"A scientific Dissent from Darwinism"

[Shermana]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660

This here is a list of many scientists and PH.D.s of numerous subjects from Genetics to Molecular Biology to Marine Geology
Radiology, Biomedical Engineering, Chemistry, Nuclear Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Bioengineering, Immunopharmacology, Geoscience, Neuroscience, Pharmacognosy, Physiology, Kineseology, Plant Pathology, Microbiology, Molecular Biophysics, Mathematical Physics, and more, who agree that:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.�
This was last publicly updated December 2011. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.

Are these scientists all frauds?

Are these people all motivated by personal beliefs over objective evidence?

Are they all being dishonest?

Is their view on the matter unscientific?

Do they have basis for their claim to reject the majority opinion?

Are they being more honest than the majority concensus who accepts that the Darwinian (or "Neo"-Darwinian) approach can assertively be used to define the characteristics of life?

Is there evidence that the majority concensus is using that these PH.D.s and scientists are unaware of or ignoring?

Are they evidence that there is plenty of dissent on the issue of whether Macro-evolution is a "fact"?

Can one just brush off their opinions if the majority disagrees with them?

Is it fair to conclude that their dissent might be based on an objective, empirical examination of the available data and findings?

Is it fair to conclude that those who believe that Neo-Darwinian views CAN assertively account for the diversity of life may be just as biased (i.e. coming from a "naturalistic humanism" viewpoint) in which they base their belief on their pre-determined conclusion?

Is it safe to say that "Macro-evolution" is not a 100% agreed upon fact upon Professional scientists even if the majority support such an idea?

[Shermana]

The idea of proteins being preserved for 80 million years is perhaps more ludicrous than the idea that the dino may not exactly be millions of years old.

[Autodidact]

The idea of proteins being preserved for 80 million years is perhaps more ludicrous than the idea that the dino may not exactly be millions of years old.

You accept the expertise of the authors to tell what the materials are, but not how old they are? Because, I guess, you have more expertise in determining the age of organic materials? What dating methodology do you use, and what is its scientific basis?

[THEMAYAN]

RESPONE TO THEJACKELANTERN

Let me show how you are wrong.

Do you know the difference between a knee and femur? And did you actually read Talkorigin's discussion on this? I suspect you hadn't bothered..

If I said femur instead of knee then I misspoke. You see if you misspeak then you admit it. Unlike others who misspeak about court cases or say that articles have been removed when they havent and dont have the courage to admit they were wrong. The fact remains that the knee was found a mile away and this doesn't make my points any less valid.

In 1987, creationist Tom Willis accused Donald Johanson of fraud, claiming that the skeleton known as "Lucy" consisted of bones that had been found at two sites about 2.5 km (1.5 miles) apart. Willis had actually confused two separate finds which belong to the same species. (This was in spite of the fact that a best-selling book (Johanson and Edey 1981) has photos of both fossils: AL 129-1 is a right knee, while Lucy has a right femur and a left tibia.) This was a spectacular error which could hardly have been made by anyone who had done the most elementary research, but that didn't stop many other creationists from picking up the claim and repeating it. For a full history of this claim, read the talk.origins [url]knee-joint FAQ file[/url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html] (Lippard 1997).

The fact that there were two separate finding is a moot point because the fact remains that the knee bone found at previous cite was used in Johansons extrapolation as belonging to australopithecine which Lucy is categorized as, and the PBS episode I cited also uses the knee bone as an example.

You have to love the dishonesty in Creationists arguments even after being told by one of their own of their dishonesty. So now it's not only the entire scientific community that is in on it, it's also anyone of their own too! Good talk!

Again you are the one that made claims already previously cited and never retracted your staments.

Now Johnanson claims that he was quoted out of context at University of Missouri at Kansas City even though he now claims that he doesn't remember what he said, but nonetheless he tries to clarify. Fair enough. He is absolutely entitled to clarify. Now lets see what he actually does says below……….

Quote mined is more like it.. A common tactic among creationists to quote mine out of context. You've yourself here several times in this discussion

.

Quoting out of context does not apply in this case because Johanson claims he cant even remember what he said. Only that he wanted to clarify and when he did, we find that indeed the knee joint was found a mile away. So again your point is moot.

In a letter to Jim Lippard from Donald Johansen
Mr. Jim Lippard
Department of Philosophy
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721

Donald JohansonIn 1974, In November 1973, during my first major expedition to Hadar, I found a perfectly preserved knee joint (minus the kneecap) at a locality numbered A.L. 128/129. All detailed anatomical analyses and biomechanical considerations of this joint indicate that the hominid possessing it, Australopithecus afarensis, was fully capable of upright bipedal posture and gait.
In 1974, "Lucy" was found in locality A.L. 288, situated some 2-1/2 km northeast of the knee joint locality. "Lucy" preserves a proximal tibia, as well as enough of distal femur, to indicate that the anatomy of this skeleton in the knee joint region was identical to that of the 1973 discovery. Hence, "Lucy" was also capable of fully upright bipedal posture and gait, as her hip and ankle joints also indicate. Stratigraphically, these two discoveries are separated by nearly 70 meters.

your response:

As you can see, he interpreted the knee to be fully capable of bipedal movement as well as believing that the proximal tibia of subsequent finding was close enough to indicate they were from the same creature, however the fact remains the same that even he admits that they were separated by 2-1/2 kilometers which is a little over a mile away and not a meter as you claim, and again full bipedal movements is disputed in the literature as I have already cited. Also keep in mind Johansens extrapolation was made long before Fred Spoors did scans of the inner ear of these creatures and determined that they had the equilibrium of non human great apes, not the equilibrium of modern humans who are fully bipedal.

Yes they found a knee at the Lucy site.. It's also not impossible for such a thing to occur.. Animals by all means move bones around. And btw, there were scans done that also show many having human like canals.. Suggest you read talk origins on that issue.

Instead of running to talk origins all the time and giving me the opinion of their writers, why dont you show me in peer review. The only reason why I cited Talk Origins is because you and others kept bringing it up. Its interesting that you have nothing to say about Spoors finding concerning equilibrium. As for your animal conspiracy theory, since it requires rapid burial for bones to be preserved, then it is only logical to conclude that animals cannot move bones around if they are rapidly buried under sediment.

You have also ignored that fact that owen Lovejoy had to saw the hip bone in order to make it fit a more human appearance.

You ignore that even your own creationist scientists understands what had been done and why.. Clearly you don't grasp this at all. If you are going to appeal to ignorance, I suggest learning something about the subject first.

