Evolution vs Design

[NeoSavant]

I believe in design due to the fact that there are far too many instances of where evolution makes no sense at all...

Domestication is one example, radio-carbon dating is another, followed by geological evidence and timeline problems with the Evolution theory.

[digitalartist]

I believe in design due to the fact that there are far too many instances of where evolution makes no sense at all...

Domestication is one example, radio-carbon dating is another, followed by geological evidence and timeline problems with the Evolution theory.

Please explain to me how the Platypus supports design?

[Jack_of_Blades]

I believe in design due to the fact that there are far too many instances of where evolution makes no sense at all...

Domestication is one example, radio-carbon dating is another, followed by geological evidence and timeline problems with the Evolution theory.

I believe in evolution because I like to deal in positives and facts. There are far to many instances

where design makes no sense at all.

Domestication is one example, radio-carbon dating is another, followed by geological evidence and the fossil record.

[ConspiracyBits]

I believe in evolution because I like to deal in positives and facts. There are far to many instances

where design makes no sense at all.

Domestication is one example, radio-carbon dating is another, followed by geological evidence and the fossil record.

I believe in design, harmony of the universe. Based on personal experience.

[Mattshark]

I believe in design due to the fact that there are far too many instances of where evolution makes no sense at all...

Domestication is one example, radio-carbon dating is another, followed by geological evidence and timeline problems with the Evolution theory.

Domestication! It is observable evolution.

What does radiometric dating have to do with anything? The only issue with it is when people deliberately misuse it to make false arguments.

Geological evidence completely supports evolutionary theory.

There are no time line problems.

Nothing supports design, it is the product of religious zealots lying.

I think you may have some serious misunderstanding about evolution.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Mattshark

[danielost]

Please explain to me how the Platypus supports design?

the platypus is a filter feeder if it had a normal mammalian jaw it would be very hard for it to do this. also if it had nipples it would nearly impossible for its young to drink milk. the rest of the animal is designed to be a swimmer.

[Mattshark]

the platypus is a filter feeder if it had a normal mammalian jaw it would be very hard for it to do this. also if it had nipples it would nearly impossible for its young to drink milk. the rest of the animal is designed to be a swimmer.

That doesn't support design, that is just a description.

[Agent X]

ID is just another Teleological argument.

Answer: The word teleology comes from telos which means "purpose" or "goal." The idea is that it takes a "purposer" to have purpose, and so where we see things obviously intended for a purpose, something had to have caused it for a reason. In other words, design implies a designer. We instinctively do this all the time. The difference between the Grand Canyon and Mount Rushmore is obvious—one is designed, one is not. The Grand Canyon was clearly formed by non-rational, natural processes, whereas Mount Rushmore was clearly created by an intelligent being—a designer. When we are walking down the beach and see a watch we do not assume that time and random chance produced it from blowing sand. Why? Because it has the clear marks of design—it has a purpose, it conveys information, it is specifically complex, etc. In no scientific field is design considered to be spontaneous; it always implies a designer, and the greater the design, the greater the designer. Thus, taking the assumptions of science, the universe would require a designer beyond itself (i.e. supernatural).

http://www.gotquestions.org/teleological-argument.html

[Nik Xues]

Evolution proves God is quite ancient and patient.

ID and creationism implies hes young and impulsive.

which seems better the father figure or a kid with ADD

[dsm_luck]

I believe in design due to the fact that there are far too many instances of where evolution makes no sense at all...

Domestication is one example, radio-carbon dating is another, followed by geological evidence and timeline problems with the Evolution theory.

I once believed in the Creationist idea of life on this planet. As I continue towards my degree in Biology I notice how big of a lie I was brought up believing. There is no controversy and as every day passes and more is learned about our evolution it becomes utterly ridiculous to argue against this solid Theory. You have been lied to. The quicker you become educated on science, how it works, and what it really tells us about life on this planet the quicker you will feel the relief of not having to deal with or defend that justified feeling that something is wrong with what you have been told. It doesn't have to be the end of your relationship with your god, merely a modification. You are quickly becoming a "flat Earth" defender. It might really help if you have the time to take a basic Biology class at your local community college. Good luck.

[Blood_Sacrifice]

Evolution proves God is quite ancient and patient.

ID and creationism implies hes young and impulsive.

which seems better the father figure or a kid with ADD

The best post so far!

[Mattshark]

Evolution proves God is quite ancient and patient.

ID and creationism implies hes young and impulsive.

which seems better the father figure or a kid with ADD

Don't forget an incompetent creator too! Sooooo many biological problems through different species.

[NeoSavant]

I believe in evolution because I like to deal in positives and facts. There are far to many instances

where design makes no sense at all.

Domestication is one example, radio-carbon dating is another, followed by geological evidence and the fossil record.

Domestication (Plants):

There are two basic forms of plants and animals: wild and domesticated. The wild ones far outnumber the domesticated ones, which may explain why vastly more research is done on the wild forms. But it could just as easily be that scientists shy away from the domesticated ones because the things they find when examining them are so far outside the accepted evolutionary paradigm.

