Is strict atheism a barrier to knowledge and truth?

[Starboard Tack]

In Iris Fry's book The Emergence of Life on Earth, she makes a statement that demonstrates a common, and possibly defective view of knowledge. The preamble to this statement is a complaint against people she refers to as "Creationists" who, in her opinion, pervert science to further their philosophical arguments. The context to the statement is that instead of billions of years for chemicals to self organize into life on the primordial earth, research has shown that the window has shrunk to around 10 million years, prompting those pesky "Creationists" to note that this isn't enough time for a purely naturalistic explanation for life's beginnings. The statement is this:

Notice the paradox that the findings of scientific research are seen fit, under the circumstances, to serve as evidence against science (by creationists). (page 125).

What is intriguing here is that the research simply argues against a long period of time for life to appear, and says nothing about the value of science. However, by noticing it, apparently the theists are guilty of being anti-science. This is a classic illustration of the topic I'd like to explore.

By adopting the view that a belief in God's existence and his involvement in his creation is a priori off limits, Dr. Fry believes that any suggestion that naturalistic explanation may lack explanatory power and be wrong is by definition anti-science. But is it?

God either does, or does not exist. In what form he/she/it exists is another topic, but is it not a given that there is at least a possibility, even if rejected, that he/she/it does exist?

And if it is a possibility, then by excluding supernatural involvement as a matter of philosophic dogma when trying to understand intractable problems doesn't the scientist who insists on pure naturalism guarantee that he or she may never be able to find the truth? In other words, if the existence of God is even the remotest possibility, isn't the rejection of that possibility without consideration itself anti-scientific? Directed panspermia is taken as a scientific proposition for life's origins, proposed by Nobel prize winners. Is that more scientific than the belief that the causal agent who brought the universe into existence is a personal being?

I can think of examples where scientific advancement has been stultified as a result of an insistence on a purely naturalistic understanding of the world. If so, doesn't it behoove scientists to entertain the possibility of supernatural intervention, even if only to be able to rule it out when a naturalistic explanation is found?[/i]

[Starboard Tack]

Janx:

Hi Starboard Tack, I'm having trouble understanding your response to nygreenguy. Much of your reply involves false statements. I'm wondering why this is the case. Example:

Starboard Tack: If so, then why have these bacteria, even though going slowly extinct over 3.5 billion years not adapted?

Janx: What do you mean by "not adapted"? Cyanobacteria are very successful at adaptation. You can find this bacteria almost anywhere in the world where there is a bit of moisture and sunlight.

I am specifically referring to those cyanbacteria that form mats which result in stromotolites. Microbial stromotolites date back to 3.45 billion years ago, and appear to be precisely the same as those bacteria forming stromotolites today. However, in the intervening years, the stromotolite's range has declined from everywhere to almost nowhere with no apparent adaptation to what ails them, which is predation first by jawless, now jawed fishes. If evolution functions as described, why over 3.5 billion years have these microbes not produced an adaptation that would allow them to survive?

Starboard Tack: They have had, what do you think 10^20 opportunities to stumble on a mutation that renders them unpalatable to jawed or jawless fishies? How come it hasn't happened, yet

Janx: This has happened.
Article: Cyanobacteria (Blue-Green Algae) Poisoning
http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/ansci/animpest/v1136w.htm

Excellent data that proves my point. The ability of some species of cyanobacteria to produce toxins is demonstrated, so it isn't a genetic improbability. So why in 3.5 billion years has this adaption not appeared in microbial stromotolites? The critter has been under continuous selective pressure for over 500 million years, the ability to produce toxins is there, so where is the adaptation in stromotolites? Does evolution only work sometimes, and not other times, and if so, how do we sort out when it has power to account for change from when it doesn't have that power?

Janx: yet you can explain the transformation of a wolf into a whale? Really?

Such a transformation never happened. Nor is anyone claiming it has happened.

Not correct, as Pakicetus is considered to be the ancestor of cetaceans. Is it a wolf? No, but it is considered to be 'wolf like'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus

Are there other "false statements" I should address, or is that it?

[Starboard Tack]

I grant that we can't know whether the fossils found by Schopf and Grazier are the same as those that exist today. However, we can agree that they are still indistiguishable from modern species, so we have an example of bacteria remaining bacteria for 3.5 billion years.

False. SOME ancient cyanobacteria are similar to SOME modern cyanobacteria.

Fine, some cyanobacteria are "indistinguishable" from modern bacteria. Stromotolites today are also indistinguishable from the stomotolites billions of years ago. My point remains what it has always been. If evolution works, why have the microbial stromotolites not evolved even under the selective pressure they have been exposed to. If you same that some bacteria have, that is a red herring. I'm talking about these bacteria that have not. Filling the room with smoke by pointing to other bacteria, which by the way you have no proof have evolved at all, doesn't amount to an argument.

Green, this is why us knuckle draggers have so many problems with evolution fans. Of course you don't really mean that bacteria have any "reason" to evolve or not evolve, so you must be speaking metaphorically.

No, Im not speaking metaphorically. If something is well adapted to its surroundings, there is no reason to evolve. There is no pressure pushing evolution.

We both know that is not how evolution works, so why do you use that language? Bacteria will be subjected to mutational change over time, and some of those changes may be beneficial and subject to success through natural selection. Is that not the theory??? If so, then why have these bacteria, even though going slowly extinct over 3.5 billion years not adapted?

As said before, if they change species, they are no longer cyanobacteria and they become "extinct", if they dont change, then you claim evolution isnt happening. You are creating a logically impossible test.

Hardly. I understand that you belief that microbes have evolved into giraffes which involves quite a few species changes. With such power in the evolutionary process, my question is why have these bacteria remained the same for 3.5 billion years?

They have had, what do you think 10^20 opportunities to stumble on a mutation that renders them unpalatable to jawed or jawless fishies? How come it hasn't happened, yet you can explain the transformation of a wolf into a whale? Really?

Ive repeated this a million times over, we have many, many species of cyanobacteria and they have many, many ancestors. So please, STOP claiming cyanobactria have not evolved. They have. Now, some ARE still similar to ancient forms. Why is that? Well, because there is a wide open niche they are very successful at. You keep trying to imply that evolution is necessary to be successful, that an organism must always be improving. This has never been a part of evolutionary theory.

There is a wide open niche for stromotolites. It is the niche they occupied 3.5 billion years ago when they were ubiquitous. Over that period of time, bacteria have continuously been making stromotolites the same they did when God created them. No change, other than the fact they have been relentlessly driven to extinction without exhibiting the slightest part of the power of evolution you attribute to it. You say that cyanobacteria have evolved. That is a statement. Maybe, maybe not. What we have are bacteria that look identical today to what they did 3.5 billion years ago, and the accretion mats they formed remaining the same over the same period of time. I challenged you before to providing proof that bacteria have evolved over time to new life forms and you have not, while I have consistently provided you with evidence that in the case of microbial stromotolites, the change you say has happened elsewhere apparently hasn't happened with my example.

Now, thats just for those that are still in those mats, but as I have mentioned before, the bacteria HAVE evolved into other things. Just because some have changed doesnt mean it required ALL bacteria to change. Why would it?

