Human appendix not vestigial

[Shredderbeam]

Which is why, for me, evolution is becoming less and less credible and Intelligent Design more reasonable.

Evolutionary theory doesn’t claim that organisms simply appear, so why would that make it less credible?

edwest2:

Evolution is credited with doing something as if it were a being with intelligence.

Poor teachers might do that, but the fundamental process of evolution is selective pressure. No intelligence is involved.

edwest2:

Another example: Birds evolved from dinosaurs. Not true.

Theories and models are changed and updated as more evidence comes to light. This is a fundamental part of science.

 

[reggieM]

It was claimed for decades that the appendix was a vestigal organ – a useless by-product of evolution. Now this is corrected – and as the article states “Darwin was wrong”.

At one time, Darwinists claimed that there were nearly 100 human organs that were vestigal including the pineal gland, the pituitary gland and tonsils. 95% of those were proven later to have function. There was a tonsilectomy craze in the 1960s which caused a lot of problems since tonsils actually serve a function in supporting the immune system – again Darwinian claims refuted (and at a big cost).

It’s like the claims about Junk DNA. That was supposed to be non-functioning, useless debris in the genome. Now it has been proven that Junk DNA may have a more powerful role in human genes than any other element. Once again, Darwinian claims refuted.

This brings to mind a great post I found in a comment on another blog:

… after evolutionists claim something “is evidence of evolution”, i.e., junk DNA, or their supposed dino-bird link, (or that the appendix is vestigal) when it is later found to not be true, evolutionists then say “well, evolutionary theory never predicted those things in the first place, and the new facts are entirely consistent with evolutionary theory.”

… evolutionists just take whatever current “facts” come to light and interpret them in some mannner so they support evolutionary theory. Then later, when new facts contradict those facts, the new facts are interpreted as being supportive of evolution as well.

When your theory can take two entirely contradictory evidences(junk DNA and not-junk DNA) and interpret them both as supportive of your theory, then you don’t have much of a theory.

Or in a follow-up comment

… given enough time and chance, anything can happen in evolution. Order, disorder, junk DNA, non-junk DNA, gradualism, punctuated equillibrium, distinctly different evolution because of divergence; similar/identical convergent and parallel evolution even when separated, defiance of genetic entropy, manufacturing of specified, complex coded information, ancient organisms with virtually identical DNA as present organisms, fast-reproducing organisms, slow-reproducing organisms.

And as a remark on the importance of reasoning correctly:

Reason has rules, which among other things, allow us to eliminate possibilities so that we can move logically from point A to point B. We cannot say, for example, IF A is true, then B MUST be true, unless we can also say that C through Z are impossible. If we didn’t agree, in advance, that C through Z are impossible, such as [a thing cannot be and not be], [the whole cannot be less that any of its parts], [something cannot come from nothing], [physical events cannot occur without causes etc.], then we couldn’t reason our way from A to B or enter into rational discouse with others. But postmodernist cosmologists and atheist Darwinists, who reject these rules, cannot, in any context, say If A is true, then B must be true, because they refuse to rule out C through Z. That is another way of saying that they cannot reason in the abstract.

In keeping with the point, most rational people understand that streets don’t just get wet—something had to cause the streets to get wet. Thus, we say that IF the streets are wet, THEN it must be raining, or else someone turned on a fire hydrant, or for some other reason. Postmodernists, however, cannot do IF/THEN propositions in this fashion because, for them, reason has no standards, meaning that nothing can be ruled out. So they will ask, “Why can’t the streets just get wet?” “Can you provide me with evidence that moisture, like the cosmos or life cannot just come from out of nowhere.” or “you are wrong because quantum particles can appear without a cause,” and so on. For them physical events, or anything else for that matter, can “just happen.” Obviously, if that was really the case, then science would be finished because there would be no way of knowing which events had causes and which ones did not.

Indeed, without the rules of right reason, anything at all can happen. Darwinists on this site often object when I point out that the whole must always be greater than any one of its parts. Among other things they have said, “We don’t know what ‘greater’” means,’ or “your rule is a mere tautology,” or “please provide evidence for your assertion,” or “those are just your rules,” and other such nonsense. Indeed, when I asked these same bloggers if an automobile could be a part of its crankshaft, they insisted that such a thing is, indeed, possible. On matters of design and chance, it does no good to provide evidence for anyone trapped in this postmodernist mind set, because evidence is of no use to anyone who cannot think—and make no mistake, anyone who thinks that something can come from nothing or that an automobile can be a part of its crankshaft, cannot think.

