and you will see (maybe) how silly some of you sound. grow up.

i just hate to see ignorance perpetuate itself like it has in this field.

none of you have published books or made discoveries that can definitively disprove anything i have stated. if you had, i would have read it!

jason wrote:

"typical protein molecule consists of around 500 amino acids in a very specific sequence. each amino acid must be in the proper place for the correct protein to form an to perform its intended function.if not, then in most cases it is detrimental to the organism."

Really. Now tell us please, exactly how many amino acids can be substituted in an average protein without disrupting function? Is the number zero? Is it 10%? Is it 50%? is it 90%? Here's a hint, human and lamprey hemoglobin hve 125 differences and yet both function just fine.

As has already been pointed out, your probability calculations are completely meaningless. No one is claiming that any protein arises from nothing spontaneously, except you. Stop it.

"we have more to offer because we do not have any preconceived notions from old out-dated text books. keep pursuing the answers but don’t limit yourself. nothing i have said has been shot full of holes. none of you have published books or made discoveries that can definitively disprove anything i have stated. if you had, i would have read it!"

We have refuted everyone of your baseless assertations. You are the one who has preconceptions based on an old book. You have not read any of the scientific literature, how can you possibly know what is in it? Ignoring all of the evidence doesn't mean that it does not exist.

believe me i know that i am not going to change anyones mind here, that is not my purpose.

stop believing everything those professors stick in front of your face and challenge and question the status quo

i am the one offering evidence from your own scientific journals you hold so dear

you know.…the more of these comments i read the more you make your case…you are not far removed from chimpanzees after all. so smug and full of yourselves like any of you have actually made a scientific or otherwise point in 2 days.

jason wrote:

"you say i have no clue but i am the one offering evidence from your own scientific journals you hold so dear."

That's funny, I don't recall you citing a single scientific reference. Now why would that be? Perhaps you don't actually read any real journals. Also, you imply that you don't even hold scientific journals "so dear". Now why would that be?

Everyone is wise to your nonsense jason. Taunting will not work here. Deliberately using poor grammar and poor punctuation is not going to offend anyone, it only destroys your own credibility. It is obvious that you have no comprehension or real science.

What exactly do you hope to accomplish by displaying your own ignorance to people who know more than you do? If you don't like the way you are treated here then perhaps you should try behaving better yourself, or just leave.

DS said: If you don't like the way you are treated here then perhaps you should try behaving better yourself, or just leave.

jason wrote:

"...like any of you have actually made a scientific or otherwise point in 2 days."

Actually, I asked you at least six specific questions in my last three posts. Each one of them was making a very specific point. You have completely ignored all of them, why is that? As much fun as it is to be insulted by a functional and scientific illiterate, I really don't see how you can possibly complain about the treatment you have received here when your own behavior has been so reprehensible.

And of course you haven't answered wile's questions either. You know, in order to win an argument you actually have to address the points that others bring up. You know, kind of like the way we responded to your nonsensical creationist crap and proved it to be complete rubbish.

And keep looking for that scientific reference you claimed you used, We are all dying to see it.

fnxtr said:

you know.…the more of these comments i read the more you make your case…you are not far removed from chimpanzees after all. so smug and full of yourselves like any of you have actually made a scientific or otherwise point in 2 days.

So if you have a daughter, why do you write like a petulant (look it up) 14-year-old?

lets see.. i have discussed:

the second law of thermodynamics, trilobites, the fossil records from cambrian strata, first step of darwins scheme the light sensitive spot that challenges his own theory on natural selection, the natural selection process which only selects for functional systems that offer advantage to the organism, ramapithecus, “lucy” australopithecus afarensis, neanderthal dna, the theory of punctuated equilibrium, coincidences in gravity, sunlight, electromagnetism, nuclear forces, expansion of the universe, mass density, adam equation, kalam cosmological argument advocated by william lane craig, possibilities of proteins randomly being produced by amino acids, self supporting ecosystem. by the way.. sickle cell anemia is a genetic disorder where one wrong amino acid is inserted in the protein chain because of the mutation of a single nucleotide, the second law of thermodynamics means that each time dna is copied the information degrades yet we have complexity of organisms increasing not decreasing.

>>>> you guys have responded back with:

If you ever have the balls to read the work of people who, you know, actually do things to learn about the world, instead of number-juggling and hiding behind their Bibles (it’s traditional to capitalize that, by the way).

Apparently he hasn’t even been educated about how to compose sentences and paragraphs.

This is where the educational system would take us if the creationists had their way.

Oh, wait, I forgot, a re-re-retranslation of two-thousand-year-old stories told by pre-scientific pastoral nomads is “evidence”. Right.

Sure, if “POOF!” is as good an explanation to you as the ones pointed to by the universe itself. You know, physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology.

you hate science but you use it every day. Get a grip.

Jason–Have you READ it? Your Bible? All the way through, cover to cover, in one go (not picking and choosing selected verses to “study”)? I would give long odds that you haven’t. Very few creationists or biblical literalists have.

Furthermore, I bet you CAN’T. I challenge you to do it. I don’t mean in one sitting. But start at Gen 1:1, don’t interrupt it with any other major reading, and keep at it until you’ve read every word and finished with Revelation. It might take a couple of months unless you have plenty of time to read.

Any time conditions are right, the chances become 100% that something improbable is going to happen.