With respect, you have zero proof that bacteria have evolved into anything.

Are you that confident in your research to make such a claim?

You are making a claim that there is definitive proof that bacteria have evolved. Please provide that proof. I have already granted changes within a species, adapting to selective pressure. Microevolution is a given. Please provide the evidence that bacteria have evolved into new types of life.

Stating this as fact would be as silly as my saying that you should believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected because he was. You have a theory that is not supported by any empirical or observational evidence that any bacteria in the history of the planet has changed into something other than a bacteria. Can you cite a definitive observational example that would contradict this statement?

Once again, you are claiming some sort of special knowledge over the scientific community. Do you really think we would have such theories if the situation was as you describe? The genetic and fossil evidence is overwhelming. Every living eukaryote on earth is carrying evidence of this.

Again, this is the fallacy of the appeal to authority. If I made the claim 100 years ago that the Bible was correct in describing a sudden appearance of space time, you would have quoted all the experts telling me I was wrong. However, it would you who would have been wrong, so please avoid this fallacy in the future. 60 years ago, lobotomies were considered to be appropriate therapy for schizophrenics. The developer of the procedure won a Nobel Prize. Eugenics was considered by biologists to be a good way to improve humanity. Spare me the scientific consensus argument, because it is almost offensive.

I don't understand evolution to be a process that involves intent to save. It is a process where the natural mutation of genomic information results in opportunities for enhanced survivability. If this theory is correct, then where is the mutation that could enhance the survivability of these bacteria? And isn't the bacterial count in Shark Bay a pretty big population?

There has to be pressure on the mutations.

You mean like fish eating microbial stromotolites, or natiloids? We have plenty of evidence of the selective pressure on these species, and we know they must be mutating since every critter does, yet there is no change. Why?

Yes, I meant 543 million years ago. And the period of time for the creation of these new phyla is not tens of millions of years, but perhaps as few as 5 million years, or at least so says the Chinese team examining the strata in China. You reckon that is enough time to create 70 new phyla, while 3.5 billion years ago can't solve the stromotolite problem, nor 300 million years produce an improved Daddy Long Legs with longer legs or bigger teeth?

Please provide a citation for this claim.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44246950/ns ... sCXvT1kDv-

Phyla represent body plans.

No they do not. They are no discreet categories like these for taxonomic levels.

From Wikipedia:

"phyla can be thought of as grouping organisms based on general specialization of body plan,[2] as well as developmental or internal organizations"

After all, if evolution explains going from bacteria to Albert Einstein, coming up with a few new body plans shouldn't be all that unusual, especially since around 40 of the body plans that came into existence in a geologic blink of an eye have gone extinct in the meanwhile, presumable opening up lots of lucatrive niches.

This is another example of your lack on knowledge in the subject creating a misunderstanding. You are generalizing the science to the point it is meaningless. There is a reason why we saw so many body plans in the cambrian and why we do not see so many now. However, instead of asking more questions, you seem to find yourself content and confident enough in your limited knowledge of the subject to come to these grand conclusions and pretty much say the people who study this stuff are idiots.

Quite the contrary. I am asking a question. If 70 body plans come into existence in a geologic blink of an eye, and 30 of them go extinct over the next 540 million years, my question is why? Far from not asking questions, I am asking them, and you are unable to answer appealing instead to the fact that your professors believe something so it must be true.

Again, name one new body plan that has emerged isnce the Cambrian. Perhaps my source of information is incorrect, but I think you will find that no new body plans have appeared. My sources by the way include Ward and Brownlee, "Rare Earth", both are aggressive atheists, as well as Lewin in Science http://www.sciencemag.org/content/241/4863/291.extract . In understand that some evolutionists prefer to define phyla so as to get around the problems associated with the Cambrian event, but if you stick to the idea that phyla represents a body plan, you'll find none you can point to that have arisen in the last half billion years.

Once again, why the body plan obsession? Why does that matter and what exactly does it represent? Dont use talking points, use science. Actually, you should look more into what taxonomic categories ARE and how they are created along with phylogenetic trees.
You claimed phyla, and upper taxonomic category has to do with body plans. If we have entire KINGDOMS, which are the highest taxonomic category, appearing AFTER the cambrian, that would mean EVERY phyla contained in those kingdoms are "new body plans" according to your logic.

Why am I obsessed with calling phyla body plans? Because they are. What are they teaching you?

I note you didn't answer my request to name a new phylogenic fauna that has appeared in 540 million years. You mention new Kingdoms being discovered. Can you point to one that didn't exist prior to the Cambrian but was simply unknown, or do you suppose that when your profs tell you that new Kingdoms have been discovered that what they are saying is that they ovolved post Cambrian? If the latter, ask for a tuition refund because you are getting ripped off.

There have been lots of whales replacing the inevitable extinction of big bodied, slow breeding mammals because God apparently likes whales.

I dont understand this.

Cetaceans species have been going extinct since they first appeared 100 million years with each species lasting only a few million years. There are a great many transitional species pointed to by evolutionists for whales, yet based on the standard evolutionary model, a species with few offspring, very complex morphology and long lives should produce fewer opportunities for evolution than our friend the microbial stromotolite. The opposite is observed in the fossil record.

According to evolution, all diversity that we see througout history is due to natural processes not requiring a creator. You wish to assert that the Cambrian explosion is explicable under your theory, yet you can't explain it.

Says who?

So explain it, rather than pretending an explanation exists.

You wish to explain the appearance of homo sapiens sapiens on the basis of gradual evolutionary change, yet can't produce plausible antecedents to us.

Because you dont understand what you are asking for.

What I am asking for is a transitional species to homo sapiens sapiens. Evolutionists used to think they had it in the bag with neaderthalensis, but biochemical evidence shows we aren't closely related. So where is it? Rather than accusing me of ignorance, simple answer the question. Where is the evidence for a transitional species to homo s.s.?

I won't accuse you of being ignorant, but would ask that you not confuse your philosophy with proof of knowledge. When Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature writes "to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific", do you think he is lacking in knowledge as well? And if he is correct, how would you propose that your theory be falsifed, as you imply it can be in your last statement on this post? How do you falsify the non-scientific philosophic belief?

Henry Gee has responded to this quotemine:

That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident.

Ancestors must exist, of course

-- but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find. Just try this thought experiment -- let's say you find a fossil of a hominid, an ancient member of the human family. You can recognize various attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if that were actually the case. The reason is that fossils are never buried with their birth certificates. Again, this is a logical constraint that must apply even if evolution were true -- which is not in doubt, because if we didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here. Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution. Unfortunately, many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my book is intended to debunk this view. However, this disagreement is hardly evidence of some great scientific coverup -- religious fundamentalists such as the DI -- who live by dictatorial fiat -- fail to understand that scientific disagreement is a mark of health rather than decay. However, the point of IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, ironically, is that old-style, traditional evolutionary biology-- the type that feels it must tell a story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific.