The above reminds me of a recent statement I made where I pointed out that a dead human being, missing a heart, cannot be brought back to life by merely putting in a new heart. The more important point – the organic materials that compose a human being cannot be put together by scientists into a living human being.

The response to these blatantly obvious truths were that doctors have been successful with heart transplants and that humans who have died have been resuscusitated with electric shock.

So, to my claim that scientists cannot create a human being out of organic components or bring back to life a human being that is missing a heart – the answer is that it actually happens all the time.

As said above:

**Postmodernists, however, cannot do IF/THEN propositions in this fashion because, for them, reason has no standards, meaning that nothing can be ruled out. **

 

[reggieM]

From the posted article:

Now, some of those same researchers are back, reporting on the first-ever study of the appendix through the ages. Writing in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Duke scientists and collaborators from the University of Arizona and Arizona State University conclude that Charles Darwin was wrong: The appendix is a whole lot more than an evolutionary remnant. Not only does it appear in nature much more frequently than previously acknowledged, but it has been around much longer than anyone had suspected.

“Maybe it’s time to correct the textbooks,” says William Parker, Ph.D., assistant professor of surgical sciences at Duke and the senior author of the study. “Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a ‘vestigial organ.’”

That is, another failed prediction for evolutionary theory.

 

[reggieM]

Another interesting blog post:

Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish“In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution.” Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology
fredheeren.com/boston.htm

“A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during the Cambrian explosion (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. (Actually the number 50 was first quoted as over 100 for a while, but then the consensus became 50-plus.) That means there are more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils, than exist now.” “Also, the animal explosion caught people’s attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning of the Cambrian explosion. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the very beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.” Dr. Paul Chien PhD., chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco
discovery.org/scrip…&id=52

The evolutionary theory would have us believe we should have more phyla today due to ongoing evolutionary processes:

Origin of Phyla – The Fossil Evidence – Timeline Graph Illustration
lutheranscience.org/images/GraphC2.gif

“The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find’ over and over again’ not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager

“A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”
Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki

“There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.”
Professor of paleontology – Glasgow University, T. Neville George

“The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists” – Stephen Jay Gould – Harvard

“Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? … The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record.” Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9

“The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be …. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin’s time … so Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated”.
David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History

“In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.” Fossils and Evolution, TS Kemp – Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999

” Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”
George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.

 

[reggieM]

Soft Squid Ink Sac Claimed to Be 150 Million Years Old

“It is difficult to imagine how you can have something as soft and sloppy as an ink sac fossilised in three dimension, still black, and inside a rock that is 150 million years old.” – *Dr Phil Wilby of the British Geological Survey *

Dr. Wilby finds it “difficult to imagine” how this could have happened, but he doesn’t give an explanation.

 

[Shredderbeam]

It was claimed for decades that the appendix was a vestigal organ – a useless by-product of evolution. Now this is corrected – and as the article states “Darwin was wrong”.

At one time, Darwinists claimed that there were nearly 100 human organs that were vestigal including the pineal gland, the pituitary gland and tonsils. 95% of those were proven later to have function. There was a tonsilectomy craze in the 1960s which caused a lot of problems since tonsils actually serve a function in supporting the immune system – again Darwinian claims refuted (and at a big cost).

It’s like the claims about Junk DNA. That was supposed to be non-functioning, useless debris in the genome. Now it has been proven that Junk DNA may have a more powerful role in human genes than any other element. Once again, Darwinian claims refuted.

You’re misinterpreting “Darwin was wrong”. It doesn’t mean “evolution is false”, it means “Darwin was wrong in claiming that an organ was useless”.

A prediction that turns out to be false does not necessarily prove the entire theory wrong.

This brings to mind a great post I found in a comment on another blog:… after evolutionists claim something “is evidence of evolution”, i.e., junk DNA, or their supposed dino-bird link, (or that the appendix is vestigal) when it is later found to not be true, evolutionists then say “well, evolutionary theory never predicted those things in the first place, and the new facts are entirely consistent with evolutionary theory.”

… evolutionists just take whatever current “facts” come to light and interpret them in some mannner so they support evolutionary theory. Then later, when new facts contradict those facts, the new facts are interpreted as being supportive of evolution as well.

When your theory can take two entirely contradictory evidences(junk DNA and not-junk DNA) and interpret them both as supportive of your theory, then you don’t have much of a theory.

Theories and models are constantly updated to accommodate the new evidence. This isn’t unreasonable at all - death sentences have been overturned because of new evidence introduced.