That’s true for planets, but its also true for even simple systems like dice. Here’s a simple math exercise for you. Dembski’s “universal probability boundary” is 1 in 10150. He says anything less probable can’t happen. Calculate how many 6-sided dice you need to roll to create an event which exceeds Dembski’s boundary.

Eric, don’t you just love the way evobashers cling to probabilities? OK, let’s take them at face value. Let’s calculate the odds of life arising by a miracle.

To calculate that probability, we can use as a basis the rate at which miracles have been recorded to happen. Lemme see … that would be … ZERO. Well, I guess that makes the probability calculation simple, doesn’t it?

(Yes, I know, I know, I’ll be waiting forever, to the sound of crickets, while jason goes off trolling on another tangent. But it has to be pointed over and over again that ID never answers the question, because they have no answers. Remember, when you can’t argue the facts, you just argue.)

I guess Jason has started reading. Then again, do you get any fundie credit for reading the Bible WITHOUT someone telling you what it “means” and what you’re supposed to believe about it? Actually, I think that’s forbidden, or at least strongly discouraged, since the reader might come to believe the wrong things about it, or take it literally where he’s not supposed to. And then ask embarrassing questions.

Now who will bet that our little evobasher here will come back and keep reciting the same old trash even after being shot full of holes?

Nobody would be dumb enough to take that bet. “‘Tis but a scratch! A mere flesh wound! Come back here you coward, I’ll bite your knees off!”

He has no clue about thermodynamics. Scratch that.

The standard opening salvo of taunting. This is apparently the Christian thing to do; lope on over to the enemy camp and stomp on some toes.

Then a barrage of bullshit about evolution, containing every conceivable misconception and misrepresentation in the ID/creationist lexicon of bullshit.

Then some more taunting (apparently the Christian thing to do).

.......and then there is my personal favorite from mr wile coyote:

Oh, I never said I didn’t believe your calculations. I simply pointed out that I made pretty much the same calculation on the origin of a salt crystal 100 atoms on a side, and it came to 10^150,515. Compare that to 10^190.

And then there’s the probability of it occurring by a miracle. Given that there’s no record of provable miracles having occurred, then my probability estimate would give that as ZERO.

You say you are better educated in these calculations than I am, okay, show me where I’m wrong.

............ and who could forget this one.

So if you have a daughter, why do you write like a petulant (look it up) 14-year-old?

.........nice discussion guys glad to see you are keeping an open mind. really nice mature discussions. most of the time you did not even read what i wrote you were so concerned with the fact that i am a christian and read my bible.;)
your professors or teachers for those who may still be in high school would not be impressed with your dialogue or knowledge on these topics. very mature audience i have stumbled upon.

jason dempsey said: .......and then there is my personal favorite from mr wile coyote: Oh, I never said I didn’t believe your calculations. I simply pointed out that I made pretty much the same calculation on the origin of a salt crystal 100 atoms on a side, and it came to 10^150,515. Compare that to 10^190. And then there’s the probability of it occurring by a miracle. Given that there’s no record of provable miracles having occurred, then my probability estimate would give that as ZERO. You say you are better educated in these calculations than I am, okay, show me where I’m wrong.

jason dempsey said: very mature audience i have stumbled upon.

Oh please don't be mean to him. He might go away without giving me an explanation.

And by the way, you haven't discussed any scientific concepts; you simply made assertions by drawing from sources you have no qualifications to evaluate.

Well, if that's the case I'll be glad to explain my reasoning to him in detail so he can understand it and evaluate it.

wile coyote said: Oh please don't be mean to him. He might go away without giving me an explanation.

Thanks Mike. I think my questions have been fairly clear and straightforward, and I've tried to be polite -- and to the extent I haven't, I should apologize for my rudeness.

Now I know everyone else has questions for him too (what was that scientific paper) but just to take the pressure off, let's let him focus on this question first and not distract him. If we throw too many questions at him at once, he may not get around to answering all of them. Once we get an answer to this question, then we can move on to other questions.

Is it just me, or did things get really quiet alluvasudden?

Well, I suppose I should be patient.

Jason is a live one. He says.... lets see.. i have discussed: the second law of thermodynamics, trilobites, the fossil records from cambrian strata...

oops - “In an closed system, entropy increases".

My bad.

stevaroni said: Let's just take the first one on your list, the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

jason dempsey said: very mature audience i have stumbled upon.

Now Mike, don't be mean, we need to be patient and not scare him off. I can wait on my question, but I would suggest that we take the "Cambrian fossils" entry first because -- as you well know as a physicist -- the Second Law argument can be kind of abstract. It would be better to focus on something more concrete.

I did some poking around and, just to provide some background material, Wikipedia actually has some fair material on the Ediacaran fauna:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran_fauna

-- and the small shelly fossils:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_shelly_fauna

We might as well give him a leg up on preparing for the discussion.

But I think it important to make sure that we only give him one question at a time lest he become distracted. And may I suggest (merely suggest) that people be polite so he won't feel his answer is unwelcome.

And then maybe I can get an answer on my probability questions.

wile coyote said: Now Mike, don't be mean, we need to be patient and not scare him off. I can wait on my question, but I would suggest that we take the "Cambrian fossils" entry first because -- as you well know as a physicist -- the Second Law argument can be kind of abstract. It would be better to focus on something more concrete.