Very interesting, thank you. I underlined the parts I thought particularly illuminating. Dr. Gee is working awfully hard to be honest by noting that evolutionists insistence that they can attribute ancestry to fossil specimens is of course incorrect while evolution is of course absolutely correct, yet largely dependent on intepretatin of the fossil record. Neat trick, and I am sympathetic, since if he were to challenge evolution, do you thing he would have a job, notwithstanding he correct notation that scientific dispute is a mark of health. As long as the dispute isn't over the truth of evolution because that (gasp) leads to (gasp) God .

So what? Well, if evolution works through natural selection, why hasn't man been able to produce a novel type of life in 40,000 years of trying?

we have forced speciation either on purpose, or by accident. as for "novel" why is that relevant? There are lots of things which occur naturally which we cant recreate.

Dodge. Natural processes are supposed to produce change in species over time due to mutation and natural selection. Please point to an example of where the natural selection of men killing whatever doesn't fit their desired effect for 40,000 years has produced a new species.

She is referring to the fine tuned nature of the universe for life. The calculations are the calculations, however much some wish to pretend that they don't exist. She is acknowledging that the creation of the universe in the form we find it cannot be explained on "the basis of chance", therefore must be designed or must be the product of unknown forces of organization. She opts for the latter even though it is clearly a religious standpoint which ultimately all atheism is.

False dilemma AND an argument to incredulity all in one.

That doesn't follow. Her words say what they say. She is simply saying that the universe cannot be explained by chance, and she opts for a naturalistic explanation while recognizing that without that explanation she is left with God, which she has disallowed. Not terribly scientific, do you think? After all, if science is about finding out truth, what if God is true?

No, what she is saying is that any explanation that is not a naturalistic explanation is barred a priori on philosophical grounds. Which simply goes to my point that atheism is a barrier to knowledge.

No, it is just non-natural explanations fail to create anything which is either logical or can be empirically demonstrated. It cant even manage to falsify evolution.

On what basis do you believe that a supernatural creator for a universe that just popped into existence is not "logical" since the math solves for a causal agent outside space and time? You are simply stating your philosophical preference, but that is all it is, however much you gussy it up as science or reason.

Of course that is the point. Evolution is constructed in such a way that it cannot be falsified, and is therefore not scientific. You explain the Cambrian explosion without providing a scintilla of evidence on how it could have happened.

It can be falsified in so many ways. Just because someone hasnt been able to do it, doesnt mean it is set up that way. People have came out and gave many ways to falsify evolution. Rabbit in the cambrian, lack of a nested hierarchy, etc...

In many cases, what are alleged to be transitional species date outside of the range of the things they are transitional to, so a lack of a nested hierarchy is already established. I guess on that basis evolution is falsifed, and before you challenge me for citations, look into Panderichthys, Ventastega, or recent research on the early complexity of eyes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132546.htm.

Besides, nested hierarchy is based on what Gee described as "not science", did he not? Regarding Haldanes old saw, that is a classic claim that something is true (evolution) on the basis of an absence of specific evidence (a rabbit in the Cambrian). The equivalent would be stating that Relativity can be falsified by finding a universe where it doesn't apply. Well, ok, that does not mean it is falsifiable, since such a universe probaby doesn't exist just as rabbits didn't exist in the Cambrian. Now that could be because they evolved later, or it could be because God made them later. Nice try, but no cigar. Evolution can't be falsified and isn't a scientific theory. Incidentally, I don't think my philosophical view can be falsified either, but I don't pretend, like you do regarding philosophical view that it can.

What makes you think we dont have evidence of the cambrian? Have you read the scientific literature? If you do a journal search for this, do you think nothing will come up? What is your basis for this claim?

We have lots of evidence of the Cambrian. We know that in no more than 15 million years based on the Burgess shales and less than that based on the Chinese formations evolution went into hyperdrive phyla-wise, and has been idling, phyla-wise, ever since. There are many ways one might become skeptical of evolution, but the Cambrian is up at the top.

You just asset that it must have been evolution. How is that statement of faith falsifiable? You might as well attempt to falsify my observations of spiritual healing that defy the laws of physics.

Defy the laws of physics? We have lots of evidence of these cases being fraud.

Really? No doubt there is fraud in some claims, just as there is fraud in some scientific claims. To reject all science on the basis of fanciful claims that pop up or religious experience on what are undoubtedly frauds is not a valid argument.

I didn't distort Crick in the slightest. He stated that once formed, DNA could not evolve since any evolution would be disasterous.

You are STILL repeating the same mistake. I have repeatedly explained this. He NEVER SAID dna could not evolve. He explained how a specific mechanism of protein coding (this is actually RNA were talking about here) came about. He ONLY said that protein formation needed a tripled codon and not a single or double. THATS IT. That has NOTHING to do with the evolution of dna.

I'm not sure that repeating that I am ignorant of Crick's view makes your interpretation correct. Both Crick and Leslie Orgel felt that the DNA code could not evolve in the first place or change once it had evolved. That is why they came up with directed panspermia as a solution, and later the RNA world hypothesis which is now understood to be a chemical impossibility on the early earth. But to the point, are you arguing that universal DNA code can evolve and has, or that it can and hasn't?

That merely says that a level of perfection was achieved against staggering odds beyond any possibility of being overcome almost instantly as soon as the earth cooled. It is powerful evidence for the hand of a creator. Your response? Creator not allowed. Has to be purely natural causes. Now who is engaging in distortion?

you. you take a statement which is about science you dont understand, try to interpret the science you dont understand, and make conclusions which are wrong.

Are you saying that life did not appear as soon as the late heavy bombardment period was over? Is that the science I don't understand? Or are you saying that the creation of life is so simple that it could easily have appeared on the early earth? Is that the science I don't understand? Again, continuing to accuse me of ignorance when you can't provide a coherent and adult response to data you don't want to deal with is not going to win any argument, with me, or anyone else.

Complete non sequitor. People went to the doctor when the doctor bled them. That didn't make the doctor right, did it?

Those people are irrelevant. Were taling actual modern science here.

Do you really think we know everything know, and all errors in the past are behind us? If so, you should choose a career outside of science. Knowledge changes. I can guarantee you that in your career you will find out that things you and those you respect as scientists will be proven to be completely wrong. Get used to it, because that is the nature of game you have chosen to play.

And if natural selection works, please point to a single example where it actually does work and has produced a unique form of life not identified based on just so interpretations of scant fossil evidence. Since the theory is ironclad, this should be very, very easy. Have at it.

Another strawman.

In other words, you can't point to a single example where the theory you say is universally understood and obvious to all but the ignorant actually has done what is claimed it can do.

If you believe it is falsifiable, please state how. Einstein showed how relativity could be falsified. How is evolution falsifiable? Because things change? Because they don't?

Evolution doesnt say things MUST change. It only says they HAVE.

Except when they don't. And when they don't it is the same process as when they do. Not believable.

Natural selections how and why and even why not. As for falsifiability, I gave reasons above. TO even lists a few: a static fossil record;

As Gee says, not science

true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
observations of organisms being created.

You're now providing what you think is evidence for evolution, not how it can be falsified. You've already stated one way it could be falisifed - a lack of nested hierarchy - and on that basis it is falsified. But I'm curious about something. You said you have "observations of organisms being created". Can you give an example of a new organism that is not an example of an adaption of an existing entity where the changed entity is still essentially the same species as the original entity? Or is asking this simple question another "strawman?"