Or in a follow-up comment… given enough time and chance, anything can happen in evolution. Order, disorder, junk DNA, non-junk DNA, gradualism, punctuated equillibrium, distinctly different evolution because of divergence; similar/identical convergent and parallel evolution even when separated, defiance of genetic entropy, manufacturing of specified, complex coded information, ancient organisms with virtually identical DNA as present organisms, fast-reproducing organisms, slow-reproducing organisms.

Well, technically, they’re correct. Given enough time, anything that is logically possible can happen.
":

The above reminds me of a recent statement I made where I pointed out that a dead human being, missing a heart, cannot be brought back to life by merely putting in a new heart. The more important point – the organic materials that compose a human being cannot be put together by scientists into a living human being.

The response to these blatantly obvious truths were that doctors have been successful with heart transplants and that humans who have died have been resuscusitated with electric shock.

So, to my claim that scientists cannot create a human being out of organic components or bring back to life a human being that is missing a heart – the answer is that it actually happens all the time.

I didn’t say that scientists created a human being out of organic components, but certainly, dead humans are given hearts, and then restored to life rather frequently. I don’t understand what the issue is - do you disagree that such a procedure takes place daily?

From the posted article:Now, some of those same researchers are back, reporting on the first-ever study of the appendix through the ages. Writing in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Duke scientists and collaborators from the University of Arizona and Arizona State University conclude that Charles Darwin was wrong: The appendix is a whole lot more than an evolutionary remnant. Not only does it appear in nature much more frequently than previously acknowledged, but it has been around much longer than anyone had suspected.

“Maybe it’s time to correct the textbooks,” says William Parker, Ph.D., assistant professor of surgical sciences at Duke and the senior author of the study. "Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a ‘vestigial organ.’"That is, another failed prediction for evolutionary theory.

Absolutely correct, a failed prediction for evolutionary theory. Something must be wrong somewhere - we had better go back and do more research, and use our findings to update our model.

Incidentally, why are you focusing on failed predictions of evolutionary theory? What are you concluding?

 

[Mersenne]

That is not true. Buildings have builders and paintings do have painters. There is actual design in nature.

Peace,
Ed

“Nuh uh” is not an argument.

 

[rossum]

Another example: Birds evolved from dinosaurs. Not true. Birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they’re supposedly descended from.

So ed, since I am a contemporary European then all Americans living before me who claimed to be descended from Europeans are mistaken?

There were a great many species of dinosaurs; some gave rise to birds while other continued on as land living dinosaurs. Just as some Europeans moved to America and gave rise to modern Americans while other Europeans stayed in Europe and carried on being Europeans.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

So ed, since I am a contemporary European then all Americans living before me who claimed to be descended from Europeans are mistaken?

There were a great many species of dinosaurs; some gave rise to birds while other continued on as land living dinosaurs. Just as some Europeans moved to America and gave rise to modern Americans while other Europeans stayed in Europe and carried on being Europeans.

rossum

Your statement shows the irrational disconnect and illogical thinking one must adopt to embrace the evolutionary belief system.

First, my primary concern is dead things that have, supposedly, not been seen by modern human beings. Then we have the study of things that are alive today, like Europeans.

Evolutionists, like Darwin, have made many wishful thinking statements. They have reordered the world to fit their worldview. Look, they say, we have single celled organisms, fish, amphibians and land dwelling creatures. Surely, the wishful thinking goes, everything started out single celled, then moved on to fish, amphibians and land dwelling creatues – yet all of these are alive Today. Yet evolutionists insist they all evolved in a certain order.

Birds evolved from dinosaurs? I don’t think that can be proven. National Geographic did a stunningly ill-conceived issue showing dinosaurs sprouting feathers. The curator of birds at the Smithsonian berated them for their hasty action before the facts were in. Their zeal was clearly out of a desire for wish fulfillment, and a foreknowledge that science would prove them right, after the fact.

As this thread shows, what is presented to the public as true, accurate and virtually carved in stone is proven wrong. But the belief system cannot be allowed to go away. If it were shown, next week, that gerbils are the descendants of dinosaurs, no one would bat an eyelash. Meanwhile, a chart has been published showing an ancient lemur-like creature that will, we are told, evolve into a human being. This cannot be confirmed by experiment.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Your statement shows the irrational disconnect and illogical thinking one must adopt to embrace the evolutionary belief system.

I was using a simple example to show why it is possible for dinosaurs to exist after birds evolved from other earlier dinosaurs. That is “possible”, not definite. As I am sure you know ed, science does not do much “definite”, what is mostly does is “very probable”.

