“The Scopes Trial Revisited” - An invitation to examine both sides of the origins debate

[Red Sky at Morning]

Another very good observation I read…

Equivocation

There is ambiguity of terminology, that allows the equivocation, or moving goalposts, in the origins debate. Terms with dual (or more) meanings are equivocated, and the wrong definitions are used to deflect from the intended usage.

Dogs and wolves are not 'different species!', except by declaration. Neither are Inuits and Pygmies. They are all from the same genetic line. Clade or haplogroup, can also describe this observable reality.

Entropy is not only, 'The measurement of heat transfer in a closed system!', yet naturalists will use another definition to pretend to refute the obvious and proper use of entropy, as the tendency of EVERYTHING toward randomness.

But the reliance on ambiguity of terminology is one of the favorite tactics of the Evolution Warrior Evangelists, (EWE's). They will bleat about diversification WITHIN a clade, and call it 'speciation!', then move the goalposts to any and all organisms outside of that clade, and smugly declare, 'Evolution!' But it is a false equivalence. It is extrapolating a visible, observable phenomenon of diversity within a genetic architecture, to some fantasy of gene and trait creation that has never been observed, and does not happen.

..yet this hare brained 'theory' is promoted with jihadist zeal, using every tactic of propaganda, and EVERY fallacy known to men or angels. They attack and demean creationism, while declaring atheistic naturalism as 'Science!' The EWE's are very zealous for their religion.

..reflecting on the physical world, and the evidence before us, should give us pause.. But the EWEs do not want us to consider our Creator, or take pause with the empirical facts, but they demand we Believe, and will unleash the hounds of Hell to bully us into submission.

..but all the bullies of atheistic naturalism can do is demand we give ourselves paws..

It is important to remember.. The 'hounds of Hell!', as fearsome as they see themselves (and pretend to be), are just brain dead sheep.. EWEs that can only follow their Indoctrination, and cannot use scientific methodology, open inquiry, or Reason.

No, this is not a 'nice!' post, looking for common ground with naturalism. This is an exposé of the deadly poison of naturalism, as it is indoctrinated by agenda driven ideologues.

Equivocation is just one of the common fallacies used by the propagandists of naturalism. Don't be fooled by these distortions of reason. Truth can be known. The Creator IS. Why will you die in a lie? Seek your Maker. Don't be a dupe to state propaganda.”

 

[TempestOfTempo]

Another very good observation I read…

Equivocation

There is ambiguity of terminology, that allows the equivocation, or moving goalposts, in the origins debate. Terms with dual (or more) meanings are equivocated, and the wrong definitions are used to deflect from the intended usage.

Dogs and wolves are not 'different species!', except by declaration. Neither are Inuits and Pygmies. They are all from the same genetic line. Clade or haplogroup, can also describe this observable reality.

Entropy is not only, 'The measurement of heat transfer in a closed system!', yet naturalists will use another definition to pretend to refute the obvious and proper use of entropy, as the tendency of EVERYTHING toward randomness.

But the reliance on ambiguity of terminology is one of the favorite tactics of the Evolution Warrior Evangelists, (EWE's). They will bleat about diversification WITHIN a clade, and call it 'speciation!', then move the goalposts to any and all organisms outside of that clade, and smugly declare, 'Evolution!' But it is a false equivalence. It is extrapolating a visible, observable phenomenon of diversity within a genetic architecture, to some fantasy of gene and trait creation that has never been observed, and does not happen.

..yet this hare brained 'theory' is promoted with jihadist zeal, using every tactic of propaganda, and EVERY fallacy known to men or angels. They attack and demean creationism, while declaring atheistic naturalism as 'Science!' The EWE's are very zealous for their religion.

..reflecting on the physical world, and the evidence before us, should give us pause.. But the EWEs do not want us to consider our Creator, or take pause with the empirical facts, but they demand we Believe, and will unleash the hounds of Hell to bully us into submission.

..but all the bullies of atheistic naturalism can do is demand we give ourselves paws..

It is important to remember.. The 'hounds of Hell!', as fearsome as they see themselves (and pretend to be), are just brain dead sheep.. EWEs that can only follow their Indoctrination, and cannot use scientific methodology, open inquiry, or Reason.

No, this is not a 'nice!' post, looking for common ground with naturalism. This is an exposé of the deadly poison of naturalism, as it is indoctrinated by agenda driven ideologues.

Equivocation is just one of the common fallacies used by the propagandists of naturalism. Don't be fooled by these distortions of reason. Truth can be known. The Creator IS. Why will you die in a lie? Seek your Maker. Don't be a dupe to state propaganda.”

What a post! Its like the "EWE" as you have rightfully labeled them refuse to acknowledge the stone cold fact that despite all of their legitimate advances and contributions... their "truths" are mostly supplemental, while refusing to respect that the BASIS for them even existing in the first place is that which you have so eloquently stated... Creationism... a blessing from the Creator. Soe are just blinded followers, but other are straight up agenda servants.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Part 3 - Detecting the designer the fingerprints of God in biology

Here are some more reasons to reject the evolutionary philosophy that is masquerading as science.

Combinatorial problem for creating information (proteins for selection)

Stephen Meyers book - Darwin’s Doubt (pg. 204) explains that Douglas Axe - worked out if information (namely novel functional folding proteins - the smallest unit of selection required for natural selection working on mutations to achieve macroevolution) could be created by random mutation and natural selection. Evolutionists think proteins evolve in neutral mutation conditions so they won’t destroy other proteins or the organism. Neutral mutations mean that natural selection is not helping, it all occurs by random mutations alone.