Nearly all domesticated plants are believed to have appeared between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago, with different groups coming to different parts of the world at different times. Initially, in the so-called “Fertile Crescent” of modern Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon came wheat, barley, and legumes, among others. Later on, in the Far East, came wheat, millet, rice, and yams. Later still, in the New World, came maize (corn), peppers, beans, squash, tomatoes and potatoes. Many have “wild” predecessors that were apparently a starting point for the domesticated variety, but others—like many common vegetables— have no obvious precursors. But for those that do, such as wild grasses, grains, and cereals, how they turned into wheat, barley, millet, rice, etc., is a profound mystery.

No botanist can conclusively explain how wild plants gave rise to domesticated ones. The emphasis there is on “conclusively.” Botanists have no trouble hypothesizing elaborate scenarios in which Neolithic (New Stone Age) farmers somehow figured out how to hybridize wild grasses and grains and cereals, not unlike Gregor Mendel when he cross-bred pea plants to figure out the mechanics of genetic inheritance. It all sounds so simple and so logical, almost no one outside scientific circles ever examines it closely.

Gregor Mendel never bred his pea plants to be anything other than pea plants. He created short ones, tall ones, and different colored ones, but they were always pea plants that produced peas. (Pea plants are a domesticated species, too, but that is irrelevant to the point to be made here.) On the other hand, those Stone Age farmers who were fresh out of their caves and only just beginning to turn soil for the first time (as the “official” scenario goes), somehow managed to transform the wild grasses, grains, and cereals growing around them into their domesticated “cousins.” Is that possible? Only through a course in miracles.

Actually, it requires countless miracles within two large categories of miracles. The first was that the wild grasses and grains and cereals were useless to humans. The seeds and grains were maddeningly small, like pepper flakes or salt crystals, which put them beyond the grasping and handling capacity of human fingers. They were also hard, like tiny nutshells, making it impossible to convert them to anything edible. Lastly, their chemistry was suited to nourishing animals, not humans. So wild varieties were entirely too small, entirely too tough, and nutritionally inappropriate for humans. They needed to be greatly expanded in size, greatly softened in texture, and overhauled at the molecular level, which would be an imposing challenge for modern botanists, much less Neolithic farmers.

Over hundreds of generations of selective crossbreeding, they consciously directed the genetic transformation of the few dozen that would turn out to be most useful to humans. And how did they do it? By the astounding feat of doubling, tripling, and quadrupling the number of chromosomes in the wild varieties! In a few cases they did better than that. Domestic wheat and oats were elevated from an ancestor with 7 chromosomes to their current 42, expansion by a factor of six. Sugar cane expanded from a 10-chromosome ancestor to the 80-chromosome monster it is today, a factor of eight. The chromosomes of others, like bananas and apples, only multiplied by factors of two or three, while peanuts, potatoes, tobacco and cotton, among others, expanded by factors of four. But that brings up what Charles Darwin himself called the “abominable mystery” of flowering plants. The first ones appear in the fossil record between 150 and 130 million years ago (according to radiodating), primed to multiply into over 200,000 known species. But no one can explain their presence because there is no connective link to any form of plants that preceded them.

As they grew, their seeds and grains became large enough to be easily seen, picked up, and manipulated by human fingers. Simultaneously, the seeds and grains softened to a degree where they could be milled, cooked, and consumed. And at the same time, their cellular chemistry was altered enough to begin providing nourishment to humans who ate them. The only word that remotely equates with that achievement is: miracle.

Of course, “miracle” implies there was actually a chance that such complex manipulations of nature could be carried out by primitive yeomen in eight geographical areas over 5,000 years. This strains credulity because in each case in each area someone had to actually look at a wild progenitor and imagine what it could become, or should become, or would become. Then they had to somehow insure that their vision would be carried forward through countless generations that had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling, and crossbreeding wild plants that put no food on their tables during their lifetimes, but which might feed their descendants in some remotely distant future.

It is difficult to try to concoct a more unlikely—even absurd—scenario, yet to modern-day botanists it is a gospel they believe with a fervor that puts many “six day” Creationists to shame.

To domesticate a wild plant without using artificial (i.e. genetic) manipulation, it must be modified by directed crossbreeding, which is only possible through the efforts of humans. So the equation is simple. First, wild ancestors for many (but not all) domestic plants do seem apparent. Second, most domesticated versions did appear from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. Third, the humans alive at that time were primitive barbarians. Fourth, in the past 5,000 years no plants have been domesticated that are nearly as valuable as the dozens that were “created” by the earliest farmers all around the world. Put an equal sign after those four factors and it definitely does not add up to any kind of Darwinian model.

To domesticate a wild grass like rye, or any wild grain or cereal (which was done time and again by our Neolithic forebears), two imposing hurdles must be cleared. These are the problems of rachises and glumes. Glumes are botany’s name for husks, the thin covers of seeds and grains that must be removed before humans can digest them. Rachises are the tiny stems that attach seeds and grains to their stalks.

While growing, glumes and rachises are strong and durable so rain won’t knock the seeds and grains off their stalks. At maturity they become so brittle that a breeze will shatter them and release their cargo to propagate. Such a high degree of brittleness makes it impossible to harvest wild plants because every grain or seed would be knocked loose during the harvesting process. So in addition to enlarging and softening and nutritionally altering the seeds and grains of dozens of wild plants, the earliest farmers had to also figure out how to finely adjust the brittleness of every plant’s glumes and rachises.