First, my primary concern is dead things that have, supposedly, not been seen by modern human beings. Then we have the study of things that are alive today, like Europeans.

The Europeans who were alive before 1492 are no longer alive, only their descendants. The Europeans who migrated to America in the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and much of the 19th centuries are no longer alive. Do you think that makes any difference to the probable history of European immigration to America?

Look, they say, we have single celled organisms, fish, amphibians and land dwelling creatures. Surely, the wishful thinking goes, everything started out single celled, then moved on to fish, amphibians and land dwelling creatues – yet all of these are alive Today. Yet evolutionists insist they all evolved in a certain order.

Not wishful thinking but evidence based deductions from morphological, fossil and genetic evidence. Are you really saying that there can be no Europeans alive today because some Europeans moved to America many years ago? Evolution deals with populations, and populations can split into different parts. One part can go one way (staying in Europe) while the other part goees another way (moving to America). Both populations can survive in parallel and have descendants. Some single celled organisms evolved muti-cellularity while other single celled organisms stayed single celled. Both groups have modern living descendants.

Birds evolved from dinosaurs? I don’t think that can be proven.

Agreed. Science does not do proof, all it does is find the best currently available explanation.

National Geographic did a stunningly ill-conceived issue showing dinosaurs sprouting feathers.

Archaeoraptor was a forgery and NG were rightly criticised for publishing before the full examination of the ‘fossil’ was completed. That scientific examination detected forgery. There are other examples of non-flying feathered dinosaurs from China: Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Microraptor etc.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Well then, instead of offering the best possible explanation, we have “evolution is a fact” statements posted here regularly. If I went into a court of law, presented the evidence and the jury declares evolution is a fact, and things change, in some cases drastically, what is the public to think? People studying birds, we are now told, sort of missed the fact that the arrangement of bones in a bird are designed to prevent lung collapse, a fundamental finding that scientists are wondering how they missed it after a very long period of time.

Meanwhile, I hope you can understand my puzzlement over the many evolution related posts that put forth the evidence, along with interpretations that are apparently carved in stone, to make the following pronouncements: the Bible is a bunch of bronze age myths, Adam and Eve individuals?, you have got to kidding, the evidence shows… and so on.

In other words, the numerous people that are so assured that we (they) can now confidently say, this or that in the Bible never happened, is symbolic and so on.

This is a rush to judgement based on the ardent desire to kick God out of His own Creation and to deny His work.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Well then, instead of offering the best possible explanation, we have “evolution is a fact” statements posted here regularly.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.* Evolution-as-fact: the genomes of the organisms in an interbreeding population change over time.

• Evolution-as-theory: the reasons for this observed change over time are random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, founder effect etc.

The same can be seen for gavity:* Gravity-as-fact: things fall down.

• Gravity-as-theory: the reason things fall down is because they are following geodesics in a curved space-time manifold.

Notice that in both cases the X-as-theory part can change. Newton’s theory of gravity knew nothing of geodesics in space-time, those are parts of Einstein’s theory. Einstein’s theory surrounds Newton’s theory and extends it to areas where Newton’s theory failed: gravitational lensing and the precession of the orbit of Mercury for example. Similarly evolution-as-theory has changed over time. The two major changes since Darwin have been the incorporation of Mendelian genetics in the 1930s (the “Modern Synthesis”) and the incorporation of DNA sequencing data which is still ongoing.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory, just as gravity is both a fact and a theory.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

Incidentally, why are you focusing on failed predictions of evolutionary theory? What are you concluding?

I have already drawn conclusions about Darwinian theory. I focus on the falsifcations and failed predictions because they give support to my conclusions and they are very informative. They also may help some people break free from an addictive/idolatrous relationship with evolution (substituting Darwin for God).



Now we can see from many examples that Darwin is not a substitution for God – since Darwin was very wrong about many things.

We can learn a lot about this falsification of Darwinian claims.

It’s not hard to recall that Darwinists used the human appendix as a means of supporting their theory. It was part of their argument – and many arrogant atheists (and their felllow-travellers) ridiculed the idea that the appendix was anything but a vestigal organ – a perfect bit of evidence in support of the “truth” of evolution.

It was mainly creationists who proclaimed that the appendix was not vestigal – and the creationists were proven correct, while the evolutionists were proven wrong.

Of course, that part of the story will be covered-up, as it has been.

But the learning continues:

1. As I posted already, this comment is quite apt:
   … after evolutionists claim something “is evidence of evolution”, i.e., junk DNA, or their supposed dino-bird link, (or that the appendix is vestigal) when it is later found to not be true, evolutionists then say “well, evolutionary theory never predicted those things in the first place, and the new facts are entirely consistent with evolutionary theory.”…
   When your theory can take two entirely contradictory evidences(junk DNA and not-junk DNA) and interpret them both as supportive of your theory, then you don’t have much of a theory.