1) The first problem was the combinatorics problem - the sequence space to be searched was vast. Finding an extremely rare new functional protein that folded was 1 in 10 to 77 power, for a protein chain of 150 amino acids in length, there are far more non-functional-folding proteins combinations than functional ones.
Protein chains could handle 95% of the time one-off random mutations of amino acid changes at places, but 5% even one-off changes would destroy normal folding. The problem becomes exponential as more mutational changes are made, changes made to the exterior of the folded protein would cause collapse but changes made with similar amino acids to the interior of a folded protein could survive with small diminished functionality.

2) The estimated number of organisms that have existed being 1 in 10 to 40th power (using evolutions time frame 3.4 billion years) (each generation would have to have one new sequence to be experimented on for neutral mutations for trailing, to see if it could turn into a folding new functional protein)

3) This means it is unlikely mutations can achieve the goal of making new information in the form of folding new functional proteins. 1 in 10 to 40th power, over 1 in 10 to 77th power, becomes 1 in 10 to 37 power, which is still too large for random mutations to solve.

4) Rates of mutation are not enough to generate the opportunities needed to get a folding new functional protein.

5) New cells require many proteins working together. But natural selection can not select a cell that is not giving some advantage, which means the cell and proteins need to be functioning together first before natural selection can operate to give an adaptive advantage.

This problem is even worse if you consider the Cambrian explosion, where novel life forms are supposed to have evolved. There were not billions of years, so not 10 to 40 power, life forms available to try to evolve new proteins. New animals require not just proteins but new cells, which require many new proteins all working together.

Natural selection

Natural selection can not change the body plans of animals. To change a creature's body plan, and morphological design, mutations must occur at the embryonic level in the regulatory genes that affect body plan formation (they must be beneficial and heritable), but these mutations are fatal (pathological) (lethal) and are not accepted. The only mutations and expressions excepted are in the alleles, like changing your hair colour, or height, these already have a wide range for expression. Mutations at this level will not change your body plan or morphological design. So natural selection can not select the mutations it needs for macroevolution to occur.

Mutations at the embryonic level is impossible causing death to the animal. Mutations can only happen later on in an animal's life cycle, and only affect small changes of variation. The needed mutations refuse to happen.

100 years of drosophila (fruit fly) experiments where they are subjected to mutations by radiation etc. showed no morphological changes in the body plan, their most significant achievement was growing an extra set of wings, but this only proves copying existing information not creating new information, and there was no muscles attached, so it was not an uphill beneficial mutation. It actually highlights the problem of multiple coordinated mutations needed together that are beneficial for selection to occur.

Mutations on fruit flies (drosophila melanogaster) failed, they did get some new wings, but no muscles etc to get them to work, so more like copying existing wing code.

And bacteria experiments of over 40 000 generations confirmed this, that all mutations do not change the creature, they will still be a bacteria.

E-coli bacteria was used for mutation experiments - E-coli has been found in rock strata at 3.5billion year ages unchanged. Findings show only bacteria is produced by mutations in bacteria. Even the bacteria that mutated to eat citric after 40 000 generations or the equivalent of over 1 million years in human generations. Showed a loss of information, not added, since all bacteria have that ability already it’s just turned off at certain times. Two mutations caused it to turn on when it should have been off. Not uphill evolution that is needed for the hypothesis of evolution to work.

Not enough time for mutations to happen - calculations of mutational rate and breeding rates, show there is not enough time for mutations to occur and change animals. There need to be many beneficial mutations to change species to species. The famous evolutionary geneticist J.B.S. Haldane (1892–1964) co-founder of population genetics. Haldane articulated a serious problem for evolutionary theory in a seminal paper in 1957—the ‘cost of substitution. He calculated that 1,667 beneficial substitutions could have occurred in the supposed 10 million years, this is not enough time to account for the necessary beneficial mutations to change species.

Haldane's dilemma has not been solved - creation.com

Haldane's dilemma, that because of the cost of substitution of mutations there has not been enough time for the evolution of higher organisms, has not been solved.

creation.com

Theory of Common Descent - the genetic release factor protein in prokaryotic ribosome mechanism for E.coli in your intestine, should be the same homologous for other release factors if common descent is true. But they are completely different in human eukaryotic cell. This shows just one problem, but the major underlying problem for evolution is the large number of Orphan genes, where no ancestor proteins match or have a similar function. Where are these new proteins coming from, if they are not passed on? Where is the new information coming from? One significant variation was discovered in topoisomerases, which vary distinctly. The progenitor LUCA must have a lot genetic information, for all information needs to be tracked backwards.

New proteins for macroevolution - the belief that new proteins can be made by mutations hinges on the assumption that there are duplications of genes in the DNA, where the duplicates can mutate in a neutral way without harming or destroying other proteins or the organism. Natural selection is not supposed to be involved in the generation of new proteins, that is what neutral evolution means. But the only way for new creatures or macroevolution to happen is for new cells and proteins to be formed. This means there is no small incremental process available if natural selection can not help in creating new proteins or cells.

Epigenetic Information - Neo-darwinism relies on selection from mutations in the DNA. But Epigenetic information is not stored it seems in DNA, but in the structure of proteins, cells, sugar shapes etc. This means selection cannot select that sort of information.

Context-dependent polyfunctional modularity of genes - in some cases the same genes are used in different species / and even categories of phylum/animals but expressed differently. Pax6 gene used in the development of eyes is the same in arthropods and cephalopods and vertebrates but each of the eyes is totally different. This means the mutation of the gene has not been responsible for the different types of eyes. This is more like a designer using the same component in different contexts to achieve a higher planned coordinated function. eg. a resistor can be used in building a radio, computer, car. The same component is used in a different context to build a planned product. Evolution did not predict the polyfunctional role of genes, this is more of a prediction from an intelligently designed system, not random mutation via natural selection.