[Vampiel]

I think it does just as much as strict aleprechaunist restricts science. The definition of a strict atheist is they do not believe in god. The strict definition of an aleprechaunist is they do not believe in leprechauns.

The scientific method is well established, and if they are a person of faith believing in the Christian god, so long as their theory is tested through the scientific method it will give it credence.

The problem is, and this also comes from atheists is they may want to see the results toward what they want to see.

So can not believing in god stifle science? Sure, just as much as not believing in Bigfoot can. Either way, science has a way of working it out eventually.

[Janx]

Starboard Tack,

Nygreenguy has taken the time and effort to help you understand biology and evolution. The least you can do is give correct and thought out responses, otherwise it appears that you are just trying to be contrary rather than trying to learn and educate yourself.


Further,

It seems to me that you are expecting a species to evolve yet remain the same - this is a contradiction. You also seem to be confusing stromatolites for a species. Stromatolites are a byproduct of certain types of cyanobacteria.

Why would you expect the evolutionary cousins of stromatolite producing species of bacteria to continue producing stromatolites? Example: If species of ants which build hills are pressured to evolve into a tree-dwelling species you would not find any anthills.

I would also like to point out that you are using the worst possible example. Stromatolites are not created by just one species of bacteria. There are different types of stromatolites formations in different environments. Stromatolites are created by different processes. Not all stromatolites are in decline for the same reasons. It seem that we are not even certain why stromatolites are in decline.

I hope you are at least learning something about biology and evolution from all this.

[nygreenguy]

Fine, some cyanobacteria are "indistinguishable" from modern bacteria. Stromotolites today are also indistinguishable from the stomotolites billions of years ago. My point remains what it has always been. If evolution works, why have the microbial stromotolites not evolved even under the selective pressure they have been exposed to.

Because they selective pressure has not been enough to force change. If they are good at what they do, why change?

If you same that some bacteria have, that is a red herring. I'm talking about these bacteria that have not. Filling the room with smoke by pointing to other bacteria, which by the way you have no proof have evolved at all, doesn't amount to an argument.

It is NOT a red herring becuase there is evolution that cyanobacteria DO evolve. There is a BIG difference between saying cyanobacteria do not evolve and SOME have not evolved. The ones that HAVE experiences selective pressure have evolved and as for "proof", I posted a paper on cyanobacteria evolution and diversification already.

Hardly. I understand that you belief that microbes have evolved into giraffes which involves quite a few species changes. With such power in the evolutionary process, my question is why have these bacteria remained the same for 3.5 billion years?

Microbes have never evolved into giraffes.

There is a wide open niche for stromotolites. It is the niche they occupied 3.5 billion years ago when they were ubiquitous. Over that period of time, bacteria have continuously been making stromotolites the same they did when God created them. No change, other than the fact they have been relentlessly driven to extinction without exhibiting the slightest part of the power of evolution you attribute to it. You say that cyanobacteria have evolved. That is a statement. Maybe, maybe not.

No maybe about it. We have fossil and genetic evidence to support it.

What we have are bacteria that look identical today to what they did 3.5 billion years ago, and the accretion mats they formed remaining the same over the same period of time.

This statement is correct.

I challenged you before to providing proof that bacteria have evolved over time to new life forms and you have not, while I have consistently provided you with evidence that in the case of microbial stromotolites, the change you say has happened elsewhere apparently hasn't happened with my example.

I was trying to clarify the difference between saying cyanobactria have not evolved and SOME have not evolved.

Now there is a lot of evidence for bacteria speciation. However, bacteria are generally considered to NOT be the ancestors of most modern eukaryotic life. We are more closely related to archaea than bacteria. Bacteria like SAR11 are believed to be related to the bacteria which were incorporated into eukaryotic cells to make mitochondria while buegreen algae (cyanobacteria) became chloroplasts.

So to give you all the evidence from bacteria (prokaryote) to a giraffe is doable, it requires a LOT of information. I would suggest starting at the "Tree of life" project which is a peer-reviewed, heavily referenced (yet readable) website for a lot of this information.
http://www.tolweb.org/tree/

You are making a claim that there is definitive proof that bacteria have evolved. Please provide that proof. I have already granted changes within a species, adapting to selective pressure. Microevolution is a given. Please provide the evidence that bacteria have evolved into new types of life.

Please see above

Again, this is the fallacy of the appeal to authority.

Appeals to authority are only fallacies if the person is I reference is NOT an authority. It is perfectly reasonable AND practical to defer to those who know more than you do on a subject.

If I made the claim 100 years ago that the Bible was correct in describing a sudden appearance of space time, you would have quoted all the experts telling me I was wrong.

How is it when people wish to criticize science, they do soby using antiquated examples of science in its infancy before the scientific method and peer review was established? Many of the people from hundreds of years ago, while scientists in "practice", were not always DOING science.

However, it would you who would have been wrong, so please avoid this fallacy in the future.

It is not a fallacy, and using authority does not mean authorities are infallible only their word is generally considered superior to those of lay-people or those outside of that field of expertise.

60 years ago, lobotomies were considered to be appropriate therapy for schizophrenics. The developer of the procedure won a Nobel Prize. Eugenics was considered by biologists to be a good way to improve humanity. Spare me the scientific consensus argument, because it is almost offensive.

Eugenics is still used today. Thats where GMO's come from. the science behind eugenics was not the problem, how people politicized it was.

As for lobotomies, this is a matter of medical ethics. Well, and they were wrong as well.

However, no one has ever claimed science to be infallible. there is, however, a difference between rational criticism and denial.

You mean like fish eating microbial stromotolites, or natiloids? We have plenty of evidence of the selective pressure on these species, and we know they must be mutating since every critter does, yet there is no change. Why?

Please provide specific evidence for selective pressure. Just saying "fish eat them" is not evidence, nor is it science. If you wish to criticize science, I have no problem in you doing so but please provide proper evidence to support your argument.

Phyla represent body plans.

No they do not. They are no discreet categories like these for taxonomic levels.

From Wikipedia:

"phyla can be thought of as grouping organisms based on general specialization of body plan,[2] as well as developmental or internal organizations"

As do class and occasionally order. There are many consideration taxonomists make when assigning phyla. Body plan is one one of them.

At the most basic level, a phylum can be defined in two ways: as a group of organisms with a certain degree of morphological or developmental similarity (the phenetic definition), or a group of organisms with a certain degree of evolutionary relatedness (the phylogenetic definition).[5] Attempting to define a level of the Linnean hierarchy without referring to (evolutionary) relatedness is an unsatisfactory approach, but the phenetic definition is more useful when addressing questions of a morphological nature"such as how successful different body plans were.