So, here we have a long-standing claim falsified – and evolutionists will claim that the contradiction of their earlier claims fits perfectly into their theory. That’s important to recognize. It brings to mind this important quote:

evolutionary theory is extraordinarily pliable. Evolutionary theory adapts to data like fog adapts to landscape. It is really just a smorgasbord of countless possible naturalistic explanations that theorists effortlessly adapt to the data. — Walter James ReMine, The Biotic Message

We can see the truth of that quote clearly with this news story. Since the time of Darwin, the appendix was presented as an “icon of evolution” – solid evidence that showed how undeniable evolution is. Now that icon has fallen – proven to be false after all of this time.

What will that mean for Darwinists? Will they allow further criticisms of evolutionary theory? Perhaps some day, after more falsifications embarrass them. But for now, the hard-core Darwinists still pretend that there is nothing to question or doubt about evolutionary claims. Even in the face of this blatant falsifcation – they pretend that evolutionary claims cannot possibly be open for debate. They close this possiblity in classrooms – running in fear of creationists. And that is understandable because this time, the creationists were proven right.

So, we can see the hypocricy of the Darwinian enterprise.
We can see that evolutionary theory is useless. Here a long-standing “truth” is overthrown, and what does that mean for evolution or for the world?
It means nothing except that textbooks have to be rewritten (and it may take decades for textbooks to admit that the appendix is not vestigal).
So, evolutionary theory contributes almost nothing.
We can see also, that it is built on assumptions, not verified facts. It was an assumption that the appendix was vestigal. But that was proclaimed as a fact.
How much more of evolutionary theory is as false as this claim was proven to be?
That’s a good question – and that’s another good reason for attacking evolutionary theory because in so doing, one will discover more false claims.

So, one of the prominent arguments supporting evolutionary theory is proven false. Shouldn’t this mean that evolutionary theory is weaker now? How about the fact that this was not the first claim of a vestigal organ proven to be non-vestigal? There have been several just like this.
Again, we can learn not to trust what evolutionists claim.
We can realize that they’re spinning fantasy stories, lies or more innocently, unfounded speculations based on assumptions.

 

[PaulF2]

All it means is that unintelligent blind physical processes over millions of years can often create things that are complex and difficult to replicate in short periods of time in a lab. This is a fact. When can simulate similar processes, and blind purposeless physical laws CAN create incredibly complex things. In fact people have been tinkering with doing real design using evolutionary processes, and it works very well, and, not surprising, the results tend to have a very organic feel to them.

I would suggest looking into fractals, emergent properties. The truth is often there are buildings that don’t have builders, and paintings that don’t have painters.

Mersenne,

It “works very well”, eh? Where are the examples of observed macroevolution your statement rather suggests should exist? How many millions of generations of bacteria have been observed in the lab with no new features and no species changed observed?

I’ve suggested before that you learn the basics of information theory and I’ll suggest that again. Do you think there is more information contained in any fractal product than is contained in the equations describing it?

 

[PaulF2]

I used to think that was true until I read about bacteria found in dirt in Canada that were immune to natural and synthetic antibiotics. It rendered moot the whole idea of bacteria eating nylon. Then I read how some hospital bacteria actually lost genetic information to stave off antibiotics, and how those bacteria could not survive in the wild.

I read about antibiotics on an atheist forum. That appears to be one more thing they hold on to regarding their faith in science. Bacteria have the built-in ability to exchange bits of genetic material between other species of bacteria. It’s built in. I’m no longer convinced that gradual, incremental changes brought about this characteristic. A better explanation is intelligent desigm.

I also used to take it for granted when I was told that scientists believe that planets with water and amino acids have the ‘building blocks of life.’ Then after reexamining this statement, I realized what a huge, unprovable assumption that was. There is no way scientists can take amino acids and water and create life.

Ouch, Ed - microevolution occurs. Nobody doubts that. I mean even all the proponents of intelligent design fully acknowledge that microevolution occurs. It is species change and the development of new, complex features that are very problematic.

It is directly observable. This is not a statement that should be controversial.

 

[tjm190]

Having a function does not mean it’s not vestigial- if we somehow magically became able to fly our legs would be vestigial- but we could still kick things with them.

 

[edwest2]

Ouch, Ed - microevolution occurs. Nobody doubts that. I mean even all the proponents of intelligent design fully acknowledge that microevolution occurs. It is species change and the development of new, complex features that are very problematic.