That adjustment was of extremely daunting complexity, perhaps more complex than the transformational process itself. The rachises had to be toughened enough to hold seeds and grains to their stalks during harvesting, yet remain brittle enough to be easily collected by human effort during what has come to be known as “threshing.” Likewise, the glumes had to be made tough enough to withstand harvesting after full ripeness was achieved, yet still be brittle enough to shatter during the threshing process. And—here’s the kicker—each wild plant’s glumes and rachises required completely different degrees of adjustment, and the final amount of each adjustment had to be perfectly precise!

Domestication (Animals):

As with plants, animal domestication followed a pattern of development that extended 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. It also started in the Fertile Crescent, with the “big four” of cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs, among others. Later, in the Far East, came ducks, chickens, and water buffalo, among others. Later still, in the New World, came llamas and vicuna. This process was not simplified by expanding the number of chromosomes. All animals—wild and domesticated—are diploid, which means they have two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent. The number of chromosomes varies as widely as in plants (humans have 46), but there are always only two sets (humans have 23 in each).

The only “tools” available to Neolithic herdsmen were those available to farming kinsmen: time and patience. By the same crossbreeding techniques apparently utilized by farmers, wild animals were selectively bred for generation after generation until enough gradual modifications accumulated to create domesticated versions of wild ancestors. As with plants, this process required anywhere from hundreds to thousands of years in each case, and was also accomplished dozens of times in widely separated areas around the globe. Once again, we face the problem of trying to imagine those first herdsmen with enough vision to imagine a “final model,” to start the breeding process during their own lifetimes, and to have it carried out over centuries until the final model was achieved.

This was much trickier than simply figuring out which animals had a strong pack or herding instinct that would eventually allow humans to take over as “leaders” of the herd or pack. For example, it took serious cajones to decide to bring a wolf cub into a campsite with the intention of teaching it to kill and eat selectively, and to earn its keep by barking at intruders (adult wolves rarely bark). And who could look at the massive, fearsome, ill-tempered aurochs and visualize a much smaller, much more amiable cow? Even if somebody could have visualized it, how could they have hoped to accomplish it? An aurochs calf (or a wolf cub for that matter) carefully and lovingly raised by human “parents” would still grow up to be a full-bodied adult with hard-wired adult instincts.

However it was done, it wasn’t by crossbreeding. Entire suites of genes must be modified to change the physical characteristics of animals. (In an interesting counterpoint to wild and domesticated plants, domesticated animals are usually smaller than their wild progenitors). But with animals something more…something ineffable…must be changed to alter their basic natures from wild to docile. To accomplish it remains beyond modern abilities, so attributing such capacity to Neolithic humans is an insult to our intelligence.

All examples of plant and animal “domestication” are incredible in their own right, but perhaps the most incredible is the cheetah. There is no question it was one of the first tamed animals, with a history stretching back to early Egypt, India, and China. As with all such examples, it could only have been created through selective breeding by Neolithic hunters, gatherers, or early farmers. One of those three must get the credit.

The cheetah is the most easily tamed and trained of all the big cats. No reports are on record of a cheetah killing a human. It seems specifically created for high speeds, with an aerodynamically designed head and body. Its skeleton is lighter than other big cats; its legs are long and slim, like the legs of a greyhound. Its heart, lungs, kidneys, and nasal passages are enlarged, allowing its breathing to jump from 60 per minute at rest to 150 bpm during a chase. Its top speed is 70 miles per hour while a thoroughbred tops out at around 38 mph. Nothing on a savanna can outrun it. It can be outlasted, but not outrun.

Cheetahs are unique because they combine physical traits of two distinctly different animal families: dogs and cats. They belong to the family of cats, but they look like long-legged dogs. They sit and hunt like dogs. They can only partially retract their claws, like dogs instead of cats. Their paws are thick and hard like dogs. They contract diseases that only dogs suffer from. The light-colored fur on their body is like the fur of a shorthaired dog. However, to climb trees they use the first claw on their front paws in the same way that cats do. In addition to their “dog only” diseases, they also get “cat only” ones. And the black spots on their bodies are, inexplicably, the texture of cat’s fur.

There is something even more inexplicable about cheetahs. Genetic tests have been done on them and the surprising result was that in the 50 specimens tested, they were all—every one—genetically identical with all the others! This means the skin or internal organs of any of the thousands of cheetahs in the world could be switched with the organs of any other cheetah and not be rejected. The only other place such physical homogeneity is seen is in rats and other animals that have been genetically altered in labs. Cheetahs stand apart, of course, but all domesticated animals have traits that are not explainable in terms that stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Rather than deal with the embarrassment of confronting such issues, scientists studiously ignore them and, as with the mysteries of domesticated plants, explain them away as best they can. For the cheetah, they insist it simply can not be some kind of weird genetic hybrid between cats and dogs, even though the evidence points squarely in that direction.