[edit]Definition based on genetic relation
The largest objective measure in the above definitions is the "certain degree""how unrelated do organisms need to be to be members of different phyla? The minimal requirement is that all organisms in a phylum should be related closely enough for them to be clearly more closely related to one another than to any other group.[5] However, even this is problematic, as the requirement depends on our current knowledge about organisms' relationships: As more data becomes available, particularly from molecular studies, we are better able to judge the relationships between groups. So phyla can be merged or split if it becomes apparent that they are related to one another or not; for example, since Onychophora and Tardigrada have now been accepted as stem groups of the arthropods, these three phyla should be combined.
This changeability of phyla has led some biologists to call for the concept of a phylum to be abandoned in favour of cladistics, a method in which groups are placed on a "family tree" without any formal ranking of group size.[5] So as to provide a handle on the size and significance of groups, a "body-plan" based definition of a phylum has been proposed by paleontologists Graham Budd and Sren Jensen. The definition was posited by paleontologists because it is extinct organisms that are typically hardest to classify, because they can be extinct off-shoots that diverged from a phylum's history before the characters that define the modern phylum were all acquired.

Quite the contrary. I am asking a question. If 70 body plans come into existence in a geologic blink of an eye, and 30 of them go extinct over the next 540 million years, my question is why?

Organisms go extinct for many reasons. You must be more specific.

Far from not asking questions, I am asking them, and you are unable to answer appealing instead to the fact that your professors believe something so it must be true.

My professors? This doesnt come from my professors but the body of literature out there.

Why am I obsessed with calling phyla body plans? Because they are. What are they teaching you?

No, phyla do not directly represent body plans. That is not how taxonomy works.

I note you didn't answer my request to name a new phylogenic fauna that has appeared in 540 million years. You mention new Kingdoms being discovered. Can you point to one that didn't exist prior to the Cambrian but was simply unknown, or do you suppose that when your profs tell you that new Kingdoms have been discovered that what they are saying is that they ovolved post Cambrian? If the latter, ask for a tuition refund because you are getting ripped off.

Why the sudden obsession with my education? I dont even pay tuition. Im am a graduate student. I get paid to do research.
I told you plants and (majority) fungi were not around in the cambrian. Those are two entire kingdoms not represented in the cambrian record. There were no conifers, no mosses, no flowering plants, no ferns, etc... none of those phyla were around.

Cetaceans species have been going extinct since they first appeared 100 million years with each species lasting only a few million years. There are a great many transitional species pointed to by evolutionists for whales, yet based on the standard evolutionary model, a species with few offspring, very complex morphology and long lives should produce fewer opportunities for evolution than our friend the microbial stromotolite. The opposite is observed in the fossil record.

That part in bolded I already showed was false long ago. Once again, you are appealing to incredulity.

So explain it, rather than pretending an explanation exists.

I did in a latter post.

What I am asking for is a transitional species to homo sapiens sapiens.

No, you asked for an immediate ancestor.

Evolutionists used to think they had it in the bag with neaderthalensis, but biochemical evidence shows we aren't closely related.

Says who?

So where is it? Rather than accusing me of ignorance, simple answer the question. Where is the evidence for a transitional species to homo s.s.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hu ... on_fossils

Very interesting, thank you. I underlined the parts I thought particularly illuminating. Dr. Gee is working awfully hard to be honest by noting that evolutionists insistence that they can attribute ancestry to fossil specimens is of course incorrect while evolution is of course absolutely correct, yet largely dependent on intepretatin of the fossil record.

He was claiming that one can not rely on a few fossils alone.

Neat trick, and I am sympathetic, since if he were to challenge evolution, do you thing he would have a job, notwithstanding he correct notation that scientific dispute is a mark of health. As long as the dispute isn't over the truth of evolution because that (gasp) leads to (gasp) God .

Another false dillema AND do you think someone who denies gravity should have a job as a physicist? Or how about people who deny germs cause disease, should they teach medicine?

Dodge. Natural processes are supposed to produce change in species over time due to mutation and natural selection. Please point to an example of where the natural selection of men killing whatever doesn't fit their desired effect for 40,000 years has produced a new species.

Not a dodge, it is a strawman argument.

That doesn't follow. Her words say what they say. She is simply saying that the universe cannot be explained by chance,

which is an argument to incredulity....

and she opts for a naturalistic explanation while recognizing that without that explanation she is left with God, which she has disallowed.

Which is a false dilemma.

Not terribly scientific, do you think? After all, if science is about finding out truth, what if God is true?

What is dragons or faeries are true?

In many cases, what are alleged to be transitional species date outside of the range of the things they are transitional to, so a lack of a nested hierarchy is already established. I guess on that basis evolution is falsifed, and before you challenge me for citations, look into Panderichthys, Ventastega, or recent research on the early complexity of eyes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132546.htm.

What exactly does this demonstrate?

Besides, nested hierarchy is based on what Gee described as "not science", did he not?

No, he did not.

Regarding Haldanes old saw, that is a classic claim that something is true (evolution) on the basis of an absence of specific evidence (a rabbit in the Cambrian). The equivalent would be stating that Relativity can be falsified by finding a universe where it doesn't apply. Well, ok, that does not mean it is falsifiable, since such a universe probaby doesn't exist just as rabbits didn't exist in the Cambrian. Now that could be because they evolved later, or it could be because God made them later. Nice try, but no cigar.

You utterly misses the logic of the argument. We should find, in the fossil record, complex animals popping up randomly, at earlier times. We have NEVER found anything of the sort. If animals did not evolve, the fossil record should show a hodgepodge of complexity. It does not.

Really? No doubt there is fraud in some claims, just as there is fraud in some scientific claims. To reject all science on the basis of fanciful claims that pop up or religious experience on what are undoubtedly frauds is not a valid argument.

Except for science also has a long track record of being right and can be tested. People like "faith healers" and people claiming "miracles" can not and have not.

I'm not sure that repeating that I am ignorant of Crick's view makes your interpretation correct. Both Crick and Leslie Orgel felt that the DNA code could not evolve in the first place or change once it had evolved. That is why they came up with directed panspermia as a solution, and later the RNA world hypothesis which is now understood to be a chemical impossibility on the early earth. But to the point, are you arguing that universal DNA code can evolve and has, or that it can and hasn't?

Im arguing you havent a clue what you are talking about despite my repeated attempts of clarifying. Despite me provide direct evidence proving you wrong, you continue to make the same incorrect statements.

Please, before you continue any more, try to catch up on biology.

[Starboard Tack]

Starboard Tack,

Nygreenguy has taken the time and effort to help you understand biology and evolution. The least you can do is give correct and thought out responses, otherwise it appears that you are just trying to be contrary rather than trying to learn and educate yourself.


Further,

It seems to me that you are expecting a species to evolve yet remain the same - this is a contradiction. You also seem to be confusing stromatolites for a species. Stromatolites are a byproduct of certain types of cyanobacteria.

Why would you expect the evolutionary cousins of stromatolite producing species of bacteria to continue producing stromatolites? Example: If species of ants which build hills are pressured to evolve into a tree-dwelling species you would not find any anthills.

I would also like to point out that you are using the worst possible example. Stromatolites are not created by just one species of bacteria. There are different types of stromatolites formations in different environments. Stromatolites are created by different processes. Not all stromatolites are in decline for the same reasons. It seem that we are not even certain why stromatolites are in decline.

I hope you are at least learning something about biology and evolution from all this.