Yes he undertands how the evidence was manipulated and that is the point of video. Do you really think he sides with you? There is no appeal to ignorance. The PBS video clearly tells the story of how the bones were manipulated to fit the desired picture.

If Lovejoy had fraudulently done so, it would have been the end of his career.

Well he did and apparently it did not ruin his career.


False. The citation already given clearly says that the hipbone resembled a chimpanzees, and that was in fact the problem. The only reason for Lovejoy to think the appearance to a chimp hip bone was superficial was because it didn't fit the picture they were looking for.

And of course you ignore that you can't change a chimp pelvis bone into a human like pelvis. The source clear states it's anatomically impossible and why, as well as why it was a case of bone fusion.

.

Please tell me where in my citation does it say that?

You are just plain wrong and purposely distorting what it actually says in that the problem was that hip bone flared out like chimps. Your doing the same thing Love- joy did. You are assuming that the evidence is wrong, so therefore lets manipulate the evidence by reconstructing it the way it will fit.

In fact now I challenge you to cite peer review article that the fusion would have been anatomically incorrect and impossible even for a chimp.

I cited one of your own on that issue. How about you cite a peer review paper on exactly how the pelvis was magically transformed from a vertical load bearing pelvis to a chimp pelvis..

The video does explains exactly how that happened through human manipulation. You have not cited any peer review backing up your claim and neither have you shown were in video citation it makes the claim you say "it clearly does"

Now your turn. And please be specific. Don't send anymore chaos theory videos. Cite relevant data according to this specific statment you made.

This is common knowledge in paleontology .. They do this sort of thing a lot to fix bones fused.. Let's help you:

Oh yes this is common. Some have written books on how common it is to manipulate the evidence. Yes we agree on that.

[youtube][/youtube]

The problem with your video is the PBS clearly states that the pelvis appeared to be that of a chimp and that according to Lovejoy, this did not add up. So what does Lovejoy do? He manipulates the evidence to fit the picture.

Have ever considered that maybe why the bones did not fit and had to be altered is because they were from different creatures? Here is the video cited and anyone can look for themselves. The PBS EPISODE 1 is also shown. ][/quote]

[THEMAYAN]

RESPONSE TO JOEYKNOTHEAD

From Post 350:

I can appreciate the gentlemen's sincerity but I would have been able to appreciate it even more if he and his colleagues had actually performed some scientific test on the evidence in question. Notice how this is missing from the response. He never claimed of doing any test as to put the question to an end. and what I find really interesting Joey is that you left out the very next paragraph. >to follow<

Just as I can 'preciate your sincerity in accepting the notions of this Cremo fellow. I'm still unable to find any credentials on him, and am reticent to accept the hypothesis of an unknown over a known.

Sarcasm or rhetorical responses do not diminish the point that these examples should not be written off before examining them more carefully. If you had lived in the later part of the 19 century you would have also found no credentials on Gregor Mendel or Darwin for that matter. You have done exactly what I spoke of and that is instead of actually reading or researching the examples cited in the book you instead try to marginalize the author.

Why dont you research the content before you make a judgment? He has merely documented these cases of out of place artifacts and I make no claim that they are all authentic because I simply do not know. My only contention is that they should not be written off based on the notion that it conflicts with the current paradigme.

In my mind, if mine only, this is at best a "draw", where no firm conclusions can or should be made.

In my mind its shame that things can get written of so easily especially when the possibility of this being authentic could be a very big thing.

One might think a difference of opinion such as this could be solved by appeal to impartial judges or by a more thorough investigation of the field of evidence. But from the time of discovery, the specimen has taken on a religious significance that makes a friendly solution almost impossible.

This is code word for we really dont want to get involved.

Is everything a conspiracy with you? Heck, this amateur looked at the image and I see only a superficial resemblance, especially when compared to other ancient prints

.

As for arbitrarily writing things off thank you for making my point for me, and why do you use the word conspiracy? I have never used this word. I think politics or not wanting to ruin ones career by even entertaining the idea of such a notion is a more accurate way of putting it. A good example of this is all the flack that many of these cosigners of the Dissent list have had to deal with. The case of Sternberg and Guillermo Gonzalez are also two of many more examples. If anything, it is Intelligent designe advocates who are accused of conspiring to ruin science only because of the dispute over one theory. Talk about being paranoid.

Does THEMAYAN deny the men mentioned [Galileo and other ancients] were unaware of the ToE? My point is that you present these great men, godly as they were, as experts, while not understanding that they lived before the ToE and its mountains of evidence.

Maybe you should have read my response. I never said that they knew of neo Darwinism and even said that this debate was around even in their time.

I sure sensed an implication that since these men held to ancient thoughts they would not - could not - adjust their thinking to the evidence we have today.

Ancient thoughts? These are also modern thoughts. The notion of non telic origin is just as ancient as a world created by God, and atheism is just as ancient as theism. You seem to think that ToE as a dogma in itself and to tell you the truth I might even agree since that is the way it has been taught, but to think that ToE somehow disproves God or that there is overwhelming evidence for a prokaryote to man evolutionary paradigme is a different story, and you have yet to offer any empirical evidence. Like Jack you seem to believe just saying it makes it so. If you do propose to offer what you believe is empirical evidence, all I ask is that you keep it to one subject at a time and that you understand it enough well enough to explain it in detail in your own words and then after you have done that be prepared to provide relevant data. If you cant, then that tells me that you are accepting these so called examples of evidence on faith.

There is no mountain of evidence for prokaryote to man evolution.

I'll retract my statement to "a reasonable and logical inference drawn from a mountain of data"

Forty years ago If I were of adult age I would have agreed with you. In fact twenty years ago I might have agreed with you, but based on everything I have researched In the last 12 years I have only come to find a house of cards and cleverly worded data and sometimes out right lies.

If you had read my earlier thread I said that there was plenty of evidence to support micro evolution & adaptation.

I don't remember you addressing such in other threads, but will try to update my thinking

.

I don't even count out common ancestry among major species. What I do dispute is universal common ancestry.

How does that work?

Are you saying humans just poofed into existence fully formed, or do you accept a previous ancestor for H.s.s.?