Mike Elzinga said: Thanks for reining me in, Wile. I can be a bit gruff sometimes (although my students discovered I was a teddy bear). Comes from the “Sisyphus syndrome” I guess. Getting old and bored with it.

Well, looks like things gone quiet, but there's always tomorrow.

Got to get ready for a road trip -- Commemorative (Confederate) Air Force airshow in Texas this weekend. I go through Roswell to get there, hopefully I won't get abducted. The Very Large Array radio telescope near Socorro is one of my stops, there's also a well-regarded National Wildlife Refuge near there as well noted for its migrational bird traffic -- should get some nice photos.

Wily writes... The Second Law argument is kinda theoretical and not entirely straightforward. How about focusing on the “fossil record from the Cambrian” instead?

Oh we can get to that. But let's see if he can handle something more straightforward and less difficult first.

Whatever the question, however, just one at a time.

It seems that i have been doing all the talking while you guys sit back and throw cheap shots that will have me talking/typing all night on matters that we all already understand. tell me this..
1- how did life come from nonliving matter?
2- how did that matter become increasingly complex?
3- how did life learn to reproduce itself? how what did sexual reproduction occur?
4- is there one clear prediction that macroevolution has proved true?
5- how does evolution explain mimicry?
6- which developed first the digestive system, nervous system, immune system, dna or rna,hormone system etc. how did these operate independently.
7- where did matter come from and how did it become so organized? and where did that energy come from to do the organizing?
8- explain why initially an organism would want to reproduce since that act would decrease its chances of survival?
9- when and why did man develop feelings like mercy,guilt and love?

i know this is a lot but why dont you divide them up among yourselves and answer some of these questions. surely science can answer them. you guys are the proponents of evolution, the experts right. tell me some of these things because the world is waiting. you know how i would explain most of these but how do evolutionists explain them. dont worry about being to technical i am really smart and have a library of information at my disposal.

jason dempsey said: It seems that i have been doing all the talking while you guys sit back and throw cheap shots that will have me talking/typing all night on matters that we all already understand. tell me this..

Jason whines... It seems that i have been doing all the talking while you guys sit back and throw cheap shots that will have me talking/typing all night on matters that we all already understand. tell me this..

OK, Second Law. But let's stay with the question. And try to be nice so he won't have any problems giving us a clear answer.

jason: if you really want to get the education to answer all of your questions, I suggest you try reading the "Index to Creationist Claims" (Google it). I strongly suspect all of your questions will be answered there.

If you think the answers in the Index don't satisfactorily answer your questions, by all means come back here and explain what you think is wrong.

OK, I'll defer to Wily, who likes invertebrates, you can jump ahead to point 3.

What, exactly does the Cambrian Explosion prove and why?

Exactly how does the Cambrian Explosion invalidate evolution, and, more importantly, where does it fit into an ID explanation, seeing as how, at the end of said time period, it was still hundreds of millions of years ago, and there still weren't any intelligently designed anythings that weren't arthropods for many more tens of millions of years.

Damn, Wily, you beat me to the keyboard, I was yielding the floor to the Cambrian.

Stay with Thermo. I have a few bullet points (so to speak) on that topic myself.

I would say that the "closed system" rejoinder, if not wrong, is a bit theoretical.

wile coyote said:

jason dempsey said: It seems that i have been doing all the talking while you guys sit back and throw cheap shots that will have me talking/typing all night on matters that we all already understand. tell me this..

If you're interested in the answers to those things, you could go over to the library or even do a search on Google. If you're not interested in learning these things, we're wasting our time trying to tell you them. However, you made a whole pile of statements earlier and now we are asking you for clarification. So let's start out with the comment on the Cambrian Explosion and work our way on to other questions. Now just to get the ball rolling, you say that the Cambrian Explosion is a major challenge to modern evolutionary science. However, none of the sources I am familiar with are consistent with that point of view. Could you specifically clarify that situation? This isn't a cheap shot. We're just asking you to justify your position in detail. Oh, and then I would like to get my questions on probability answered.

jason dempsey said: you've got to be kidding right? that answer can be summed quickly by wikipedia.

The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion: not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation ("diversification") may also not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history.[4]

jason dempsey said:

wile coyote said:

jason dempsey said: It seems that i have been doing all the talking while you guys sit back and throw cheap shots that will have me talking/typing all night on matters that we all already understand. tell me this..

If you're interested in the answers to those things, you could go over to the library or even do a search on Google. If you're not interested in learning these things, we're wasting our time trying to tell you them. However, you made a whole pile of statements earlier and now we are asking you for clarification. So let's start out with the comment on the Cambrian Explosion and work our way on to other questions. Now just to get the ball rolling, you say that the Cambrian Explosion is a major challenge to modern evolutionary science. However, none of the sources I am familiar with are consistent with that point of view. Could you specifically clarify that situation? This isn't a cheap shot. We're just asking you to justify your position in detail. Oh, and then I would like to get my questions on probability answered.

you've got to be kidding right? that answer can be summed quickly by wikipedia. even darwin saw that this was a problem for his theory of evolution by natural selection. now answer one of my questions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

jason dempsey said: To put it another way, present-day living things and even more were around with all their perfect basic physical structures 540 million years ago.