The problem of the cheetahs’ genetic uniformity is explained by something now known as the “bottleneck effect.” What it presumes is that the wild cheetah population—which must have been as genetically diverse as its long history indicates—at some recent point in time went into a very steep population decline that left only a few breeding pairs alive. From that decimation until now they have all shared the same restricted gene pool. Unfortunately, there is no record of any extinction events that would selectively remove cheetahs and leave every other big cat to develop its expected genetic variation. So for as unlikely as it seems, the “bottleneck” theory is accepted as another scientific gospel.

Like all plants and animals, whether wild or domesticated, humans are supposed to be the products of slight, gradual improvements to countless generations spawned by vastly more primitive forebears. This was firmly believed by all scientists in the 1980’s, when a group of geneticists decided to try to establish a more accurate date for when humans and chimps split from their presumed common ancestor. Paleontologists used fossilized bones to establish a timeline that indicated the split came between five and eight million years ago. That wide bracket could be narrowed, geneticists believed, by charting mutations in human mitochondrial DNA, small bits of DNA floating outside the nuclei of our cells. So they went to work collecting samples from all over the world.

When the results were in, none of the geneticists could believe it. They had to run their samples through again and again to be certain. Even then, there was hesitancy about announcing it. Everyone knew there would be a firestorm of controversy, starting with the paleontologists, who would be given the intellectual equivalent of a black eye and a bloody nose, and their heads dunked into a toilet for good measure. This would publicly embarrass them in a way that had not happened since the Piltdown hoax was exposed. Despite the usual scientific practice of keeping a lid on data that radically differed with a current paradigm, the importance of this new evidence finally outweighed concern for the image and feelings of paleontologists. The geneticists gathered their courage and stepped into the line of fire, announcing that humans were not anywhere near the official age range of eight to five million years old. Humans were only about 200,000 years old (according to radiodating).

Apart from disputes about the date and circumstances of our origin as a species, there are plenty of other problems with humans. Like domesticated plants and animals, humans stand well outside the classic Darwinian paradigm. Darwin himself made the observation that humans were surprisingly like domesticated animals. In fact, we are so unusual relative to other primates that it can be solidly argued we do not belong on Earth at all….that we are not even from Earth because we do not seem to have developed here.

We are taught that by every scientific measure humans are primates very closely related to all other primates, especially to chimpanzees and gorillas. This is so ingrained in our psyches it seems futile to even examine it, much less challenge it. But we will.

Bones. Human bones are much lighter than comparable primate bones. For that matter, our bones are much lighter than the bones of every “prehuman” ancestor through Neanderthal. The ancestor bones look like primate bones; modern human bones do not.

Muscle. Human muscles are significantly weaker than comparable muscles in primates. Pound-for-pound we are five to ten times weaker than any other primate. Any pet monkey is evidence of that. Somehow getting “better” made us much, much weaker.

Skin. Human skin is not well adapted to the amount of sunlight striking Earth. It can be modified to survive extended exposure by greatly increasing melanin (its dark pigment) at its surface, which only the black race has achieved. All others must cover themselves with clothing or frequent shade or both, or sicken from radiation poisoning.

Body Hair. Primates need not worry about direct exposure to sunlight because they are covered from head to toe in a distinctive pattern of long body hair. Because they are quadrupeds (move on all fours), the thickest is on their back, the thinnest on the chest and abdomen. Humans have lost the all-over pelt, and we have completely switched our area of thickness to the chest and abdomen while wearing the thin part on our backs.

Fat. Humans have ten times as many fat cells attached to the underside of their skin as primates. If a primate is wounded by a gash or tear in the skin, when the bleeding stops the wound’s edges lay flat near each other and can quickly close the wound by a process called “contracture.” In humans the fat layer is so thick that it pushes up through wounds and makes contracture difficult if not impossible. Also, contrary to propaganda to try to explain this oddity, the fat under human skin does not compensate for the body hair we have lost. Only in water is its insulating capacity useful; in air it is minimal at best.

Head Hair. All primates have head hair that grows to a certain length and stops. Human head hair grows to such lengths that it could be dangerous in a primitive situation. Thus, we have been forced to cut our head hair since we became a species, which might account for the sharp flakes of stones that are considered primitive hominid “tools.”

Fingernails & Toenails. All primates have fingernails and toenails that grow to a certain length and then stop, never needing paring. Human fingernails and toenails have always needed paring. Again, maybe those stone “tools” were not for butchering animals.

Skulls. The human skull is nothing like the primate skull. There is hardly any fair morphological comparison to be made apart from the general parts being the same. Their design and assembly are so radically different as to make attempts at comparison useless.

Brains. The comparison here is even more radical because human brains are so vastly different. (To say “improved” or “superior” is unfair and not germane because primate brains work perfectly well for what primates have to do to live and reproduce.)

Locomotion. The comparison here is easily as wide as the comparison of brains and skulls. Humans are bipedal, primates are quadrupeds. That says more than enough.

Speech. Human throats are completely redesigned relative to primates. The larynx has dropped to a much lower position so humans can break typical primate sounds into the tiny pieces of sound (by modulation) that have come to be human speech.

Sex. Primate females have estrous cycles and are sexually receptive only at special times. Human females have no estrous cycle in the primate sense. They are continually receptive to sex. (Unless, of course, they have the proverbial headache.)