Life, as in even the most simplest living cell, (as if there is such a thing as a simple living cell cell) is much more enigmatic than the concept of macro evolution which if there was sufficient empirical evidence would actually be feasible. So having said that, let me ask you a question. Do you believe that life just poofed itself into existence? Even if you say that it was a result of chemical evolution, still at some point spontaneous generation had to have occurred where non living matter became living matter. How about the universe? Do you believe in the big bang? Do you believe that the universe just poofed itself into existence? All we have is the observable evidence, and the observable evidence shows major animal groups appearing abruptly in the fossil record. As I have said many many times before, as for the exact details, no one knows, and sometimes its OK to admit that we dont know yet. I believe I have told you this before, but even if I havent please don't ask again. I hate to repeat myself over and over again.

No I don't. However, citing ancients as authorities regarding today is as goofy a notion as I've ever known.

When did I do that? I wasn't the one who insinuated that they would all be neo Darwinist if they were alive today.

My insinuation is that referencing the ancients as authorities on today is goofy. I do agree you may have not implied such, but there it is. To say or imply that since the ancients thought one way, that they would still think that way today, is to consider them dogmatic non/adherents.

Why are you telling me? I wasn't the one who claimed that they would have believed any different. It seems to be you that is insinuating that they would. Again, many scientist today attend church and believe God created the world. Many of these men I spoke of were in fact dogmatic concerning religion. We are not just speaking of men who were cultural Christians, but men who were deeply religious and devout. In fact many atheist today chastise Newton for his religiosity. You act as if Darwin proved that there was no God. Another way of looking at it is that there are many scientist and or scholars today who were once former neo Darwinist yet are now creationist or ID er's. In one of my earlier thread I gave an example of a famous scholar and atheist named Anthony Flew who before a few years before his death finally came to renounce atheism based on his research and understanding of intelligent design. I think you give the theory a lot more credit than it deserves.

Joey maybe you should actually read all my responses.

I don't have time to read every post you make in these forums. I do at least read, in full, your replies to me, and typically the entirety of the first page of a link. If I misunderstand you, I 'pologize.

Especially my citations concerning soft tissue in T Rex fossils and as for you'res, when you get more data and possibly, could, should, maybe, then lets look it over critically the way it should be.

Is that not what we're doing now?


Notice, in researching this soft tissue, I found data I felt pertinent to the discussion. That you don't find it pertinent is fine with me.

Thats fine, but at least you should have adressed the first subject before what seemed to me like changing the goal post. And you did in fact acuse me of making unfounded assertions without providing data before you even gave me a chance too. As I said before, if you want to talk about phylogenetic tree building and or molecular homology, then fine, but lets at least have some rules of discussion so as to keep it orderly.

I cited mine and then you switch the goal post to a dino bird phylogeny. This seems to be the MO. You guys cant stick to one subject.

Please note, it was YOU who mentioned this soft tissue. In researching the issue (wiki came first and I'm pressed for time, and I note you don't object to what I did present), I found new data, and noted that that data implicated that this soft tissue still supports the ToE.

Of course you have, and thats exactly what my point was concerning your response of finding a rabbit in Cambrian rock. No matter how many failed predictions are cited, evolutionist will always find someway to make it irrelevant. The mantra is that its just the theory evolving. Neo Darwinism has been continually falsified since the modern synthesis began all the way up until today, and the modern synthesis itself was developed because classical Darwinism could'nt even meet the standards of 1930's science. The strength of a theory is how well it meets its prediction criteria and I can cite many failed predictions.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 364:

Sarcasm or rhetorical responses do not diminish the point that these examples should not be written off before examining them more carefully. If you had lived in the later part of the 19 century you would have also found no credentials on Gregor Mendel or Darwin for that matter. You have done exactly what I spoke of and that is instead of actually reading or researching the examples cited in the book you instead try to marginalize the author.

I did just that, by going to the article I linked to, from the National Center for Science Education. I consider that organization, and its findings, far more credible than what you submitted.

Why dont you research the content before you make a judgment?

Because there's organizations out there, such as the National Center for Science Education, that does this stuff for a living. I'm on a limited time budget, and consider credible sources a valid pathway to discussing the various issues.

He has merely documented these cases of out of place artifacts and I make no claim that they are all authentic because I simply do not know. My only contention is that they should not be written off based on the notion that it conflicts with the current paradigme.

Since you don't know if they're authentic, why bother presenting them? Notice, my source said he considered the one as legitimately formed (no attempt at nefarity), but disagreed with your guy's conclusion.

In my mind its shame that things can get written of so easily especially when the possibility of this being authentic could be a very big thing.

When you concede that you yourself are uncertain as to the authenticity of your own evidence or conclusions, I don't understand why you'd get upset when such is dismissed. That said, I did look into the notion, and found a credible source that offered a counter proposal, from a guy who is known to be an expert. I've yet to find any credentials on your guy.

As for arbitrarily writing things off thank you for making my point for me, and why do you use the word conspiracy? I have never used this word.

I retract the conspiracy charge, but can't escape thinking that your continuing to be upset about a "dismissal" when I presented my own documentation to support my "dismissal" of evidence you admit is faulty is some sort of goofy.

I think politics or not wanting to ruin ones career by even entertaining the idea of such a notion is a more accurate way of putting it.

I see little to no qualitative difference to this charge and one of conspiracy.

A good example of this is all the flack that many of these cosigners of the Dissent list have had to deal with. The case of Sternberg and Guillermo Gonzalez are also two of many more examples.

Please present documentation for analysis.

If anything, it is Intelligent designe advocates who are accused of conspiring to ruin science only because of the dispute over one theory. Talk about being paranoid.

Please see the Wikipedia: Wedge strategy. Where an organized conspiracy exists, well, there we go.

Please note, this is not to say that such a strategy doesn't have its merits.

I sure sensed an implication that since these men held to ancient thoughts they would not - could not - adjust their thinking to the evidence we have today.

Can we concede then that referencing ancients as regards to notions that were not present in their day is problematic?

I don't doubt the folks you mentioned held the beliefs you claim. My contention, as I said, is that to imply they would not or could not change their minds if given the evidence we have today is an inappropriate appeal to authority.

...You seem to think that ToE as a dogma in itself and to tell you the truth I might even agree since that is the way it has been taught

I'm with ya to an extent. I can only say that one man's "dogma" is another's "reasonably and logically concluded".

but to think that ToE somehow disproves God...

It only does so if the God is claimed to have created humans "whole cloth" - notice, I present that from a reasonably and logically concluded standpoint, and not as inerrant "fact". My point being that we have little means of directly confirming any hypothesis or theory in this regard.

...or that there is overwhelming evidence for a prokaryote to man evolutionary paradigme is a different story, and you have yet to offer any empirical evidence.