It is directly observable. This is not a statement that should be controversial.

“Nobody doubts that”? Why not?

There are TWO types of evolution being discussed here: old dead things evolution, and the supposed evolution of living things like bacteria evolution.

Let’s start with bacteria. First of all, bacteria have the ability to exchange bits of genetic material with other species of bacteria. Got that? Viruses have the ability to change their outer protein coat if they come across something they don’t like. OK? And if scientists find bacteria in dirt in Canada that are already resistant to natural and synthetic antibacterials, what does that tell you?

So, in conclusion, bacteria can do something no macro creature can do, but they always remain bacteria. They don’t sprout arms and legs. Viruses always remain viruses no matter how many coat changes occur.

Let’s go over to old dead things. The laws of probability go against the idea that something could change into something else or that free floating parts that did one thing could end up somewhere else doing something else. If you’ve ever put together a complex device which involves a rod that must have Part A go on first, followed by Part B, a washer and a plastic spacer, and then another part, you know it has to go together in the right order to work right. A simple cell is far more complex.

To blame it on nature implies some sort of intelligence. To blame it on chance, means you have to get all the parts together in the right spots, at the right size and with the right shape. Can you just swap out parts between a Chevy and a Volvo? Can you just put parts anywhere? Of course not. Even if you found a similar part, odds are it’s too long or too short, too thin or too thick, or it has a bend in it that means it will make contact with something it shouldn’t.

I am against the idea of being a card carrying member of any movement, including ID. I think it would be better to think outside of the box, to reexamine established assumptions and to show that iffy scenarios are far more improbable than advertised.

Final thought. Some years ago, with the permission of the Egyptian government, a Japanese team attempted to build a small scale replica of a pyramid. They had plans, heavy equipment and a timetable – they failed. I’m glad they tried though.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Shredderbeam]

I have already drawn conclusions about Darwinian theory. I focus on the falsifcations and failed predictions because they give support to my conclusions and they are very informative. They also may help some people break free from an addictive/idolatrous relationship with evolution (substituting Darwin for God).http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2009/02/10/darwinboardx-topper-medium.jpg

The conclusion you are drawing (evolution did not occur) does not follow from your premises (evolutionists have made predictions that turned out to be false), as the evidence in support of evolution has not been refuted. Predictions are usually made about details within evolution (how quickly it occurs, which species evolved into which, etc.), and if they are wrong, it shows that that particular part of the theory needs to be reexamined.

As to the billboard, I would assume that its creators are not seriously advocating worshiping a British biologist.

reggieM:

Now we can see from many examples that Darwin is not a substitution for God – since Darwin was very wrong about many things.

We can learn a lot about this falsification of Darwinian claims.

It’s not hard to recall that Darwinists used the human appendix as a means of supporting their theory. It was part of their argument – and many arrogant atheists (and their felllow-travellers) ridiculed the idea that the appendix was anything but a vestigal organ – a perfect bit of evidence in support of the “truth” of evolution.

It was mainly creationists who proclaimed that the appendix was not vestigal – and the creationists were proven correct, while the evolutionists were proven wrong.

Of course, that part of the story will be covered-up, as it has been.

I don’t know why you’re using an “us versus them”, or a “evolutionists versus creationists” approach, though - this isn’t a war between atheists and Christians. Sure, some arrogant atheists/evolutionists might have seized upon the appendix as the “ultimate proof” of evolution, and were subsequently shown to have jumped the gun and made fools of themselves - but you can’t paint us all with the same brush and claim that evolutionists have suffered some sort of collective blow.

reggieM:

But the learning continues:

1. As I posted already, this comment is quite apt:… after evolutionists claim something “is evidence of evolution”, i.e., junk DNA, or their supposed dino-bird link, (or that the appendix is vestigal) when it is later found to not be true, evolutionists then say “well, evolutionary theory never predicted those things in the first place, and the new facts are entirely consistent with evolutionary theory.”…
   When your theory can take two entirely contradictory evidences(junk DNA and not-junk DNA) and interpret them both as supportive of your theory, then you don’t have much of a theory.So, here we have a long-standing claim falsified – and evolutionists will claim that the contradiction of their earlier claims fits perfectly into their theory. That’s important to recognize.