Darwinists make the nonsensical claim that the whole current diversity of life sprang from a single cell. The transition from squirrel to bird or from chimpanzee to human being so fanatically espoused by Dawkins is just as nonsensical as the transition from crocodile to squirrel that Dawkins criticizes in his own eyes. The claim made by Dawkins’s intellectual father Darwin, who was a total ignoramus devoid of any understanding of biology, zoology or paleontology, that whales evolved from bears is the product of the same perverted logic. It is therefore utterly ludicrous for Dawkins to say “we never claimed there was any transition from crocodile to squirrel,” AS IF EVOLUTION HAD ANY LOGICAL CLAIM.

Someone witnessing Dawkins’s claim on this subject might well form the impression that transitional fossils from such an imaginary transition of the kind maintained by Dawkins actually exist. And that is just what Dawkins is aiming for. He aims to deceive people with no knowledge about transitional fossils by means of these words of demagoguery. It will therefore be of use to reiterate here some important information, the scientific evidence for which we have already provided hundreds of times before. In summary, that information is as follows:
Contrary to what Dawkins and all other Darwinists maintain,

- THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL SHOWING A PASSAGE FROM A SINGLE-CELLED ORGANISM TO A MULTI-CELLED ONE.
- THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO A PASSAGE FROM WATER TO DRY LAND.
- THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO REPTILES TURNING INTO MAMMALS.
- THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO A PASSAGE FROM LAND TO THE AIR.
- THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO A TRANSITION FROM TERRESTRIAL TO MARINE MAMMALS.
- THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO THE IMAGINARY EVOLUTION OF FLYING MAMMALS.
- THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO A PASSAGE FROM CHIMPANZEES TO HUMAN BEINGS.

No matter what Dawkins may maintain and no matter what kind of a transition he may espouse, NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL EXISTS that might confirm it.

Let's stay with the Cambrian Explosion claim please. You say that all modern animals emerged during that time? The Wikipedia article does not support that claim.

the “fictitious first cell” that Darwinists claim represents the beginning of life and that cannot possibly have come into being by chance did actually emerge spontaneously, even the smallest stage of the imaginary evolutionary process that would have to take place to give rise to man with his complex structure would require an astounding amount of information to be produced and countless mutations to take place. “All” of these many mutations have to be beneficial to the life form or else bring about the appearance of something “new.” Because a single error in this fictitious developing life form will cause the entire system to go wrong and collapse. Ninety-nine percent of mutations are harmful while 1% are neutral. It flies in the face of both reason and science, therefore, to suggest that every single one of these mutations that would have to take place according to the theory of evolution can be beneficial.

Let’s stay with the Cambrian Explosion claim please. You say that all modern animals emerged during that time? The Wikipedia article does not support that claim.

i am going for tonight but please explain how living material was spawned from nonliving material and managed to survive and thrive. i seriously would like to hear this explained.

wile coyote said: Let's stay with the Cambrian Explosion claim please. You say that all modern animals emerged during that time? The Wikipedia article does not support that claim.

I don't have anything to explain to YOU whatsoever. If you want to investigate abiogenesis, there are books on the subject and you can perform a search on Google. You might even find the material I wrote on it.

You have made claims and we are going to ask you to justify them to our satisfaction. You have to convince US.

Oh yes, and I would like to get answers to my questions on probability.

jason dempsey said: i did not say that "all" modern animals emerged during that time.

you’ve got to be kidding right? that answer can be summed quickly by wikipedia.

even darwin saw that this was a problem for his theory of evolution by natural selection.

I think Jason needs to be reminded that simply copy/pasting from sources he can’t comprehend doesn’t constitute an answer to anything. In fact, it is just plain rude.

If he is going to make any kind of impression, he himself has to demonstrate considerable understanding of the concepts. Otherwise he is simply demonstrating intellectual laziness and an inability to vet sources for relevancy and accuracy (this is already evident, by the way).

And he should also be reminded (apparently he wasn’t paying attention in English class) that rambling, run-on sentences and paragraphs is an insult to the reader as well as another demonstration of intellectual laziness on his part.

The inability to parse and organize ideas for presentation to others is a sign that one has no respect for others, and it is an indication that one has not put any significant thought into a communication. Attempting to cover up one’s intellectual laziness by making others parse your ramblings is a form of rudeness that he should have learned from his English classes to avoid.

There is considerably more to learning and communicating than Jason is currently demonstrating he understands.

I'm still confused. How does ID explain the Cambrian explosion?

"Well, Gee Xenu, let's create a whole passel of animals, all of which are marine-dwelling arthropd-ish things, then let most of them die off, for no apparent reason"

THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO A PASSAGE FROM WATER TO DRY LAND.

THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO REPTILES TURNING INTO MAMMALS.

THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO A PASSAGE FROM LAND TO THE AIR.

THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO A FROM TERRESTRIAL TO MARINE MAMMALS.

Assume that the Beagle capsized a mile out of Portsmouth, and Darwin was killed. Assume no work equivalent to “origin” has ever been published, and nobody has any idea about evolution.

Oh my gosh, the dreaded ALL CAPS ARGUMENT. There really is not answer for that one.

So once again jason, you have completely ignored all of my questions. Now everyone can see that all you can do is cut and paste crap from Yahoo Serious, the very pinnacle of creationist crap.