Well let's find out where we gotta start then...

Do you, THEMAYAN, accept that the record shows there's species alive today that are not in the fossil record - and that there's species in the fossil record that are not alive today?

Like Jack you seem to believe just saying it makes it so.

Surely you can admit that I try my best to respond honestly, and that I am willing to document or clarify my assertions when challenged. If I fail to convince, that's another deal.

If you do propose to offer what you believe is empirical evidence, all I ask is that you keep it to one subject at a time and that you understand it enough well enough to explain it in detail in your own words and then after you have done that be prepared to provide relevant data.

I will not be beholden to debate in a manner you deem fit. If you feel anything I post is not within the rules of this site, you're perfectly free to report such. Please note, the rules of this site allow for reasonable and logical conclusions to be presented, but of course do not require that anyone accept such conclusions.

On the basis of genetics and the fossil record, I contend the most reasonable and logical conclusion to be had is that man arose from more primate forms, those primative forms from even more primative forms, all the way back to single-celled species.

I'll retract my statement to "a reasonable and logical inference drawn from a mountain of data"

Forty years ago If I were of adult age I would have agreed with you. In fact twenty years ago I might have agreed with you, but based on everything I have researched In the last 12 years I have only come to find a house of cards and cleverly worded data and sometimes out right lies.

I can respect that; I understand there's motives for anyone to lie, and that such is not bound to any single ideology. My position is that when the final tally is taken, the ToE is far superior to its counterparts.

...

Are you saying humans just poofed into existence fully formed, or do you accept a previous ancestor for H.s.s.?

Life, as in even the most simplest living cell, (as if there is such a thing as a simple living cell cell) is much more enigmatic than the concept of macro evolution which if there was sufficient empirical evidence would actually be feasible.

"Enigmatic" is in the eye of the enigmaticer.

So having said that, let me ask you a question. Do you believe that life just poofed itself into existence?

I must say yes - if you'll agree that by "poof" I mean that life came about through otherwise mundane means.

Even if you say that it was a result of chemical evolution, still at some point spontaneous generation had to have occurred where non living matter became living matter.

Are all the chemicals on this planet alive?

How about the universe? Do you believe in the big bang?

Beats me. I don't much fret that'n.

Do you believe that the universe just poofed itself into existence?

I have no way of knowing.

All we have is the observable evidence, and the observable evidence shows major animal groups appearing abruptly in the fossil record.

"Abrubtly" is a subjective term. If you're referring to the Cambrian, that was played out over a span of millions of years. Beyond that, before then we have evidence of soft-bodied animals, and can reasonably and logically conclude that this "explosion" is evidence that more easily fossilized animals were now begining to come onto the scene.

As I have said many many times before, as for the exact details, no one knows, and sometimes its OK to admit that we dont know yet. I believe I have told you this before, but even if I havent please don't ask again. I hate to repeat myself over and over again.

One method of determining of someone speaks truth is to ask them the same question (with perhaps different phrasing) "over and over" again. That said, if I remember what ya say, I'll consider that as you being as honest and as upfront as I've come to expect you to be.

Now that I've answered all those questions, could answer the one?

I don't even count out common ancestry among major species. What I do dispute is universal common ancestry.

Are you saying humans just poofed into existence fully formed, or do you accept a previous ancestor for H.s.s.?

Or do I have to keep asking the same question "over and over"?

Why are you telling me? I wasn't the one who claimed that they would have believed any different.
...

I only meant to say that referencing the ancients as you did is problematic.

Notice, in researching this soft tissue, I found data I felt pertinent to the discussion. That you don't find it pertinent is fine with me.

Thats fine, but at least you should have adressed the first subject before what seemed to me like changing the goal post.

I think you missed the part where I said the timescales involved are of a lesser concern for me, and my data showed that this material still supports the ToE.

And you did in fact acuse me of making unfounded assertions without providing data before you even gave me a chance too.

I propose that when one makes claims devoid of documentation, they may seem just a bit goofy for getting upset when one asks for it.

My point is that I had NO way of knowing if said data would be forthcoming. Nothing in that referenced post said anything like, "Now y'all hold up a second, I gotta run find some data that'll back all this up".

Of course I assumed you had this data, but until I laid eyeballs on it, I had no way of sorting any of it out.

As I said before, if you want to talk about phylogenetic tree building and or molecular homology, then fine, but lets at least have some rules of discussion so as to keep it orderly.

I respond as I deem fit, and as I deem pertinent. I can't help if you don't see connections, nor can I help if I miss the connections you're seeing.

Of course you have, and thats exactly what my point was concerning your response of finding a rabbit in Cambrian rock. No matter how many failed predictions are cited, evolutionist will always find someway to make it irrelevant.

Or is it that they produce a reason to make your take on the issue "irrelevant"?

The mantra is that its just the theory evolving. Neo Darwinism has been continually falsified since the modern synthesis began all the way up until today, and the modern synthesis itself was developed because classical Darwinism could'nt even meet the standards of 1930's science. The strength of a theory is how well it meets its prediction criteria and I can cite many failed predictions.

You seem to be discounting the many accurate predictions.

As I said, all you need is a rabbit in the Cambrian.

[TheJackelantern]

Forget the T-Rex (though the T-rex findings are still notable), the Duck-billed dino from 2009 has strraight up blood vessels and cells and Collagen intact.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... teins.html

again we are dealing with microscopic proteins.. It's very interesting indeed, but not much of an argument for ID I'm afraid. This is just as applicable to the T-rex case, but provides good evidence to support her case in reflection of her critics claiming contamination about the T-rex. And do not that she was highly critical of Creationists hijacking her work out of context. :/

[TheJackelantern]

Not according to research being done.. Like the one I pointed out dealing with proteins.. The contamination issue
has yet to be resolved however:

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110614/ ... 1.369.html

The most interesting thing is not that protein molecules surviving millions of years.. It's that their findings are showing that they also support Dinosaur to bird evolution.. :

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5 ... 6a25cd123f

And there is more:

Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus Rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry
John M. Asara, Mary H. Schweitzer,
Lisa M. Freimark, Matthew Phillips,
Lewis C. Cantley
Science 13 April 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5822, pp. 280 - 285
DOI: 10.1126/science.1137614

Fossilized bones from extinct taxa harbor the potential for obtaining protein or DNA sequences that could reveal evolutionary links to extant species. We used mass spectrometry to obtain protein sequences from bones of a 160,000- to 600,000-year-old extinct mastodon (Mammut americanum) and a 68-million-year-old dinosaur (Tyrannosaurus rex). The presence of T. rex sequences indicates that their peptide bonds were remarkably stable. Mass spectrometry can thus be used to determine unique sequences from ancient organisms from peptide fragmentation patterns, a valuable tool to study the evolution and adaptation of ancient taxa from which genomic sequences are unlikely to be obtained.