Ok, so you’ve established that evolutionists can make mistakes. Great, but in order to demonstrate that evolution is complete bunk, you would have to show that all, or at least most, of the evidence in support of it is fatally flawed. Hammering away on one or two examples will not prove your case.

reggieM:

It brings to mind this important quote:evolutionary theory is extraordinarily pliable. Evolutionary theory adapts to data like fog adapts to landscape. It is really just a smorgasbord of countless possible naturalistic explanations that theorists effortlessly adapt to the data. — Walter James ReMine, The Biotic MessageWe can see the truth of that quote clearly with this news story. Since the time of Darwin, the appendix was presented as an “icon of evolution” – solid evidence that showed how undeniable evolution is. Now that icon has fallen – proven to be false after all of this time.

Would you rather that theories stubbornly refuse to change to accommodate new evidence?

reggieM:

What will that mean for Darwinists? Will they allow further criticisms of evolutionary theory? Perhaps some day, after more falsifications embarrass them. But for now, the hard-core Darwinists still pretend that there is nothing to question or doubt about evolutionary claims. Even in the face of this blatant falsifcation – they pretend that evolutionary claims cannot possibly be open for debate. They close this possiblity in classrooms – running in fear of creationists. And that is understandable because this time, the creationists were proven right.

So, we can see the hypocricy of the Darwinian enterprise.
We can see that evolutionary theory is useless. Here a long-standing “truth” is overthrown, and what does that mean for evolution or for the world?
It means nothing except that textbooks have to be rewritten (and it may take decades for textbooks to admit that the appendix is not vestigal).
So, evolutionary theory contributes almost nothing.
We can see also, that it is built on assumptions, not verified facts. It was an assumption that the appendix was vestigal. But that was proclaimed as a fact.
How much more of evolutionary theory is as false as this claim was proven to be?
That’s a good question – and that’s another good reason for attacking evolutionary theory because in so doing, one will discover more false claims.

So, one of the prominent arguments supporting evolutionary theory is proven false. Shouldn’t this mean that evolutionary theory is weaker now? How about the fact that this was not the first claim of a vestigal organ proven to be non-vestigal? There have been several just like this.
Again, we can learn not to trust what evolutionists claim.
We can realize that they’re spinning fantasy stories, lies or more innocently, unfounded speculations based on assumptions.

“One prominent icon of evolution was an assumption that was proclaimed as fact, therefore all evidence in support of evolution is pure assumption, proclaimed as fact.”

I think that that is the “spotlight fallacy”. Correct me if I am wrong.

nizkor.org/features/fallacies/spotlight.html

 

[reggieM]

The conclusion you are drawing (evolution did not occur)

You’re arriving at a conclusion that I didn’t post. I will say, however, that evolution (molecules-to-man) is not a fact.

as the evidence in support of evolution has not been refuted.

This evidence (human appendix not vestigal) has been refuted. So, that’s just one point – not the total picture.

Predictions are usually made about details within evolution (how quickly it occurs, which species evolved into which, etc.), and if they are wrong, it shows that that particular part of the theory needs to be reexamined.

I think it’s interesting to consider how many parts of the theory need to be reexamined right now. Additionally, how many parts of the theory need to be falsified in order for someone to correctly conclude that the theory itself is false?

I don’t know why you’re using an “us versus them”, or a “evolutionists versus creationists” approach, though - this isn’t a war between atheists and Christians.

I think the billboard I posted was quite hostile. I don’t think it “should” be a war between evolutionists and believers but I think it has escalated to that point.

Sure, some arrogant atheists/evolutionists might have seized upon the appendix as the “ultimate proof” of evolution, and were subsequently shown to have jumped the gun and made fools of themselves - but you can’t paint us all with the same brush and claim that evolutionists have suffered some sort of collective blow.

That is certainly a good point. I am only speaking in general terms about the most prominent voices in evolutionary science. Many were quite arrogant about their claims – and the appendix was one of those “icons” that was put forward as if it was an absolutely certain proof of evolutionary theory. I’m sure there are many others who are more cautious about their claims though, so that is good to reminded of.

Ok, so you’ve established that evolutionists can make mistakes. Great, but in order to demonstrate that evolution is complete bunk, you would have to show that all, or at least most, of the evidence in support of it is fatally flawed. Hammering away on one or two examples will not prove your case.

Again – excellent point. If the appendix was the only issue of concern, then there would be little reason to question evolutionary theory in general. Additionally, it’s almost impossible to prove that “everything” in evolutionary theory is complete bunk. Some will take the most trivial example of adaptation and claim that as proof for molecules-to-man evolution. But that is not a reasonable argument (just as claiming that there is “nothing” true in evolutionary theory is not reasonable).

Would you rather that theories stubbornly refuse to change to accommodate new evidence?