Chromosomes. This is the most inexplicable difference of all. Primates have 48 chromosomes. Humans are considered vastly superior to them in a wide array of areas, yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes! This begs the question of how could we lose two full chromosomes, which represents a lot of DNA, in the first place? And in the process, how could we become so much better? Nothing about it makes logical sense.

Genetic Disorders. As with all wild animals (plants, too), primates have relatively few genetic disorders spread throughout their gene pools. Albinism is one that is common to many animal groups, as well as humans. But albinism does not stop an animal with it from growing up and passing the gene for it into the gene pool. Mostly, though, serious defects are quickly weeded out in the wild. Often parents or others in a group will do the job swiftly and surely. So wild gene pools stay relatively clear. In contrast, humans have over 4,000 genetic disorders, and several of those will absolutely kill every victim before reproduction is possible. This begs the question of how such defects could possibly get into the human gene pool in the first place, much less how do they remain widespread?

Genetic Relatedness. A favorite Darwinist statistic is that the total genome (all the DNA) of humans differs from chimps by only 1% and from gorillas by 2%. This makes it seem as if evolution is indeed correct and that humans and primates are virtually kissing cousins. However, what they don’t stress is that 1% of the human genome’s 3 billion base pairs is 30 million base pairs, and to any You-Know-What that can adroitly manipulate genes, 30 million base pairs can easily add up to a tremendous amount of difference.

Domestication! It is observable evolution.

What does radiometric dating have to do with anything? The only issue with it is when people deliberately misuse it to make false arguments.

Geological evidence completely supports evolutionary theory.

There are no time line problems.

Nothing supports design, it is the product of religious zealots lying.

I think you may have some serious misunderstanding about evolution.

The fossilized stromatolites discovered in Australia had been produced by the dead bodies of billions of prokaryotic bacteria, the very first life forms known to exist on the planet (according to scientists). They are also by far the simplest, with no nucleus to contain their DNA. Yet in relative terms prokaryotes are not simple at all. They are dozens of times larger than a typical virus, with hundreds of strands of DNA instead of the five to ten of the simplest viruses. So it is clear that prokaryotes are extremely sophisticated creatures relative to what one would assume to be the very first self-animated life form, which can plausibly be imagined as even smaller than the smallest virus.

(By the way, viruses do not figure into this scenario because they are not technically "alive" in the classic sense. To be fully alive means having the ability to take nourishment from the immediate environment, turn that nourishment into energy, expel waste, and reproduce indefinitely. Viruses need a living host to flourish, though they can and do reproduce themselves when ensconced in a suitable host. So it seems safe to assume hosts precede viruses in every case.)

Needless to say, the discovery of fossilized prokaryotes at 3.6 billion years ago left scientists reeling. However, because so many of their pet theories had been overturned in the past, they knew how to react without panic or stridency. They made a collective decision to just whistle in the dark and move on as if nothing had changed. And nothing did. No textbooks were rewritten to accommodate the new discovery. Teachers continued to teach the spontaneous animation theory as they had been doing for decades. The stromatolites were consigned to the eerie limbo where all OOPARTS (out-of-place artifacts) dwell.

In the late 1980's a biologist named Carl Woese discovered that not only did life appear on Earth in the form of prokaryotes, more than one kind! Woese found that what had always been considered a single creature was in fact two distinct types he named archaea and true bacteria. This unexpected, astounding discovery made one thing clear beyond any shadow of doubt: Life could not possibly have evolved on Earth. For it to appear as early as it did in the fossil record, and to consist of two distinct and relatively sophisticated types of bacteria, meant spontaneous animation flatly did not occur.

The point to note here is that no one wants to step up to the plate and suggest the obvious, which is that some entity or entities from somewhere beyond our solar system came here when it was barely formed and for whatever reason decided to seed it with two kinds of prokaryotes, the hardiest forms of bacteria we are aware of and, for all we know, are creatures purposefully designed to be capable of flourishing in absolutely any environment in the universe. (Understand that prokaryotes exist today just as they did 4.0 billion years ago (according to your timeline) ... unchanged, indestructible, microscopic terminators with the unique ability to turn any hell into a heaven. But more about that in a moment.)

This suggests that Earth was seeded when it was still a seething cauldron of magma, no liquid water, etc. Far from being an ideal place for life, or any less ideal than other planets are even now around the solar system. So why dont these same organisms exist on Mars and other planets with the conditions that could sustain them? This might include, for example, eukaryotes, Earth's second life form, another single-celled bacteria which clearly appeared (rather than evolved) just as suddenly as the prokaryotes at (surprise!) around 2.0 billion years ago (according to your timeline). Eukaryotes are distinctive because they are the first life form with a nucleus, which is a hallmark of all Earth life except prokaryotes. We humans are eukaryotic creatures. But those second organisms (which, like prokaryotes, exist today just as they did when they arrived) were much larger than their predecessors, more fragile, and more efficient at producing oxygen.