Also:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3 ... ution.html

This might even interest you:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _17425124/

[TheJackelantern]

Sarcasm or rhetorical responses do not diminish the point that these examples should not be written off before examining them more carefully. If you had lived in the later part of the 19 century you would have also found no credentials on Gregor Mendel or Darwin for that matter.

Yeah accept we are in the 21st century and not the 19th century.. So basically the man has none right?

You have done exactly what I spoke of and that is instead of actually reading or researching the examples cited in the book you instead try to marginalize the author.

When an author makes outright assertions and assumptions, what do you expect?

Why dont you research the content before you make a judgment? He has merely documented these cases of out of place artifacts and I make no claim that they are all authentic because I simply do not know.

Key words throughout this debate.

As for arbitrarily writing things off thank you for making my point for me, and why do you use the word conspiracy?

That's because most creationists we meet profess science as a giant conspiracy. And you have been arbitrarily writing things off and even ignoring much of the evidence provided to which includes intentionally ignoring me on cognitive systems.. It's very interesting how you consistently avoid this..

I have never used this word.

Yet you post talking points from sources that do think it's all a conspiracy..

If anything, it is Intelligent designe advocates who are accused of conspiring to ruin science only because of the dispute over one theory. Talk about being paranoid.

Is that why they are trying to inject creationism into grade schools ect? Or constantly get caught trying to conform science to their religion in what is pretty much all pseudoscience? ... It's more about their dishonesty.. Many creationists openly admit this...

Maybe you should have read my response. I never said that they knew of neo Darwinism and even said that this debate was around even in their time.

Did they know Neo-Darwinism is a nonsense coined term that has no actual bearing on modern TOE? Darwinism isn't a belief system son, it's not religion either.

I sure sensed an implication that since these men held to ancient thoughts they would not - could not - adjust their thinking to the evidence we have today.

Ancient thoughts? These are also modern thoughts. The notion of non telic origin is just as ancient as a world created by God, and atheism is just as ancient as theism. You seem to think that ToE as a dogma in itself and to tell you the truth I might even agree since that is the way it has been taught, but to think that ToE somehow disproves God or that there is overwhelming evidence for a prokaryote to man evolutionary paradigme is a different story, and you have yet to offer any empirical evidence. Like Jack you seem to believe just saying it makes it so. If you do propose to offer what you believe is empirical evidence, all I ask is that you keep it to one subject at a time and that you understand it enough well enough to explain it in detail in your own words and then after you have done that be prepared to provide relevant data. If you cant, then that tells me that you are accepting these so called examples of evidence on faith.

We can disprove GOD just by knowing consciousness and cognitive systems can't exist without cause.. This to which makes evolution in general the only plausible option.. So unless you want to get into explaining cognitive systems, reactionary systems, and sensory systems, I suggest moving the GOD object out of the discussion.

Forty years ago If I were of adult age I would have agreed with you. In fact twenty years ago I might have agreed with you, but based on everything I have researched In the last 12 years I have only come to find a house of cards and cleverly worded data and sometimes out right lies.

Translation:

I don't use the word conspiracy, I just subliminally suggest that any science not in conformity to my creationist beliefs is false, cleverly worded, and sometimes out right lies (only when it's against my religion)..

Life, as in even the most simplest living cell, (as if there is such a thing as a simple living cell cell) is much more enigmatic than the concept of macro evolution which if there was sufficient empirical evidence would actually be feasible.

This alone tells me you really are lost in this debate :/

So having said that, let me ask you a question. Do you believe that life just poofed itself into existence?

Nope

Even if you say that it was a result of chemical evolution, still at some point spontaneous generation had to have occurred where non living matter became living matter.

Chemical evolution would not make a spontaneous generation of life in terms of "poofed into existence".. And sorry, life is entirely made of non-living matter. Life is just animated matter capable of self-replication.. Self-replicating molecules are just atoms, atoms made of energy.. The reason why life can form is mostly due to the nature of the carbon atom and it's ability to chemically bond and form long molecular chains with other atoms. And the entire process is an electromagnetic process.

How about the universe? Do you believe in the big bang? Do you believe that the universe just poofed itself into existence?

Yep, Nope..

All we have is the observable evidence, and the observable evidence shows major animal groups appearing abruptly in the fossil record.

That's great.. The fossil record can't account for over 70 percent of the species that has ever lived. Enough fossilized Soft body precursors are unlikely to ever be found. Especially when 70 percent of earth is under the oceans.. You have any idea how unexplored this planet actually is? You have no data to prove animal groups appearing abruptly. Hence, this is where you quote mine science out of context and claim GOD Done it.. Or try to turn millions of years into something abrupt...

Some Precambrian (Ediacaran) organisms produced tough but non-mineralized outer shells,[6] while others, such as Cloudina, had a calcified exoskeleton,[9] but mineralized skeletons did not become common until the beginning of the Cambrian period, with the rise of the "small shelly fauna". Just after the base of the Cambrian, these miniature fossils become diverse and abundant – this abruptness may be an illusion, since the chemical conditions which preserved the small shellies appeared at the same time.

There no actual means to say it was at all abrupt...

As I have said many many times before, as for the exact details, no one knows, and sometimes its OK to admit that we dont know yet. I believe I have told you this before, but even if I havent please don't ask again. I hate to repeat myself over and over again.

And yet you try to place GOD in every GAP you can find. And when that gap closes, you just hop to the next. If anything, that's a pretty weak argument when it requires the need to play a gap game.

When did I do that? I wasn't the one who insinuated that they would all be neo Darwinist if they were alive today.

There is no such religion or group called neo-darwinists.. Coined dogmatic terms do not make a non-existent group exist. Especially when the basis in which it was coined is really no-longer relevant.

Why are you telling me? I wasn't the one who claimed that they would have believed any different.

This has nothing to do with his argument. Were you are were you not using them as authority arguments?

It seems to be you that is insinuating that they would. Again, many scientist today attend church and believe God created the world.