Can you point me to the stromotolites currently in existence in the world that are not slowly going extinct? This would prove your point that not all stromotolite forming cyanobacteria are "in decline", and would represent a major discovery many would like to hear about.

Stromotoites are nearly extinct because they are predated on by fish. This is the same reason ammonites went extinct, and why nautiloids now only exist in very deep water, coming to the surface during new moons so as to avoid being instantly blasted to pieces by trigger fish and other predators. Nautiloids have had around 250 million years of continuous mutation and natural selection to create a better, more robust nautilus that can come out of the shadows, but sadly, we are still waiting for the evolutionary magic that turns Lucy into Lucille Ball in a mere 3.2 million years to make a Nautilus with a thicker shell in 250 million years.

Stomotolites now exist in places where fish can't live - thermal springs in Yellowstone, lakes in Antartica, Shark Bay where the salt content is extraordinarily high and so on. We're still waiting for random mutation and continuous natural selective pressure in the form of death to make them taste bad.

In the hopes that you can "at least learn something about biology", perhaps this will help:

http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/fieldco ... gestl.html

[Autodidact]

Starboard: You do understand that the fact that most species go extinct is fundamental to ToE, right? Not only does it not contradict or disprove ToE, it is essential to it. Yes, many species are going extinct. That does nothing to challenge ToE. Some forms of organisms manage to persist with relatively slight changes. Yes, and? None of that in any way contradicts modern evolutionary theory.

I still don't understand what your position is. In your view, what accounts for the diversity of species on earth today?

[Starboard Tack]

Fine, some cyanobacteria are "indistinguishable" from modern bacteria. Stromotolites today are also indistinguishable from the stomotolites billions of years ago. My point remains what it has always been. If evolution works, why have the microbial stromotolites not evolved even under the selective pressure they have been exposed to.

Because they selective pressure has not been enough to force change. If they are good at what they do, why change?

What selective pressure could be greater than that they are being eaten by fish and dying? I'm not sure why you can't see how silly your argument is, but since you keep pretending that death because of a lack of adaption doesn't could as sufficient for natural selection to occur, I really don't know what to say to you.

If you same that some bacteria have, that is a red herring. I'm talking about these bacteria that have not. Filling the room with smoke by pointing to other bacteria, which by the way you have no proof have evolved at all, doesn't amount to an argument.

It is NOT a red herring becuase there is evolution that cyanobacteria DO evolve. There is a BIG difference between saying cyanobacteria do not evolve and SOME have not evolved. The ones that HAVE experiences selective pressure have evolved and as for "proof", I posted a paper on cyanobacteria evolution and diversification already.

And you continue to ignore the point that those cyanobacteria that form stromotolites have been going extinct without change for 3.5 billion years. Fine, some cyanobacteria are changing. I asked you to point me to the data that shows that they are changing into something other than bacteria, and you haven't. Not surprising, because you can't. That is the nature of evolution - just so stories without scientific support.

Hardly. I understand that you belief that microbes have evolved into giraffes which involves quite a few species changes. With such power in the evolutionary process, my question is why have these bacteria remained the same for 3.5 billion years?

Microbes have never evolved into giraffes.

I'm beginning to think that you don't actually know very much about the theory you espouse. First life is by definition microbial. LUCA is a microbe. All life evolved from LUCA, including giraffes.

There is a wide open niche for stromotolites. It is the niche they occupied 3.5 billion years ago when they were ubiquitous. Over that period of time, bacteria have continuously been making stromotolites the same they did when God created them. No change, other than the fact they have been relentlessly driven to extinction without exhibiting the slightest part of the power of evolution you attribute to it. You say that cyanobacteria have evolved. That is a statement. Maybe, maybe not.

No maybe about it. We have fossil and genetic evidence to support it.

Again I ask, please show the evidence that cyanobacteria have evolved and become something other than cyanobacteria. Of course the answer is, "well we can't point to what they became, because there if they are no longer cyanobacteria, they aren't identifiable as cyanobacteria." Precisely. Completely unfalsifiable and as a result, not exactly science.

What we have are bacteria that look identical today to what they did 3.5 billion years ago, and the accretion mats they formed remaining the same over the same period of time.

This statement is correct.

I challenged you before to providing proof that bacteria have evolved over time to new life forms and you have not, while I have consistently provided you with evidence that in the case of microbial stromotolites, the change you say has happened elsewhere apparently hasn't happened with my example.

I was trying to clarify the difference between saying cyanobactria have not evolved and SOME have not evolved.

Fair enough. So some have not evolved. Why not? Death is insufficient selective pressure?

Now there is a lot of evidence for bacteria speciation.

Yes, bacteria and all species freely adapt while remaining bacteria, or slime molds, or giraffes. Change more dramatic than that is inferred through fossil evidence, which is not science but philosophic speculation.

Again, this is the fallacy of the appeal to authority.

Appeals to authority are only fallacies if the person is I reference is NOT an authority. It is perfectly reasonable AND practical to defer to those who know more than you do on a subject.

As I have pointed out, throughout history authorities have been dead wrong about scientific reality. You have confidence that evolutionary theory is correct, just as Fred Hoyle was convinced in the eternality of the universe. Dr. Hoyle was certainly an expert. He represented the dominant scientific position. He was also wrong. My objection to evolution is twofold. First, it is a religion, immune to falsification but without the honesty to admit it. Second, it is bad science because it it can't make predictions that hold true, nor explain what is observed in the fossil record. I have referenced the Cambrian Explosion as inexplicable through evolutionary processes. You have stated that it is explainable. I have asked how, and you have been silent. Expected, since it is inexplicable, just as the origin of life is inexplicable, or why whales evolve so quickly yet bacteria do not.

If I made the claim 100 years ago that the Bible was correct in describing a sudden appearance of space time, you would have quoted all the experts telling me I was wrong.

How is it when people wish to criticize science, they do soby using antiquated examples of science in its infancy before the scientific method and peer review was established? Many of the people from hundreds of years ago, while scientists in "practice", were not always DOING science.

They were doing science using the methods and techniques available at the time. Sometimes they were right, sometimes wrong.

However, it would you who would have been wrong, so please avoid this fallacy in the future.

It is not a fallacy, and using authority does not mean authorities are infallible only their word is generally considered superior to those of lay-people or those outside of that field of expertise.

I grant that the dominant belief among scientists supports evolution, just as the dominant belief amongst cosmologists 100 years ago supported a past infinite universe. Do you want to assert that there is no change that like those scientists you might be wrong?

60 years ago, lobotomies were considered to be appropriate therapy for schizophrenics. The developer of the procedure won a Nobel Prize. Eugenics was considered by biologists to be a good way to improve humanity. Spare me the scientific consensus argument, because it is almost offensive.

Eugenics is still used today. Thats where GMO's come from. the science behind eugenics was not the problem, how people politicized it was.

Eugenics is the scientific belief that mankind can be improved through selective breeding, or in the case of Hitler, through the extermination of races. It doesn't historically have to much to do with increasing corn yields.

As for lobotomies, this is a matter of medical ethics. Well, and they were wrong as well.