The next jarring bump on the Darwinist road came when they learned that in certain places around the globe there existed remnants of what had to be the very first pieces of the Earth's crust. Those most ancient slabs of rock are called cratons, and the story of their survival for 4.0 billion [4,000,000,000] years (according to your timeline) is a miracle in itself. But what is most miraculous about them is that they contain fossils of "primitive" bacteria! Yes, bacteria, preserved in 4.0-billion-year-old cratonal rock. If that's not primitive, what is? However, it presented Darwinists with an embarrassing conundrum.

If Earth began to coalesce out of the solar system's primordial cloud of dust and gas around 4.5 billion years ago (which by then was a well-supported certainty according to consensus), then at 4.0 billion years ago the proto-planet was still a seething ball of cooling magma. No warm ponds would appear on Earth for at least a billion years or more (according to your timeline. So how to reconcile reality with the warm-pond fantasy? The imposing edifice of Darwinian "origin of life" dogma rested on a piece of incontrovertible bedrock: there could be only one progenitor for all of life. When the fortuitous lightning bolt struck the ideally concocted warm pond, it created only one entity. However, it was no ordinary entity. With it came the multiple ability to take nourishment from its environment, create energy from that nourishment, expel waste created by the use of that energy and (almost as an afterthought) reproduce itself ad infinitum until one of its millions of subsequent generations sits here at this moment reading these words.

4 facts remain:

(1) they appear as two groups of multiple prokaryotes (archaea and true bacteria); (2) they appear whole and complete; (3) the hellish primordial Earth is unimaginable as an incubator for burgeoning life; and (4) a half-billion years seems far too brief a time-span to permit a gradual, step-by-step assembly of the incredible complexity of prokaryotic biology and biochemistry.

To Interventionists/Intelligent Design researchers like me, the notion of prokaryotes consuming each other to create eukaryotes is every bit as improbable as the divine fiat of Creationists. But even if it were a biological possibility (which most evidence weighs against), it would still seem fair to expect "transition" models somewhere along the line. Darwinists say "no" because this process could have an "overnight" aspect to it. One minute there's a large prokaryote alongside a small one, the next minute there's a small eukaryote with what appears to be a nucleus inside it. Not magic, not a miracle, just a biological process unknown today but which could have been possible 2.0 billion years ago. Who's to say, except an "expert"? In any case, large and small prokaryotes lived side by side for 2.0 billion years (long enough, one would think, to learn to do so in harmony), then suddenly a variety of eukaryotes appeared alongside them, whole and complete, ready to join them as the only game in town for another 1.4 billion years (with no apparent changes in the eukaryotes, either).

At around 600 million years ago, the first multicellular life- forms (the Ediacaran Fauna) appear--as suddenly and inexplicably as the prokaryotes and eukaryotes. To this day, the Ediacaran Fauna are not well understood, beyond the fact they were something like jellyfish or seaweeds in a wide range of sizes and shapes. (It remains unclear whether they were plants or animals, or a bizarre combination of both.) They lived alongside the prokaryotes and eukaryotes for about 50 million years, to about 550 million years ago (according to your timeline), give or take a few million, when the so-called "Cambrian Explosion" occurred.

It's rightly called an "explosion", because within a period of only 5 to 10 million years--a mere eye-blink relative to the 3.5 billion years of life preceding it--the Earth's oceans filled with a dazzling array of seawater plants and all 26 of the animal phyla (body types) catalogued today, with no new phyla added since. No species from the Cambrian era looks like anything currently alive--except trilobites, which seem to have spawned at least horseshoe crabs. However, despite their "alien" appearance, they all arrived fully assembled--males and females, predators and prey, large and small, ready to go. As in each case before, no predecessors can be found.

Volumes have been written about the Cambrian Explosion and the variety of weird plants and animals resulting from it. The Earth was simply inundated with them, as if they'd rained down from the sky. Darwinists concede it is the greatest difficulty--among many--they confront when trying to sell the evolutionary concept of gradualism. There is simply no way to reconcile the breathtaking suddennessÉthe astounding varietyÉthe overwhelming incongruity of the Cambrian Explosion. It is a testament to the old adage that "one ugly fact can ruin the most beautiful theory". But it's far from the only one.

All of complex life as we understand it begins with the Cambrian Explosion, in roughly the last 550 million years. During that time, the Earth has endured five major and several minor catastrophic extinction events. Now, one can quibble with how an event catastrophic enough to cause widespread extinctions could be called "minor", but when compared to the major ones the distinction is apt. The five major extinction events eliminated 50% to 90% of all species of plants and animals alive when the event occurred.

We all know about the last of those, the Cretaceous event of 65 million years ago (according to your timeline) that took out the dinosaurs and much of what else was alive at the time. But what few of us understand is the distinctive pattern to how life exists between extinction events and after extinction events. This difference in the pattern of life creates serious doubts about "gradualism" as a possible explanatory mechanism for how species proliferate.

Between extinction events, when environments are stable, life doesn't seem to change at all. The operative term is stasis. Everything stays pretty much the same. But after extinction events, the opposite occurs: everything changes profoundly. New life-forms appear all over the place, filling every available niche in the new environments created by the after-effects of the catastrophe. Whatever that is, it's not gradualism. That "something else" they called punctuated equilibrium. The key to it was their open admission of the great secret that life-forms only changed in spurts after extinction events, and therefore had nothing to do with natural selection or survival of the fittest or any of the old Darwinist ideas.