Get a clue man, you are completely ignorant of all of palentology, genetics, developmental biology, etc. You can keep posting ignorant crap all you want, but you are never going to convince anyone of anything that way.

Cambrian life forms are identical to present-day living things that exhibit a flawless complexity.

dont worry about being to technical i am really smart and have a library of information at my disposal.

— Jason Dempsey

Darwinists make the nonsensical claim that the whole current diversity of life sprang from a single cell.

The transition from squirrel to bird or from chimpanzee to human being so fanatically espoused by Dawkins is just as nonsensical as the transition from crocodile to squirrel that Dawkins criticizes in his own eyes.

He aims to deceive people with no knowledge about transitional fossils by means of these words of demagoguery.

the “fictitious first cell” that Darwinists claim represents the beginning of life and that cannot possibly have come into being by chance …

i am going for tonight but please explain how living material was spawned from nonliving material and managed to survive and thrive. i seriously would like to hear this explained.

Now Mike, don’t be mean, we need to be patient and not scare him off. I can wait on my question, but I would suggest that we take the “Cambrian fossils” entry first because – as you well know as a physicist – the Second Law argument can be kind of abstract. It would be better to focus on something more concrete.

The fossils of Cambrian Period life forms provide specimens of 55 different phyla, including those in existence today.

To put it another way, present-day living things and even more were around with all their perfect basic physical structures 540 million years ago.

stevaroni said: "Well, Gee Xenu, let's create a whole passel of animals, all of which are marine-dwelling arthropd-ish things, then let most of them die off, for no apparent reason"

jason dempsey said: Cambrian life forms are identical to present-day living things that exhibit a flawless complexity.

jason dempsey said: The claim made by Dawkins’s intellectual father Darwin, ... that whales evolved from bears

stevaroni said: I'm still confused. How does ID explain the Cambrian explosion? "Well, Gee Xenu, let's create a whole passel of animals, all of which are marine-dwelling arthropd-ish things, then let most of them die off, for no apparent reason"

wile coyote said: I don't have anything to explain to YOU whatsoever. If you want to investigate abiogenesis, there are books on the subject and you can perform a search on Google. You might even find the material I wrote on it. You have made claims and we are going to ask you to justify them to our satisfaction. You have to convince US. Oh yes, and I would like to get answers to my questions on probability.

jason dempsey said: i'm not trying to convince you of anything..just to say that you do not have all the evidence to support what you believe.

for every point you make i can find something that disputes it.

..is it because of your faith in it.

please explain how a living organism sprang to life from non-living matter and managed to thrive and reproduce.

if you cant explain it just say so and stop wasting my time.

Excuse, make that MAD(FE) ... sigh, curse no revision capability.
Oh, and concerning your sales pitch, some advice if I may be so bold:

Don't quit your day job to go into sales.

Dear Jason,

instead to make a short summary of the article:

Refuting Evolution 2, by Jonathan Sarfati, with Michael Matthews found in creation.com

(making the paper also more confusing pasting/coping some sentences, keeping reference numbers but not references, etc.)

why you have not given us immediately only the reference. You give the impression that you are able only to repeat what others are saying and not really understand what they are saying. No surprise that you are not able to answer any questions.

please explain how a living organism sprang to life from non-living matter and managed to thrive and reproduce. if you cant explain it just say so and stop wasting my time.

ben said: Please explain how god poofed a living organism to life.

Mike Elzinga said: Do you understand what a “straw man argument” is? What are you attempting to do with the “squirrel to bird”, “chimpanzee to human” set-up here? You are being dishonest, aren’t you?

eric said: I think he's sincere. Someone like Behe or Dembski wouldn't cite Harun Yayha, they know that guy undermines their credibility.

Henry J writes... stevaroni, Assume that the Beagle capsized a mile out of Portsmouth, and Darwin was killed. Assume no work equivalent to “origin” has ever been published, and nobody has any idea about evolution.

Jason whines... explain how life sprang from non-living matter and managed to thrive and reproduce. if we cant start at the beginning what is the point.

Wily writes.... Yes, it’s not a good reference to cite a scholar whose current institution is a Turkish lockup

jason,

still wait for you answer me questions jason til ya do me no answere you crap..pease spalin sactly how life poof into being one instant no then poof!

And by the way, quoting Gould that there are few intermediate forms, after having already stated that there are absolutely none, hasn't done anything for your credibility. Your hand waving away of Archeopteryx and Amblocetes reveals that you have absolutely no idea of what you talking about. Obviously your opinions are not basaed on evidence and you will rationalize, (or accept others rationalizations), for any evidence presented.

Oh and I'm still waiting for that scientific reference. Yahoo Serious doesn't count. Creationist web sites full of lies and hate don't count. Do you even know the name of a real journal? And if you think quoting a web site is a conversation, you should try talkorigins.org, their archive has rebuttals to all of your creationist crap, with real references.

I see no point whatsoever in continuing a conversation with some one who cannot answer any question in his own words. When you are ready to do that jason perhaps I will consider responding. Until then kindly take your crap and piss off.

And just so you know, whining ,crying taunting and insulting others makes you look bad, not anyone else. Have a nice life.

stevaroni said: I wonder if he likes... gladiator movies?

we’re going to move on to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and you can explain to us how that is pertinent to ID.

ben said:

we’re going to move on to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and you can explain to us how that is pertinent to ID.