So what. What makes you think that's even relevant? I wonder if you even realized that I had cited religious sources during this debate? Not just on the Lucy subject either.. See there is a difference between creationists, and theists in science. Creationists use pseudoscience to try and conform science to their religious beliefs. Then you have theists in science to whom don't and are able to separate the two. Good science can come from theists, and I've cited many of them to which includes the man that came up with the big bang.

Many of these men I spoke of were in fact dogmatic concerning religion. We are not just speaking of men who were cultural Christians, but men who were deeply religious and devout. In fact many atheist today chastise Newton for his religiosity.

I don't.. I don't even care if he was religious. Granted the Newtonian physics has been well surpassed in today's understanding of the world.. With chaos theory, quantum physics ect...We are well beyond Newton, and Darwin in our understanding of the world. This doesn't mean they weren't important men worthy of being noted. It a matter of context in which you note them.. Creationists use Darwin in the improper context just as an example. Scientists and Atheists don't use Newton in the improper context.

You act as if Darwin proved that there was no God.

The concept of GOD is nothing more than a concept of opinion, and title of opinion. Disproving GOD is easy as rejecting the idea Cows are divine or nothing more than a potential tasty burger on a bun with fries and ketchup... Hence , consciousness can't exist without cause and so creationism really is a faulty argument entirely.. We already know that evolutionary processes in general are the only possible means to higher complex.. Hence, nothing ever begins at the top..It's never top down first, and that means it's always bottom up, and then perhaps top down or interactions between top and bottom in terms of causation..

Another way of looking at it is that there are many scientist and or scholars today who were once former neo Darwinist yet are now creationist or ID er's. In one of my earlier thread I gave an example of a famous scholar and atheist named Anthony Flew who before a few years before his death finally came to renounce atheism based on his research and understanding of intelligent design.

You have any idea how many theists have become atheists? And btw, he was mostly a philosopher. And here is something interesting:

Wiki:

This book (and Flew's conversion itself) has been the subject of controversy, following an article in the New York Times magazine alleging that Flew had mentally declined, and that Varghese was the primary author.[6] The matter remains contentious, with some commentators including PZ Myers and Richard Carrier supporting the allegations, and others, including Flew himself,[7]

And this:

Flew subsequently changed his position given in the Habermas interview as justification for his endorsing of deism. In October 2004 (before the December publication of the Flew-Habermas interview), a letter written to the historian and atheist, Richard Carrier of the Secular Web, stated that he was a deist and also said that "I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations."[18]

BTW flew seemed to have converted to deism..Though It doesn't appear that he's ever really kept up on science or ever contemplated the complexity of cognitive systems, complex adaptive systems, sensory systems, or reactionary systems to understand that like life, to which is far less complex, requires these very same systems that also drive evolution.

I think you give the theory a lot more credit than it deserves.

No, we give it all the credit it deserves..

Of course you have, and thats exactly what my point was concerning your response of finding a rabbit in Cambrian rock. No matter how many failed predictions are cited, evolutionist will always find someway to make it irrelevant.

Which failed prediction magically collapses TOE? I have yet to see one.

The mantra is that its just the theory evolving. Neo Darwinism has been continually falsified since the modern synthesis began all the way up until today, and the modern synthesis itself was developed because classical Darwinism could'nt even meet the standards of 1930's science.

Here you go, making assertions you can't support. Sounds like another subliminal conspiracy theory here with a wild assertion that evolution was magically falsified.. Cough..Cough Atavism, DNA Duplication Errors, or even Algea evolving from single cellular to multi-cellular alone destroy that claim of yours.

The strength of a theory is how well it meets its prediction criteria and I can cite many failed predictions

I can cite where you failed here.. Actually proving ID, or the existence of a GOD, or the need for ID.. I can cite your major failure in your inability to discuss cognitive systems, or why consciousness can't exist without cause. You actually have a huge problem here that invalidates everything you are claiming in terms of evolution..

[TheJackelantern]

The video does explains exactly how that happened through human manipulation. You have not cited any peer review backing up your claim and neither have you shown were in video citation it makes the claim you say "it clearly does"

Yes it does explain it.. You are just sitting here from a position of not knowing what you are talking about and then using it as an appeal to ignorance. Even your own creationist scientists agrees and understands what was done and why. The video tells you why it was done.. If you don't understand bone fusion and what was corrected, then feel free to exit the discussion.. They know she was bipedal just by looking at the original pelvis. They know it just by the shape of the sacrum.. This was also discussed in the PDF file to which I doubt you have read giving your arguments here.. What's interesting is that Jhonson did get it wrong to where White corrected his error..

Johanson recovered Lucy's left innominate bone and sacrum. Though the sacrum was remarkably well preserved, the innominate was distorted, leading to two different reconstructions. The first reconstruction had little iliac flare and virtually no anterior wrap, creating an ilium that greatly resembled that of an ape. However, this reconstruction proved to be faulty, as the superior pubic rami would not have been able to connect if the right ilium was identical to the left. A later reconstruction by Tim White showed a broad iliac flare and a definite anterior wrap, indicating that Lucy had an unusually broad inner acetabular distance and unusually long superior pubic rami. Her pubic arch was over 90 degrees, similar to modern human females. Her acetabulum, however, was small and primitive.

To be anatomically correct, the pubic rami needs to connect.. So the proper position, or anatomically correct position must have the pubic rami connecting.. You can see it in this image here:



If you tried to flare it like a chimp, it wouldn't work.. And the sacrum wouldn't be anatomically correct either since you would be shifting beyond what would be normal allowable movement in the joint. Hence, you would have the sacrum pointing in towards the pubic rami and that would definitely not be anatomically correct. And btw, Lucy isn't the only one of this species found:

The problem with your video is the PBS clearly states that the pelvis appeared to be that of a chimp and that according to Lovejoy, this did not add up. So what does Lovejoy do? He manipulates the evidence to fit the picture.

Have ever considered that maybe why the bones did not fit and had to be altered is because they were from different creatures? Here is the video cited and anyone can look for themselves. The PBS EPISODE 1 is also shown.

The would know the difference between human bone and animal bone.. And even if you took out the broken fused bone, it would still show bipedal and vertical weight bearing pelvis. I am also aware of your video.., it doesn't actually evaluate why the flair is anatomically incorrect. Hence, you are grasping on to a very weak and quote mined out of context argument. Especially when we have another of the same species that confirms this as a bipedal species. And here is a good video to get you familiar with the pelvis.. This video will not only show you the characteristics you can see in the image of Lucy, but show you how the femur ball joint goes into the ball socket.. This also tells us that lucy was bipedal... We don't even need the femur to determine this, we only really need to look at the ball socket.

