Macro Evolution is a Dead Theory

[Guest 2smart4u]

Just finished two books that blow apart Darwin's macro evolution theory. One is Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and the other is Philip Johnson's "Darwin On Trial".

I challenge any Darwiniac to read these books and not be convinced that Darwin was a fraud.

Now of course, there are those who will keep their eyes closed in a forest and deny the existence of trees. These types are not interested, they don't want to think differently.

But for those with an open mind and an interest in "Intelligent Design / Evolution, these books are a must-read.

[Strife767]

Just finished two books that blow apart Darwin's macro evolution theory.

Or so you think, considering that you've already admitted that you will intentionally ignore any of the real evidence.

One is Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box"

Wrecked already (but I know you'll put your fingers in your ears and go "LALALA" at this link anyway, so for the benefit of those of us who actually enjoy using our brains): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

Refute that, hotshot.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_...tific_community

and the other is Philip Johnson's "Darwin On  Trial".

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/johnson.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_on_Trial#Criticisms

More of Johnson's idiocy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson#HIV_and_AIDS

Don't you creationists keep up with each other? Neither of these books are news (they came out in 1996 and 1991 respectively)--they have been exposed for the nonsense they are years ago.

I challenge any Darwiniac to read these books and not be convinced that Darwin was a fraud.

We're apparently all way ahead of you.

Now of course, there are those who will keep their eyes closed in a forest and deny the existence of trees. These types are not interested, they don't want to think differently.

   But for those with an open mind and an interest in "Intelligent Design / Evolution, these books are a must-read.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yup, go ahead and read those books, whoever wants. But those of us with working brains will notice how rife with errors both books are--in conclusion, get the books at a library if you can, otherwise you'll be annoyed with yourself for spending the money.

[Strife767]

Oh, and in response to the topic title: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA110.html

"1. Evolution is one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science. It is nowhere near a theory in crisis.

2. This claim has been made constantly since even before Darwin. In all that time, the theory of evolution has only gotten stronger. Prior to the development of evolutionary theory, almost 100 percent of relevant scientists were creationists. Now the number is far less than 1 percent. The numbers continue to drop as the body of evidence supporting evolutionary theory continues to build. Thus, claims of scientists abandoning evolution theory for creationism are untrue."

Your blabbering about evolution (macro or micro) being 'dead' is just wishful thinking--the ToE is stronger now than it's ever been. You're better off sticking to your own fantasy world--obviously, you can't handle reality.

[Strife767]

Double-post + weirdness; ignore.

[an American in Texas]

2smart4u (oh, the delicious irony!), let me invite you to the Beliefnet/Origins of Life discussion. We'd love to debate Behe and Johnson with you.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

[Guest DingoDave]

Dear '2smart',

Are you the kind of person who still refers to automobiles as 'horseless carriages'?

You and Bryan make a great team.

If you joined forces, it wouldn't surprise me if you guys couldn't re-discover gunpowder.

[Guest DingoDave]

Dear '2smart',

Are you the kind of person who still refers to automobiles as 'horseless carriages'?

You and Bryan make a great team.

If you joined forces, it wouldn't surprise me if you guys couldn't re-discover gunpowder.

[God Save Us From Christians]

Just finished two books that blow apart Darwin's macro evolution theory.  One is Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and the other is Philip Johnson's "Darwin On  Trial".

  I challenge any Darwiniac to read these books and not be convinced that Darwin was a fraud.

  Now of course, there are those who will keep their eyes closed in a forest and deny the existence of trees. These types are not interested, they don't want to think differently.

  But for those with an open mind and an interest in "Intelligent Design / Evolution, these books are a must-read.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

WOW, I'm impressed.

you actually read something other than the Bible!

You do have half a brain.

Funny how you point fingers at people who will keep their eyes closed, etc.

There is a name for people like that - Christians. Not interested in learning about anything but the Bible and stuff that supports the bible.

[Calybos]

I've read both books as well, and I know enough science to spot their errors and (to put it politely) incorrect assumptions, as well as their sweeping generalizations and philosophical meanderings.

If evolution has been falsified, it's a shame that not one reputable biologist across the globe has heard about it--or agrees with you. Must be a conspiracy, huh?