It was perfectly ethical, and scientifically valid. After all, they don't put Nobel prizes in boxes of corn flakes, so as far as a gold standard of science, lobotomizing those with schizophrenia is consistent. Except that it was wrong, as well as stupid. Regarding evolution, you really should spend some time looking at what is happening in origins of life research. You realize that serious scientists are seriously suggesting that since life can't be explained on earth, it must have come from Europa, or Titan or gas clouds in space? Or perhaps brought here by alien civilizations? Evolutionary science at its best.

However, no one has ever claimed science to be infallible. there is, however, a difference between rational criticism and denial.

I'm not denying science, I am simply pointing out that evolution is lousy science. Frankly it is the evolutionist who is in denial because to them, only evolution is an allowable answer, all others are taboo. I keep picking on Iris Fry, but she is the epitome of the evolutionist's mental state, IMHO. Here is what she has to say about what origin of life research is all about:

"...origin of life research consists in looking for a naturalistic alternative to the idea of the creation of life by a designer."

One would think that origin of life research is about finding the origin of life, but here Fry inadverently acknowleges that it is just about promoting a worldview that can effectively exclude a Creator from consideration. Is that really science?

You mean like fish eating microbial stromotolites, or natiloids? We have plenty of evidence of the selective pressure on these species, and we know they must be mutating since every critter does, yet there is no change. Why?

Please provide specific evidence for selective pressure. Just saying "fish eat them" is not evidence, nor is it science. If you wish to criticize science, I have no problem in you doing so but please provide proper evidence to support your argument.

You want me to prove that fish eat bacterial mats? That trigger fish eat Nautiloids? Really? Regarding Nautiloids, I highly recommend Peter Ward's "On Methuselah's Trail" where he describes what happens when a Nautilus gets caught out in the daylight. Page 95.

Phyla represent body plans.

No they do not. They are no discreet categories like these for taxonomic levels.

From Wikipedia:

"phyla can be thought of as grouping organisms based on general specialization of body plan,[2] as well as developmental or internal organizations"

As do class and occasionally order. There are many consideration taxonomists make when assigning phyla. Body plan is one one of them.

At the most basic level, a phylum can be defined in two ways: as a group of organisms with a certain degree of morphological or developmental similarity (the phenetic definition), or a group of organisms with a certain degree of evolutionary relatedness (the phylogenetic definition).[5] Attempting to define a level of the Linnean hierarchy without referring to (evolutionary) relatedness is an unsatisfactory approach, but the phenetic definition is more useful when addressing questions of a morphological nature"such as how successful different body plans were.

[edit]Definition based on genetic relation
The largest objective measure in the above definitions is the "certain degree""how unrelated do organisms need to be to be members of different phyla? The minimal requirement is that all organisms in a phylum should be related closely enough for them to be clearly more closely related to one another than to any other group.[5] However, even this is problematic, as the requirement depends on our current knowledge about organisms' relationships: As more data becomes available, particularly from molecular studies, we are better able to judge the relationships between groups. So phyla can be merged or split if it becomes apparent that they are related to one another or not; for example, since Onychophora and Tardigrada have now been accepted as stem groups of the arthropods, these three phyla should be combined.
This changeability of phyla has led some biologists to call for the concept of a phylum to be abandoned in favour of cladistics, a method in which groups are placed on a "family tree" without any formal ranking of group size.[5] So as to provide a handle on the size and significance of groups, a "body-plan" based definition of a phylum has been proposed by paleontologists Graham Budd and Sren Jensen. The definition was posited by paleontologists because it is extinct organisms that are typically hardest to classify, because they can be extinct off-shoots that diverged from a phylum's history before the characters that define the modern phylum were all acquired.

Ok, so phyla are whatever you decide they are, and let's do away with them and call them cladistics. Really, Green, discussing this with a fan of evolution is just nailing jello to the wall. Backed into a corner, the evolutionists just redefines the terms.

Quite the contrary. I am asking a question. If 70 body plans come into existence in a geologic blink of an eye, and 30 of them go extinct over the next 540 million years, my question is why?

Organisms go extinct for many reasons. You must be more specific.

I have no idea why 30 phyla have gone extinct since the Cambrian, nor why no new phyla have been created in 540 million years. The extinctions are predictable since they occur continuously throughout the history of life on the planet. It is the re-creation of life that is the part that can't be explained.

Why am I obsessed with calling phyla body plans? Because they are. What are they teaching you?

No, phyla do not directly represent body plans. That is not how taxonomy works.

It is a major taxonomic category typified by body plan. Sorry, but that is what it is. "Animal phyla are classified according to certain criteria, including the type of coelom, symmetry, body plan, and presence of segmentation."

I note you didn't answer my request to name a new phylogenic fauna that has appeared in 540 million years. You mention new Kingdoms being discovered. Can you point to one that didn't exist prior to the Cambrian but was simply unknown, or do you suppose that when your profs tell you that new Kingdoms have been discovered that what they are saying is that they ovolved post Cambrian? If the latter, ask for a tuition refund because you are getting ripped off.

Why the sudden obsession with my education? I dont even pay tuition. Im am a graduate student. I get paid to do research.
I told you plants and (majority) fungi were not around in the cambrian. Those are two entire kingdoms not represented in the cambrian record. There were no conifers, no mosses, no flowering plants, no ferns, etc... none of those phyla were around.

As a graduate student, you know that phylum is generally a term not used in botany, where division would be common. That is why I aske you to reference a phylogenic fauna that has appeared in the last 540 years, which is a question I note you did not answer.

What I am asking for is a transitional species to homo sapiens sapiens.

No, you asked for an immediate ancestor.

No, I am simply asking for any credible evidence that explains how homo sapiens sapiens evolved by having you provide some evidence that they have changed in the last 100,000 years or where the antecedent critters were that are close enough to us that we can reasonably see those critters as our ancestors. Evolutionists make very bold statements about events 540 million years ago, yet when you ask them for a little information or data on what happened a mere 100,000 years ago they go mum. Why is that?

Evolutionists used to think they had it in the bag with neaderthalensis, but biochemical evidence shows we aren't closely related.

Says who?

Says any textbook on paleontology written prior to around 1980.

So where is it? Rather than accusing me of ignorance, simple answer the question. Where is the evidence for a transitional species to homo s.s.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hu ... on_fossils

I'm curious about something. As you look at this list, can you tell the difference between homo sapiens remains and the homo sapiens sapiens remains? The reason I ask is that it is common for paleontologists to refer to any hominid that may have had a bipedal gate as "human" and any fossil that is anatomically similar to modern man as a "modern human", even if they possess none of the cultural distinctives of modern humans. If you look into this, you will find that the fossils older than 100,000 years are considered to be 'anatomically similar' to modern man, yet there is no evidence that these specimens possessed any intellectual or behavioral similarities to us.

Very interesting, thank you. I underlined the parts I thought particularly illuminating. Dr. Gee is working awfully hard to be honest by noting that evolutionists insistence that they can attribute ancestry to fossil specimens is of course incorrect while evolution is of course absolutely correct, yet largely dependent on intepretatin of the fossil record.

He was claiming that one can not rely on a few fossils alone.