Radiocarbon dating is extremely inaccurate and fallible as I posted in this thread.

I once believed in the Creationist idea of life on this planet. As I continue towards my degree in Biology I notice how big of a lie I was brought up believing. There is no controversy and as every day passes and more is learned about our evolution it becomes utterly ridiculous to argue against this solid Theory. You have been lied to. The quicker you become educated on science, how it works, and what it really tells us about life on this planet the quicker you will feel the relief of not having to deal with or defend that justified feeling that something is wrong with what you have been told. It doesn't have to be the end of your relationship with your god, merely a modification. You are quickly becoming a "flat Earth" defender. It might really help if you have the time to take a basic Biology class at your local community college. Good luck.

See above for my research.

I have taken and gotten straight A Biology, but thanks for being concerned. If there is no controversy then explain my above posts on domestication, appearance of biological organisms, and the errors observed in radio-carbon dating at fresh sources around the world. I guess the fresh lava and basalt being tested around the world currently at near same age as the supposed time as creation of Earth makes sense to you but ok. I have a Bachelors in Applied Science already and everything I have researched points to intervention by some conscience being or intelligence, you can call it aliens or higher power or whatever you wish. I choose to believe it was our creator, not little green men in spacesuits who choose for whatever reason to refuse to communicate with their project even when we are sentient and intelligent. How am I a "flat Earth" defender when everything I have posted is clearly science accepted by specialists in each said field? Perhaps you should start paying attention more in your courses and you would see the same glaring wholes in the status quo as I do, maybe I'm just a bit more perceptive than you I dont know, but good luck on your schooling hopefully you arent a rank-and-file scientist who supports things without doing independent research and thinking for yourself...

Edited June 12, 2010 by NeoSavant

[Tiggs]

How am I a "flat Earth" defender when everything I have posted is clearly science accepted by specialists in each said field?

Possibly because none of the conclusions you have reached are clearly science accepted by specialists in each said field.

[Mr. Miyagi]

*snip*

See above for my research.

I have taken and gotten straight A Biology, but thanks for being concerned. If there is no controversy then explain my above posts on domestication, appearance of biological organisms, and the errors observed in radio-carbon dating at fresh sources around the world. I guess the fresh lava and basalt being tested around the world currently at near same age as the supposed time as creation of Earth makes sense to you but ok. I have a Bachelors in Applied Science already and everything I have researched points to intervention by some conscience being or intelligence, you can call it aliens or higher power or whatever you wish. I choose to believe it was our creator, not little green men in spacesuits who choose for whatever reason to refuse to communicate with their project even when we are sentient and intelligent. How am I a "flat Earth" defender when everything I have posted is clearly science accepted by specialists in each said field? Perhaps you should start paying attention more in your courses and you would see the same glaring wholes in the status quo as I do, maybe I'm just a bit more perceptive than you I dont know, but good luck on your schooling hopefully you arent a rank-and-file scientist who supports things without doing independent research and thinking for yourself...

That's not your research.

It's This Guy's.

If you've gotten a "strait a biology" or whatever the hell that means, then you should be well informed about plagiarism and well aware of when you are engaging in it no?

Your source is creationist drivil. Not science.

Have fun.

Thanks for your time.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Mr. Miyagi

[NeoSavant]

Possibly because none of the conclusions you have reached are clearly science accepted by specialists in each said field.

So i guess your avoiding the evidence I just posted? All easily confirmed by scientists, perhaps you should actual read what I posted and look into it instead of simply trolling? It seems these forums are filled with people who avoid evidence you posted and resort to straw man type debates and personal attacks instead of staying on topic and debating the issue...

Edited June 12, 2010 by NeoSavant

[NeoSavant]

That's not your research.

It's This Guy's.

If you've gotten a "strait a biology" or whatever the hell that means, then you should be well informed about plagiarism and well aware of when you are engaging in it no?

Your source is creationist drivil. Not science.

Have fun.

Thanks for your time.

Yes I took that from that site, he is one of the people I have researched on topic and posted it here. Big deal, its all evidence I researched independently and confirmed through other sources, but provides a straightforward summary. Sorry I forgot "in" in-between straight A and Biology. Its creationist drivil? What points are wrong? Explain the counterpoints that make the research wrong and oxymorons established by current research right. As far as plagiarism I didnt know that it mattered on these forums, but from now on I will provide links to my sources, okay sorry...

Edited June 12, 2010 by NeoSavant

[danielost]

i think what i like is when they try to disprove intelligent design, by having an intelligently designed experiment prove that only evolution could have happened.

[NeoSavant]

i think what i like is when they try to disprove intelligent design, by having an intelligently designed experiment prove that only evolution could have happened.

what experiment are you referring to? I am confused by your post when you say they try to disprove ID, by having an ID experiment prove that evolution could have happened?

[danielost]

what experiment are you referring to? I am confused by your post when you say they try to disprove ID, by having an ID experiment prove that evolution could have happened?

any experment that man comes up with is intelligent designed isnt it. but lets just call it the latest one, the artifical life story.

Edited June 12, 2010 by danielost

[NeoSavant]

any experment that man comes up with is intelligent designed isnt it. but lets just call it the latest one, the artifical life story.