[youtube][/youtube]

Lucy:




Chimp, lucy's species, human's:



Notice the ball joints and sockets and the shapes of the pelvis when reviewing this:



Now take the time review this.. Make sure you pay attention in regards to the pubic rami connection for proper angle and connection to the sacrum ..:



You can also read this PDF:

http://www.algoless.com/pdf/human_gait.pdf

[THEMAYAN]

RESPONSE TO JOEYTHEKNOTHEAD

From Post 364:

Sarcasm or rhetorical responses do not diminish the point that these examples should not be written off before examining them more carefully. If you had lived in the later part of the 19 century you would have also found no credentials on Gregor Mendel or Darwin for that matter. You have done exactly what I spoke of and that is instead of actually reading or researching the examples cited in the book you instead try to marginalize the author.

I did just that, by going to the article I linked to, from the National Center for Science Education. I consider that organization, and its findings, far more credible than what you submitted

.

Why dont you research the content before you make a judgment?

Because there's organizations out there, such as the National Center for Science Education, that does this stuff for a living. I'm on a limited time budget, and consider credible sources a valid pathway to discussing the various issues.

There were times when I was working 60+ hours a week and I still made the time to research somethings I thought was very important instead of having to rely on the opinion of others.

Why would you find them more credible? Is it just because of the title or have you actually researched the organization?


I see, since the NCSE whose Director Eugenie Scott is a consignor of that 3rd humanist manifesto and she and other members are involved with secular humanist groups who boldly state their agenda as wanting to free the world from spirituality, religion and promote an atheist life style for society, well there is no way that thy could be biased, (now I'm being sarcastic)
They say that they came together to promote accuracy in science yet they are apposed to any school district that teaches children that they should think critically about the theory, and critical thinking is one of the hallmarks of science. Their response is that critical thinking of neo Darwinism is really just a Trojan horse conspiracy for creationism. They never sue anyone who is critical of any other theory except for neo Darwinism.

Scott also has a track record of lying and was forced to retract statements and had to issue a mea culpa because of a law suit filed against her for lying. This private organization was set up in the 80's to promote neo Darwinism. Have you ever heard of an org set up to promote Newtonian physics? Have you ever heard of an organization that will sue a school district for teaching general relativity from a critical perspective because thats exactly what the NCSE has done? Scott and other members of the NCSE have made a lot of money on speaking engagements and she has won awards for defending and promoting neo Darwinism. Again, have you ever heard of anyone winning an award for defending or promoting Mendelian genetics? The NCSE did not even support the Altenberg 16 summit who are a group of evolutionary biologist and other scholars who are trying to extend the scope of the modern synthesis based on current data as apposed to an outdated 80 year old so called modern synthesis based on neo Darwinism. I at least give them credit for admitting that the emperor really needs some new clothes. The reason why the NCSE did not support the proposition of an extended synthesis is because they think it is a threat to neo Darwinism which is the theory that they have been defending for as many years as the organization has been around. There official stament was that they did not support any theory wich incorporated self organization models because too many people would confuse it with Intelligent design, yet these men and women of the Altenberg summit are anything but proponents of ID. Most if not all of them are very critical of ID. They themselves are evolutionist who just feel the theory should go in another direction, and are even still willing to incorporate at least some of the basic frame work of the modern synthesis but feel it needs to be extended. I only bring up Altenberg again just to show how adamant people are at trying to protect an outdated theory at all cost, including a cost to the advancement of science.
For more on that subject, see video I posted entitled (Will the real theory of evolution Please Stand up?)

He has merely documented these cases of out of place artifacts and I make no claim that they are all authentic because I simply do not know. My only contention is that they should not be written off based on the notion that it conflicts with the current paradigme.

Since you don't know if they're authentic, why bother presenting them? Notice, my source said he considered the one as legitimately formed (no attempt at nefarity), but disagreed with your guy's conclusion.

I already answered that question. There is no way an oop art object can be validated or in validated unless it is tested. Did I waste my time making my point about the miester print and the way it was handled? I mean since an amateur like you can clearly see its fake only based on a photo, then case closed end of story. (I'm being sarcastic again)

In my mind its shame that things can get written of so easily especially when the possibility of this being authentic could be a very big thing.

When you concede that you yourself are uncertain as to the authenticity of your own evidence or conclusions, I don't understand why you'd get upset when such is dismissed. That said, I did look into the notion, and found a credible source that offered a counter proposal, from a guy who is known to be an expert. I've yet to find any credentials on your guy

.

You have not even stated which example out of all the examples mentioned in book that your expert source disputes, nor have you cited who your source is. You have repeated the credential thing ad nauseam even though I already responded. How many credential do you need to research and gather documented cases of oop art?

As for arbitrarily writing things off thank you for making my point for me, and why do you use the word conspiracy? I have never used this word.

I retract the conspiracy charge, but can't escape thinking that your continuing to be upset about a "dismissal" when I presented my own documentation to support my "dismissal" of evidence you admit is faulty is some sort of goofy

.

I think politics or not wanting to ruin ones career by even entertaining the idea of such a notion is a more accurate way of putting it.

I see little to no qualitative difference to this charge and one of conspiracy.

Well then I suggest you take the time out to actually research about the way some have been treated in academia who have dissented or fired or discriminated against just based on their personal views. The visceral hatred and retaliation for anything that threatens or is a perceived threat to the theory is real. The latest is the one concerns a NASA who got fired for merely bring it up ID in conversation. It seems someone over heard his conversation and felt offended and complained, and again this is one of many. These are not make believe. They are real actual cases.

A good example of this is all the flack that many of these cosigners of the Dissent list have had to deal with. The case of Sternberg and Guillermo Gonzalez are also two of many more examples.

Please present documentation for analysis.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/GG-QA%20final.pdf

http://trinitylawschool.wordpress.com/2 ... nt-design/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/19kentucky.html

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41006

http://www.richardsternberg.com/smithso ... ge=summary

If anything, it is Intelligent designe advocates who are accused of conspiring to ruin science only because of the dispute over one theory. Talk about being paranoid.

Please see the Wikipedia: Wedge strategy. Where an organized conspiracy exists, well, there we go.

Please note, this is not to say that such a strategy doesn't have its merits.

Are you advocating conspiracy?