He made a true statement, that deducing ancestry from a pinky bone or a part of a femur isn't science. He walked that dog back a bit, but he was quite correct. And if correct, then the assertion that evolutionary conclusions can be drawn from the fossil evidence is pretension.

Neat trick, and I am sympathetic, since if he were to challenge evolution, do you thing he would have a job, notwithstanding he correct notation that scientific dispute is a mark of health. As long as the dispute isn't over the truth of evolution because that (gasp) leads to (gasp) God .

Another false dillema AND do you think someone who denies gravity should have a job as a physicist? Or how about people who deny germs cause disease, should they teach medicine?

No, since gravity is demonstrable and can be falsifiable if not true, anyone who doesn't believe in it should not be teaching physics. However, evolution is not demonstrable except by reliance of fossil evidence (not science) and is not falsifiable. Therefore, disbelieve in it is no different than Lemaitre's conclusion that the universe is not past infinite.

Dodge. Natural processes are supposed to produce change in species over time due to mutation and natural selection. Please point to an example of where the natural selection of men killing whatever doesn't fit their desired effect for 40,000 years has produced a new species.

Not a dodge, it is a strawman argument.

How is it a strawman argument? Natural selection through natural processes unfolds over tens of thousands or millions of years, and you would say that this produces new genera. I am asking why is mankind has been trying to create novel life that is a new genera as long as it is productive agriculturally has not produced any new genera but simply variants on existing species which retain fertility with their ancestral predecessors?

That doesn't follow. Her words say what they say. She is simply saying that the universe cannot be explained by chance,

which is an argument to incredulity....

and she opts for a naturalistic explanation while recognizing that without that explanation she is left with God, which she has disallowed.

Which is a false dilemma.

Not terribly scientific, do you think? After all, if science is about finding out truth, what if God is true?

What is dragons or faeries are true?

Perhaps a dragon or faery is the causal agent outside of space and time that brought space and time into existence. No one thinks so, although billions think God is that causal agent. As long as we are okaying appeals to authority, let's have everyone who believes in God get in a fight with everyone who thinks otherwise and see who wins. After all, if majority opinion (which you seem rather over reliant on) rather than truth is to rule, we win!

In many cases, what are alleged to be transitional species date outside of the range of the things they are transitional to, so a lack of a nested hierarchy is already established. I guess on that basis evolution is falsifed, and before you challenge me for citations, look into Panderichthys, Ventastega, or recent research on the early complexity of eyes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132546.htm.

What exactly does this demonstrate?

It demonstrates that nested hierarchy is riddled with holes. Many allegedly transitional species are old or younger than the forms they are supposedly transitional to, and some features like eyes came into existence in their first form largely as complex as they are today.

Besides, nested hierarchy is based on what Gee described as "not science", did he not?

No, he did not.

Re-read what he wrote.

Regarding Haldanes old saw, that is a classic claim that something is true (evolution) on the basis of an absence of specific evidence (a rabbit in the Cambrian). The equivalent would be stating that Relativity can be falsified by finding a universe where it doesn't apply. Well, ok, that does not mean it is falsifiable, since such a universe probaby doesn't exist just as rabbits didn't exist in the Cambrian. Now that could be because they evolved later, or it could be because God made them later. Nice try, but no cigar.

You utterly misses the logic of the argument. We should find, in the fossil record, complex animals popping up randomly, at earlier times. We have NEVER found anything of the sort. If animals did not evolve, the fossil record should show a hodgepodge of complexity. It does not.

I referenced for you the appearance of complex eyes that appeared 500 million ago, almost simultaneous with hard structures that could accomodate such eyes (which is why they are available as fossils). Prokaryotes as chemotrophs are more complex biochemically than eukaryotes as heterotrophes, which is an example of complexity first and simplicity next. what the fossil record shows are forms of life that come into being completely in context of a complete ecosystem, showing complexity appropriate for that ecosystem.

Really? No doubt there is fraud in some claims, just as there is fraud in some scientific claims. To reject all science on the basis of fanciful claims that pop up or religious experience on what are undoubtedly frauds is not a valid argument.

Except for science also has a long track record of being right and can be tested. People like "faith healers" and people claiming "miracles" can not and have not.

Science has a long history of changing as new discoveries are made, instrumentation improves and knowledge advances. I am not proposing that religion is the same discipline as science, and am not making that argument. I am simply saying that your faith in a scientific theory as creaky as evolution is fine, but it is based on faith and not empiricism.

I'm not sure that repeating that I am ignorant of Crick's view makes your interpretation correct. Both Crick and Leslie Orgel felt that the DNA code could not evolve in the first place or change once it had evolved. That is why they came up with directed panspermia as a solution, and later the RNA world hypothesis which is now understood to be a chemical impossibility on the early earth. But to the point, are you arguing that universal DNA code can evolve and has, or that it can and hasn't?

Im arguing you havent a clue what you are talking about despite my repeated attempts of clarifying. Despite me provide direct evidence proving you wrong, you continue to make the same incorrect statements.

Okie dokie. Then how has the universal genetic code changed over 3.9 billion years. You seem to be arguing that it has and that Crick didn't say that it hadn't. Please provide the slightest support for that argument.

Please, before you continue any more, try to catch up on biology.

And I would suggest that you broaden your reading a bit. I suggest "Uncommon Dissent", "The Devil's Delusion", or "Life in the Lab." All would be illuminating for you.

[Starboard Tack]

Starboard: You do understand that the fact that most species go extinct is fundamental to ToE, right? Not only does it not contradict or disprove ToE, it is essential to it. Yes, many species are going extinct. That does nothing to challenge ToE. Some forms of organisms manage to persist with relatively slight changes. Yes, and? None of that in any way contradicts modern evolutionary theory.

I still don't understand what your position is. In your view, what accounts for the diversity of species on earth today?

As noted above, the fact of extinction throughout life's history is obvious. The constant elimination of species is expected due to changes in climate, natural events like meteorites, super eruptions and so on. What is not explicable is the sudden appearance of species, mass radiation events after mass extinctions or even the origin of life on earth which can either must be explained by Darwinian chemical processes or not at all. My objection to evolution is not a matter of religion vs. science but bad science vs. good science. Evolution is the only game in town if your intent is to avoid the possibility of a Creator, so its adherents display the same zeal the average jihadist does in defending his faith. Try explaining to an Islamic fundamentalist why the Koran is wrong when it assets that sperm is made in the liver and see where you get. Same as asking evolutionists why there is no evidence of genetic change in homo sapiens sapiens over 100,000 years when we evolved from something earlier.

My position should be clear by now. Given that space and time were brought into existence, and given that a supernatural intelligent creator is indicated on the basis of what was created, I have no problem accepting that God is responsible for the diversity of species. His creating first life as complex photosynthetic entities about the instant any life on earth could exist seems far more possible to me than that life originating on Titan, or is the product of chemical evolution that is impossible on primordial earh, or was brought here by Mr. Spock. Life transforming itself in as little as 5 million years or so from multicellular colonies to all the body plans we have for animals today thorough fiat action by God makes more sense to me than the idea that a natural process that can't gin up a survival solution for stromotolite forming bacteria in 3.5 billion years created jawless fishes out of slime mold in 5 million years.