Explain what you mean by the artificial life story...

[Agent. Mulder]

what experiment are you referring to? I am confused by your post when you say they try to disprove ID, by having an ID experiment prove that evolution could have happened?

we live on a planet that frequently has natural disasters, killing thousands. we have a sun, that gives life but also takes it (and may result in our demise). we live in a universe where most parts are too cold, or too hot, no oxygen or have radiation making it unhabitable. we have poorly designed bodies (in a humans perspective), where our mouth isnt big enough to hold all of our teeth, we put food in our airway, causing people to choke and sometimes die.

there is NO support for ID at all. domestication of plants and animals is from human interaction and evolution of those plants/animals over time.

evolution is a documented and observable fact. ID is an idea by dogmatic religious folk who are too ignorant to bother to learn anything about evolution, and feel if they change the name from "creationism" to "intelligent design" they can force their religious views on the world.

[Tiggs]

So i guess your avoiding the evidence I just posted? All easily confirmed by scientists, perhaps you should actual read what I posted and look into it instead of simply trolling? It seems these forums are filled with people who avoid evidence you posted and resort to straw man type debates and personal attacks instead of staying on topic and debating the issue...

Which part of "none of the conclusions you have reached are clearly science accepted by specialists in each said field" is a straw man or personal attack, exactly? Again - although parts of the evidence presented within your post is accepted by specialists in each said field, the conclusions that are drawn from that evidence are quite clearly not.

Your position, in short, is the equivalent of:

(1) This is X. Isn't X amazing?

(2) I reject science's explanation of how X came to be, because scientists don't fully agree on every single last minutiae of detail.

(3) Therefore something else must be responsible for X. This something else must be a miracle because I can't come up with a better explanation.

(4) Therefore, God exists.

Not the most convincing position ever.

If you'd actually bothered to write that post yourself rather than merely cutting and pasting a few thousand words of the rather notorious Lloyd Pye in an attempt to pass it off as your own, then I might have been more persuaded to take some time to actually debate the scientific issues with you.

As an aside, breaking the forum rules by failing to cite your sources and then calling a senior moderator a troll probably isn't the best way to start your time here. You might want to re-read the Forum's Terms and Conditions of use before your next post.

[NeoSavant]

Which part of "none of the conclusions you have reached are clearly science accepted by specialists in each said field" is a straw man or personal attack, exactly? Again - although parts of the evidence presented within your post is accepted by specialists in each said field, the conclusions that are drawn from that evidence are quite clearly not.

Your position, in short, is the equivalent of:

(1) This is X. Isn't X amazing?

(2) I reject science's explanation of how X came to be, because scientists don't fully agree on every single last minutiae of detail.

(3) Therefore something else must be responsible for X. This something else must be a miracle because I can't come up with a better explanation.

(4) Therefore, God exists.

Not the most convincing position ever.

If you'd actually bothered to write that post yourself rather than merely cutting and pasting a few thousand words of the rather notorious Lloyd Pye in an attempt to pass it off as your own, then I might have been more persuaded to take some time to actually debate the scientific issues with you.

As an aside, breaking the forum rules by failing to cite your sources and then calling a senior moderator a troll probably isn't the best way to start your time here. You might want to re-read the Forum's Terms and Conditions of use before your next post.

Sorry when I signed up for forum account I neglected to read them, which I apologized for and will not make that mistake in future. * Snip *

Beyond that you have yet to show me what was wrong or how science contradicts anything I posted.

1) I posted clear scientifically proven reason why it doesnt make sense according to the status quo.

2) I never said I completely rejected it just that there is alot of information that is simply theorized and not proven. Like I said prove what parts of what I posted are contradicted by anything and then we can move forward.

3) The reasons I posted are not theories but established facts confirmed by science and the same researchers who contradict themselves with their own research, timelines, principles, etc.

4) I never said God existed, just that the sheer miracles that would have had to take place in order for the status quo to make sense are even more unlikely than those who believe blindly in Creationism.

* Snip *

Edited June 13, 2010 by Tiggs
Please read the PM I am sending you

[danielost]

we live on a planet that frequently has natural disasters, killing thousands. we have a sun, that gives life but also takes it (and may result in our demise). we live in a universe where most parts are too cold, or too hot, no oxygen or have radiation making it unhabitable. we have poorly designed bodies (in a humans perspective), where our mouth isnt big enough to hold all of our teeth, we put food in our airway, causing people to choke and sometimes die.

there is NO support for ID at all. domestication of plants and animals is from human interaction and evolution of those plants/animals over time.

evolution is a documented and observable fact. ID is an idea by dogmatic religious folk who are too ignorant to bother to learn anything about evolution, and feel if they change the name from "creationism" to "intelligent design" they can force their religious views on the world.

the evolution of domesticated animels and plants are controlled evolution, guess what by intellengence. we control the evolution of domesticated animels. they didnt get that way by random evolution. does natural evolution take place yes. are the great great great grandparents of mammals lizards no.

as an example of controlled evolution, the plant corn would never under natural evolution developed an ear, that was all man. and today we are working on making it a tree,

Edited June 13, 2010 by danielost