The wedge document is critical of scientific metaphysical naturalism as being the only paradigme. So what. As I said before members of the NCSE support many secular humanism organizations that boast of there own world atheist views, agendas and goals on their own websites. Can we say dual standard? Let me counter by showing you another document that presents a different perspective from a well respected biologist.


Dr. Richard Lewontin—Dr. Coyne’s mentor at Harvard—wrote Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

I sure sensed an implication that since these men held to ancient thoughts they would not - could not - adjust their thinking to the evidence we have today.

Can we concede then that referencing ancients as regards to notions that were not present in their day is problematic?

You missed that part where I said that the notion of telic vs non telic origin was around long before the middle ages.

I don't doubt the folks you mentioned held the beliefs you claim. My contention, as I said, is that to imply they would not or could not change their minds if given the evidence we have today is an inappropriate appeal to authority.

Again it is you who who is implying they (would change their minds). I already responded to this question and you have cited no empirical evidence, not only for evolution, but for this notion of yours that neo Darwinism somehow disproves God. This has to so with your personel sensibilities. So again it is you who is implying something that you have no way of knowing. I might add that these men were probably not as gullible as are many in the general public. These men actually took the time to research and not just accept what they thought were reputable sources. They understood science as well as they understood faith and they saw no conflict.

...You seem to think that ToE as a dogma in itself and to tell you the truth I might even agree since that is the way it has been taught

I'm with ya to an extent. I can only say that one man's "dogma" is another's "reasonably and logically concluded"

.

Sure why not. I also admit that my religious views are based largely on faith but at the same time, I feel no need to use or even quote scripture when it comes to analyzing science and the scientific method. I think science speaks for itself. The only problem is ideologues who think they can arbitrarily speak for science. I agree with Galileo when he said that...

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

but to think that ToE somehow disproves God...

It only does so if the God is claimed to have created humans "whole cloth" - notice, I present that from a reasonably and logically concluded standpoint, and not as inerrant "fact". My point being that we have little means of directly confirming any hypothesis or theory in this regard.

Show me the empirical evidence that neo Darwinism is an incontrovertible truth and I will have to concede your point. How can you believe in something that you dont even have the time or wont make the effort to research and understand for yourself?

...or that there is overwhelming evidence for a prokaryote to man evolutionary paradigme is a different story, and you have yet to offer any empirical evidence.

Well let's find out where we gotta start then...

Do you, THEMAYAN, accept that the record shows there's species alive today that are not in the fossil record - and that there's species in the fossil record that are not alive today?

No, there are many species alive today who are not only in the fossil record, but many that we even can trace back to the Cambrian era.
Blue green alge is the one of the first prokaryote organism to appear on the planet and even before the Cambrian radiation event, and its still the same now as it was then. The primordial ameba has more genetic information than man by orders of magnitude and is still around today. As for creatures that went extinct and are not alive today. So what. That proves nothing. Every year species go extinct. Is this really your litmus test?

Like Jack you seem to believe just saying it makes it so.

Surely you can admit that I try my best to respond honestly, and that I am willing to document or clarify my assertions when challenged. If I fail to convince, that's another deal

. Fair enough but you have not really offered anything empirical.

If you do propose to offer what you believe is empirical evidence, again all I ask is that you keep it to one subject at a time and that you understand it enough well enough to explain it in detail in your own words and then after you have done that be prepared to provide relevant data.

I will not be beholden to debate in a manner you deem fit. If you feel anything I post is not within the rules of this site, you're perfectly free to report such. Please note, the rules of this site allow for reasonable and logical conclusions to be presented, but of course do not require that anyone accept such conclusions.

I dont think having an orderly debate is unreasonable.

On the basis of genetics and the fossil record, I contend the most reasonable and logical conclusion to be had is that man arose from more primate forms, those primative forms from even more primative forms, all the way back to single-celled species.

Again I can appreciate your sensibilities concerning what you feel is logical but that is not science. Empirical science requires testable, repeatable and falsifyable evidence, and if it cant do this then a sound theory which meets its prediction criteria must be presented. If the theory consistently fails at meeting its predictably requirements then is it really isn't a theory at all. At least not on a scientific sense.

I'll retract my statement to "a reasonable and logical inference drawn from a mountain of data"

Forty years ago If I were of adult age I would have agreed with you. In fact twenty years ago I might have agreed with you, but based on everything I have researched In the last 12 years I have only come to find a house of cards and cleverly worded data and sometimes out right lies.

...

Are you saying humans just poofed into existence fully formed, or do you accept a previous ancestor for H.s.s.?

Life, as in even the most simplest living cell, (as if there is such a thing as a simple living cell cell) is much more enigmatic than the concept of macro evolution which if there was sufficient empirical evidence would actually be feasible.

"Enigmatic" is in the eye of the enigmaticer.

That may be true but in this case everyone on both sides who understand the subject agree.

So having said that, let me ask you a question. Do you believe that life just poofed itself into existence?

I must say yes - if you'll agree that by "poof" I mean that life came about through otherwise mundane means.

I have never heard anyone in OOL/ origin of life refere to this hypothetical process as mundane, but then to each his own.

Even if you say that it was a result of chemical evolution, still at some point spontaneous generation had to have occurred where non living matter became living matter.

Are all the chemicals on this planet alive?

No and thats the problem

All we have is the observable evidence, and the observable evidence shows major animal groups appearing abruptly in the fossil record.

"Abrubtly" is a subjective term. If you're referring to the Cambrian, that was played out over a span of millions of years. Beyond that, before then we have evidence of soft-bodied animals, and can reasonably and logically conclude that this "explosion" is evidence that more easily fossilized animals were now begining to come onto the scene.

No, abruptly is not a subjective term when we are comparing it to the geological time scale, and ediacara biota are not even considered living things by many. They also went extinct millions of years before the radiation event, and for an event to happen on this scale in as little as 3-10 million years is almost unthinkable. Major animals also show up abruptly even long after the Cambrian event.

The mantra is that its just the theory evolving. Neo Darwinism has been continually falsified since the modern synthesis began all the way up until today, and the modern synthesis itself was developed because classical Darwinism could'nt even meet the standards of 1930's science. The strength of a theory is how well it meets its prediction criteria and I can cite many failed predictions.

You seem to be discounting the many accurate predictions

.

Why dont you give me an example analysis for once.

Theories are required to be right all the time not just some of the times. Newtonian physics is a good example. We still use it today. It never had to be reformulated. With a simple ball string and a stick we can measure it repeat it and the results match every time we perform the experiments.