No, but I would prefer that speculations and conclusions built on assumptions should not be presented as if they are facts. In fact, I’m more in favor of permitting the many flaws and errors that have been presented in evolutionary theory to be exposed to the light of day. Beyond that, I would like to see all of the theorizing that is built on flimsy evidence to be admitted for what it is – guesswork at best.
There is actually much of evolutionary theory that fits into the category of “built on flimsy evidence” – but that information does not get published widely at all.

“One prominent icon of evolution was an assumption that was proclaimed as fact, therefore all evidence in support of evolution is pure assumption, proclaimed as fact.”

I think that that is the “spotlight fallacy”. Correct me if I am wrong.

nizkor.org/features/fallacies/spotlight.html

I think you’re right here. That would be a logical fallacy. But again, this is making the argument too easy (and many evolutionists take this approach).
It sets up the argument as being “**all **evidence of evolution” is pure assumption.

Now, all the evolutionist needs to do is show one, trivial bit of evidence that might support evolution and then proclaim victory.

But the point is not that “all” proposed evidence is built on assumptions. But rather, that evolution (which is molecules-to-man via unintelligent, unconscious, purposeless, blind processes) is not supported by the evidence.

There are many flaws and problems with that theory and some competent professional scientists have expressed their concerns about evolutionary theory also.

If it was eventually accepted on a widespread basis that there are many gaps in the theory then there would be far less reason for the sharp division between theistic and atheistic scientists (as there is almost no division among mathematicians of those beliefs).

 

[Shredderbeam]

You’re arriving at a conclusion that I didn’t post. I will say, however, that evolution (molecules-to-man) is not a fact.

All right then.

reggieM:

I think it’s interesting to consider how many parts of the theory need to be reexamined right now. Additionally, how many parts of the theory need to be falsified in order for someone to correctly conclude that the theory itself is false?

For the theory to be falsified, the main evidence in support of macroevolution would have to be shown to be false. Alternatively, a discovery of “fossil rabbits in the Precambrian”, or a similar anachronism would show it to be false.

reggieM:

I think the billboard I posted was quite hostile. I don’t think it “should” be a war between evolutionists and believers but I think it has escalated to that point.

I think it was quite hostile too, and I am upset that those are the sort of people who represent all evolutionists.

reggieM:

Again – excellent point. If the appendix was the only issue of concern, then there would be little reason to question evolutionary theory in general. Additionally, it’s almost impossible to prove that “everything” in evolutionary theory is complete bunk. Some will take the most trivial example of adaptation and claim that as proof for molecules-to-man evolution. But that is not a reasonable argument (just as claiming that there is “nothing” true in evolutionary theory is not reasonable).

If evolutionary theory was refuted, I am sure there would be those who would refuse to accept it, and who would hold up anything as evidence, yes. I’m really only talking about macroevolution, though, and the evidence in favor of that.

reggieM:

No, but I would prefer that speculations and conclusions built on assumptions should not be presented as if they are facts. In fact, I’m more in favor of permitting the many flaws and errors that have been presented in evolutionary theory to be exposed to the light of day. Beyond that, I would like to see all of the theorizing that is built on flimsy evidence to be admitted for what it is – guesswork at best.
There is actually much of evolutionary theory that fits into the category of “built on flimsy evidence” – but that information does not get published widely at all.

Speculations and conclusions that are built on assumptions should not be presented as facts. I agree.

reggieM:

I think you’re right here. That would be a logical fallacy. But again, this is making the argument too easy (and many evolutionists take this approach).
It sets up the argument as being “**all **evidence of evolution” is pure assumption.

Now, all the evolutionist needs to do is show one, trivial bit of evidence that might support evolution and then proclaim victory.

If an evolutionist does that, they are being (I think) unreasonable.

reggieM:

But the point is not that “all” proposed evidence is built on assumptions. But rather, that evolution (which is molecules-to-man via unintelligent, unconscious, purposeless, blind processes) is not supported by the evidence.

Well, we could discuss the evidence here.

reggieM:

There are many flaws and problems with that theory and some competent professional scientists have expressed their concerns about evolutionary theory also.

There are flaws and problems with the theory of evolution, yes, but most of these deal with the process of evolution, or how organisms evolve.

There are dissidents, true enough, but I think that every field will have its dissidents, and on the whole, virtually all scientists believe that macroevolution has occurred.

reggieM:

If it was eventually accepted on a widespread basis that there are many gaps in the theory then there would be far less reason for the sharp division between theistic and atheistic scientists (as there is almost no division among mathematicians of those beliefs).

I agree.