In the process, please explain how the 2nd law makes the accumulation of complexity via evolution impossible, but doesn't prevent the development of a very complex adult from a very simple fertilized egg for the same reasons.

eric said:

ben said:

we’re going to move on to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and you can explain to us how that is pertinent to ID.

In the process, please explain how the 2nd law makes the accumulation of complexity via evolution impossible, but doesn't prevent the development of a very complex adult from a very simple fertilized egg for the same reasons.

Its right there in the equation: dS = delQ/T - k_{intelligent design} Your mistake is understandable. You probably had one of those substandard "science" textbooks that drops the second term, instead of a good holistic textbook that doesn't deny God.

Jason D - as you may have discovered, you're wasting your time on these survival-of-the-fittest fanatics. Try asking a reasonable question, such as how long X took to evolve, and you'll just get politicians evasions.

Remember, evolutionists are NEVER wrong. Even when they can't both be right, like Gould and Dawkins.

Just as I thought. None of you can explain how life began. You can say what you want but the truth is you simply don't know and can't explain. You can continue to shot at other statements all you like. If you have felt insulted or whatever, so what, get a grip. I did not expect anyone to be able to answer that question anyway. All of the babble after that is pointless. This is my parting farewell salute. I am going to let you guys continue to discuss your interests in darwin's theories among yourselves. I have enjoyed it. But, I have other interests that I wish to pursue as well. You have given me pause for reflection. For that, I thank you. It is not necessary to respond you have won, I am tucking my vestigial tail between my legs and running off. You guys are way smarter the me.;) Thank you for you time. I leave you with this.

What if we are only a step in the process of a larger system at work? Just as apes cannot travel to the moon we cannot ”travel” through our universe. We too will have to change.

We arrogantly assume that we are the end culmination of ”life”. What if, what we perceive to be trillions of years is by design? What was the beginning? Primordial ooze? Where did that come from? The “big bang”? Perhaps even that has happened before, maybe it will happen again. Who started that process? Who put that first system, that first process into motion and why….to what end? To create life and to watch it grow, and why not?

One thing we agree on is that there was a beginning even if we do not know the outcome or why. If God put these plans into motion by design don’t you think he would have our best interests in heart to prepare us for the next step?
Maybe the “energy” induced by faith in God “separates “ people from one another so that they might be better adapted for a different environment in the next system or process.

You contend that all that there is and all that we are stems from a random convergence of matter and energy? If not put into place by God, for us, then we are simply an anomaly, a mutation or an unnecessary byproduct in the scheme of a larger process. If that were true, why would we be so complex, that would definitely be a very inefficient use of energy.

Regardless of if God set this series of events in motion or if it is a part of a process that is occurring naturally and randomly and continues independently from “us”. These bodies and our consciousness as we know it, definitely have an end. I guess that it would be a 50% chance either way. The human consciousness, the essence of my individually, that I want preserved.

How does science explain this?

This is my parting farewell salute

eric said: I think he's sincere. Someone like Behe or Dembski wouldn't cite Harun Yayha, they know that guy undermines their credibility. So I think its worth one more try to slow the Gish Gallop...

You guys are way smarter the me.;)

jason dempsey said: I am going to let you guys continue to discuss your interests in darwin's theories among yourselves. I have enjoyed it. But, I have other interests that I wish to pursue as well. You have given me pause for reflection. For that, I thank you. It is not necessary to respond you have won, I am tucking my vestigial tail between my legs and running off. You guys are way smarter the me.;) Thank you for you time. I leave you with this. "Profound insights" for all to see ....

Jason whines... Just as I thought. None of you can explain how life began.

stevaroni said: We're still on your subject number one, the Cambrian explosion. You said you have data for how the physical evidence of the Cambrian advances the evidentiary argument for ID. We asked for it, and provided copious background information You evaded, providing 2 sentences that said, essentially "Pshaw! go see Wikipedia", and then tried to change the subject.

Wow. The smug satisfaction of "see, you guys don't know everything".

No-one ever said we did, Jason. We just know more than you at the moment.

But guess what? You can learn this stuff too! It's easy and fun if you have more than a couple of brain cells to rub together.

And here's the best part: if you don't believe something, you can do stuff yourself to try to prove it wrong. You know, research and experiments and field work.

Or you can just play armchair quarterback all your life.

Your choice.

Jason: You're quoting Harun Yahya? Seriously? Are you aware that he's an interior decorator, not a scientist? Are you aware that he's been credibly accused of a variety of violent crimes suggesting small-time gangsterism? Are you aware that he's the founder of an organization that makes a point of threatening violence, all over Turkey, against teachers who teach about evolution? Is that the kind of "science" you'd replace evolution with?

In supporting Harun Yahya, you've placed yourself well below even most creationists on the integrity and credibility scales. If you can't tell science from bigoted small-time thuggery, then you're nothing but pond-scum.

jason dempsey said: Just as I thought. None of you can explain how life began. You can say what you want but the truth is you simply don't know and can't explain.

We arrogantly assume that we are the end culmination of ”life”.

I was having some real fun with this guy ... but -- y'know, this is a really poor use of my time if I have something better to do, and I do.

I was having some real fun with this guy … but – y’know, this is a really poor use of my time if I have something better to do, and I do.

jason wrote:

"This is my parting farewell salute."

So your answer is no, you are not going to answer any of my questions. Of course you still repeatedly demanded that everyone else answer your questions, even though you never answered theirs.

Oh well, next time you show up here I will just ask my questions again. Maybe, after you answer my questions, I might answer yours.

Hey - you wanna question? How many "goes" (attempts) did the Great God Evolution need to make our left arms mirror images of our right? I'm looking for a number between 1 and a trillion. Please don't say "arm" and "evolution" appear on Ggl x million times. Make a specific reference and give me a brief abstract, containing the word evolution.

Too bad there are no transitional fossils.
GGl

Please don't feed any more trolls. They never learn, and their appetite is insatiable.

Matt Young said: Please don't feed any more trolls. They never learn, and their appetite is insatiable.

novparl said: Hey - you wanna question? How many "goes" (attempts) did the Great God Evolution need to make our left arms mirror images of our right?

wile_coyote said: I just had to think of what would happen if I had two right hands. "Hey -- I COULD SHAKE HANDS WITH MYSELF!"

"So Bill, what do you think about Chingers?"

"Death to the Chingers!"

"But they tell you to say that. What do you actually feel about Chingers?"

"Don't give a damn about Chingers."

I always liked to contrast STARSHIP TROOPERS -- "This was written by an officer." -- to BILL THE GALACTIC HERO -- "THIS was written by an ENLISTED MAN!"

Or, reframed to the current debate;

“So ID proponent, what do you think about evolution?”

“Death to evolution!”

“But they tell you to say that. What do you actually think about evolution?”

“Well, I don’t really know a damn thing about evolution...”

I'm gratified to know, by the way, that I'm not the only one who's read the book. I always wonder if anybody will ever get the references I drop. I'm pretty safe with Monty Python or Hitch-hikers Guide, but I worry about the rest of it.

The much more profound comment in this comment doesn't even need to be altered to cover both contexts: "So, Bill, why do you humans fight so much?"

"Well -- I guess we just like to."

So I finally win? I find the silver bullet?
Your only answer: we have mirror image arms because otherwise we'd be able to shake hands with oneself.

Thurs. 17:40

Symmetry is caused by using the same genes to control growth on both sides of the body. The inversion is because the side-to-side position is measured as distance from the center, while the up-down and front-back positions are the same. The slight differences between the sides are because the mechanisms used to measure the distances (variations in chemical concentrations in different parts of the body) have limits to their precision. (If I got this wrong, somebody with more knowledge can correct it.)

Henry

So I finally win? I find the silver bullet? Your only answer: we have mirror image arms because otherwise we’d be able to shake hands with oneself.

Today's New York Times has a reasonably good Op-Ed on Ardi. Its unfortunately light on science, but it makes up for that by talking about the discoveries' importance while not invoking (and even refuting) the common ladder/missing link misconception.

stevaroni said: Don't forget, nov, Mother Nature can't write complicated code (that's a shibboleth of ID, remember?), so why are you complaining if she has to rely on useful tricks.

Raging Bee said: Jason: You're quoting Harun Yahya? Seriously? Are you aware that he's an interior decorator, not a scientist? Are you aware that he's been credibly accused of a variety of violent crimes suggesting small-time gangsterism? Are you aware that he's the founder of an organization that makes a point of threatening violence, all over Turkey, against teachers who teach about evolution? Is that the kind of "science" you'd replace evolution with? In supporting Harun Yahya, you've placed yourself well below even most creationists on the integrity and credibility scales. If you can't tell science from bigoted small-time thuggery, then you're nothing but pond-scum.

Novparl said: So I finally win? I find the silver bullet? Your only answer: we have mirror image arms because otherwise we'd be able to shake hands with oneself. Thurs. 17:40

Thanks. And the same to you.

(Just bin reading about California in a Brit paper. Hope ya don't live there.)

Friday/viernes

Novparl said: Thanks. And the same to you.

Eric (the half-a-bee)

Are you seriously suggesting Lakshmi Tatma was evolution? That her children will have extra limbs??!! Idiotic, even by the usual P's T. standards.

Also, you commit the usual error of thinking science is done by comparison with another theory. In fact, both theories cd be wrong. The world is not a string of either/or's.

both theories cd be wrong

you commit the usual error of thinking science is done by comparison with another theory

novparl,

If you are really interested in some possible future evolutionary paths in humans, you might find the following site interesting:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7103668

Of course, since no one knows exactly how the environment will change and what selecetive pressures will be importtant, no one is absolutely certain exactly what path human evolution will follow. However, as long a s humans continue to exist and as long as the environment continues to change, humans will continue to evolve, just like every other living thing.

Novparl said: Eric (the half-a-bee) Are you seriously suggesting Lakshmi Tatma was evolution? That her children will have extra limbs??!! Idiotic, even by the usual P's T. standards.

She probably won't have children anyway.

Novparl said: Are you seriously suggesting Lakshmi Tatma was evolution? That her children will have extra limbs?

I don't know about their shibboleth, but saying what something else can't do says nothing about what their concept can do.

Plus there's no logical contradiction between having some deliberate engineering of life and some naturally evolved life in the same universe. (If there were, genetic engineering wouldn't work.)

Henry

Novparl said: Are you seriously suggesting Lakshmi Tatma was evolution?

Also, you commit the usual error of thinking science is done by comparison with another theory. In fact, both theories cd be wrong. The world is not a string of either/or's.

Evolution is untrue and cannot make any arms. Even if it WERE true, there is no reason to believe there wd be mirror-images or pairs.

DS - so, as I keep asking, in what way are humans (7 billion) evolving? How does the absence of evidence prove a thesis?
But thanks for the outfield link - I'll study it with interest.

fnxtr - Shiva? More like Durga the Inaccessible or Kali the Black (not very p.c., eh?)

To whoever : the theories are evolution (Darwinian) and ANY design theory.

Martés 10:00

the theories are evolution (Darwinian) and ANY design theory

novparl wrote:

"DS - so, as I keep asking, in what way are humans (7 billion) evolving? How does the absence of evidence prove a thesis? But thanks for the outfield link - I’ll study it with interest."

Which of the following statements would you agree with:

1) Genetic variation in humans continues to arise through random mutations and recombination

2) The environment continues to change

3) Selection and drift continue to operate in human populations

If you agree with all three, then humans (and everything else), by definition, continue to evolve. If you disagree wtth any of these statements, please give reasons, hopefully complete with references from the scientific literature. (Well, I can hope can't I)?

Novparl said: Evolution is untrue and cannot make any arms.

eric said: At least, you can't if you want to stay credible.

novparl wrote:

"Evolution is untrue and cannot make any arms."

Actually, we know quite a bit about how vertebrate limbs evolved from fins. The evidence comes from palentology and from developmental genetics. If anyone is interested, here is a good reference:

Hinchliffe, J. R. 2002 Developmental Basis of Limb Evolution. Int J. Dev. Bio. 46:835-845

Or you can just google "limb evolution" and hunt through the thousands of references. The one above comes upo in the first ten.

It must be nice to be able to dismiss all of this research with just a wave of an ignorant hand. Sure must save a lot of time reading.

Perhaps our resident troll will eventually have something on-topic and interesting to say about Ardi. Perhaps not.

Novparl strives to make a point where there is none... DS - so, as I keep asking, in what way are humans (7 billion) evolving?

wile coyote said: Errrr ... "STAY credible"?

Momma says you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar!

eric said: Momma says you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar!

Bill Murray once responded to this adage with, "Who. Wants. Flies?"

Ben - I seem to have lost a post. I replied to yours immediately...

ID. 2 - Genesis. 3 - my own vague theory. (Vaguely OEC). That's my answer. I don't say you'll like it.

Where are humans going? R Dawkins says it's the question he is asked the most often. (Not obvious from his appearances on Brit-tv). "A question avoided by every prudent evolutionist." So that makes most of you prudent evolutionnists.

Must go now. Catch ya later.

stevaroni said: Sadly, you catch the most flies with bulls**t.

It seems that faced with the Scylla of an wicked designer or the Charybdis of having his arguments shown to be irrelevant, Nov chooses retreat.

eric said: The downside of demonstrating the fallacy of reductio ad absurdem is you must temporarily accept your opponent's premises so that you can then argue from them to their logical conclusions.

novparl said: Ben - I seem to have lost a post. I replied to yours immediately... ID. 2 - Genesis. 3 - my own vague theory. (Vaguely OEC). That's my answer. I don't say you'll like it.

wile coyote said: There's the option of taking the absurdity to an entirely new depth. I find it effective, but it is troublesome in an environment frequented by the lunatic fringe to be absurd enough so that people actually realize one is joking.

novparl,

I see you completely avoided answering any of my questions and that after I answer yours. Well, when you do answer my question, you will have the answer to yours.

I would also recommend that you read the reference I provided. It might increase your knowledge. Until you do, stop flapping your gums and going out on a limb.

novparl said: Ben - I seem to have lost a post. I replied to yours immediately... ID. 2 - Genesis. 3 - my own vague theory. (Vaguely OEC). That's my answer.

Please point me to anywhere that a valid scientific theory of any of these three things is laid out.

Ben - you challenged me to name a theory of design. As I predicted, you didn't like it.

DS etc. You have consistently failed to answer my questions. Waffle & abuse counts as answers for evolutionists, but not for scientists (i.e. physicists & chemists). Where is your numerical answer to my question at what rate p.a. evolved the 100 trillion connexions in the brain? Nu-me-ri-cal.

I see you avoided the Dawkins quote. If only I were surprised. (Begin any riposte with that, OK?)

Novparl,

You have consistently failed to answer my questions. Trying to deflect attentyion away from that fact will not get you anywhwere. Where is your answer to my questions about mutation, environment, selection and drift. As I pointed out, you will have your answer when you answer my questions.

Oh what the hell, I'll be generous. There is very good evidence to suggest that humans are evolving into two species, the eloi and the morlocks. In a few million years years the split will be complete.

By the way, have you read that paper on the evolution of limbs yet? Care to revise your undeducated opinion?

I have no idea about your brain question, however my guess is 7 million. There, is that numerical enough for you?

Novparl said: Where is your numerical answer to my question at what rate p.a. evolved the 100 trillion connexions in the brain? Nu-me-ri-cal.

We don’t know the answer. What does that have to do with design?

novparl said: Where are humans going?

Waffle & abuse counts [sic] as answers for evolutionists, but not for scientists (i.e. physicists & chemists).