[Guest 2smart4u]

Oh, and in response to the topic title: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA110.html

"1. Evolution is one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science. It is nowhere near a theory in crisis.

2. This claim has been made constantly since even before Darwin. In all that time, the theory of evolution has only gotten stronger. Prior to the development of evolutionary theory, almost 100 percent of relevant scientists were creationists. Now the number is far less than 1 percent. The numbers continue to drop as the body of evidence supporting evolutionary theory continues to build. Thus, claims of scientists abandoning evolution theory for creationism are untrue."

Your blabbering about evolution (macro or micro) being 'dead' is just wishful thinking--the ToE is stronger now than it's ever been. You're better off sticking to your own fantasy world--obviously, you can't handle reality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have to laugh at your reliance on "Talk Origins Archives". If there was ever an atheistic web site, that's it. What you don't seem to understand or want to accept is while evolution is valid, I.D. and evolution are not mutually exclusive. While christians believe the incredibly complex life designs reflect the hand of God, atheists insist it is all serendipity, a crapshoot, or "natural selection" ( has a better sound to it). God is the unknown factor in this equation, God's hand can't be proven or disproven. If you and the rest of the heathens want to believe all life is the result of serendipity, go for it. I'm on the side of the christians who acknowledge evolution is valid but it was designed by God and we are the result of his plan.

[Guest 2smart4u]

I've read both books as well, and I know enough science to spot their errors and (to put it politely) incorrect assumptions, as well as their sweeping generalizations and philosophical meanderings.

If evolution has been falsified, it's a shame that not one reputable biologist across the globe has heard about it--or agrees with you. Must be a conspiracy, huh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Read my response to Strife.

[Guest Guest]

Just finished two books that blow apart Darwin's macro evolution theory.  One is Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and the other is Philip Johnson's "Darwin On  Trial".

  I challenge any Darwiniac to read these books and not be convinced that Darwin was a fraud.

  Now of course, there are those who will keep their eyes closed in a forest and deny the existence of trees. These types are not interested, they don't want to think differently.

  But for those with an open mind and an interest in "Intelligent Design / Evolution, these books are a must-read.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, what exactly do those books propose?

Can you give a brief summary that speaks to the core of their arguments?

[Strife767]

I have to laugh at your reliance on "Talk Origins Archives".

As opposed to your reliance on proven liars and crackpots?

If there was ever an atheistic web site, that's it.

Oh, really? Well, let's see what I can find on this oh-so-atheistic website:

"For a claim that is so obviously false, it gets repeated surprisingly often. Evolution does not require a God, but it does not rule one out either. In that respect, it is no different from almost all other fields of interest. Evolution is no more atheistic than biochemistry, farming, engineering, plumbing, art, law, and so forth." --http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA602.html

What you don't seem to understand or want to accept is while evolution is valid, I.D. and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Duh. But the fact of the matter is that creationism/ID are religion, and not science, while evolution is science, and not religion.

While christians believe the incredibly complex life designs reflect the hand of God, atheists insist it is all serendipity, a crapshoot,

An absolute lie. Atheists tend to accept evolution (which is wrongly defined by you and lots of other creationists as being merely a factor of chance), which is the only real scientific explanation for the state life exists in today. So, since obviously an atheist isn't going to turn to supernatural/religious "explanations" that don't really explain anything, they really only have one choice.

or "natural selection" ( has a better sound to it).

You really ought to learn what natural selection actually is. Free clue: it is the exact opposite of chance/luck/serendipity/crapshoot/etc. So you making it sound like it's just a rewording of those things just makes you look more idiotic.

God is the unknown factor in this equation, God's hand can't be proven or disproven. If you and the rest of the heathens want to believe all life is the result of serendipity, go for it.

None of your so-called "heathens" believe that--it's just your straw man making another appearance.

I'm on the side of the christians who acknowledge evolution is valid but it was designed by God and we are the result of his plan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You just can't accept the fact that evolution doesn't need a god to 'work.' Look at how you arrogantly snuff your nose at anyone who doesn't automatically throw your god into the equation. Who do you think you are to look down on any atheist or anyone else who doesn't believe in your god? Fact is, you can't prove a damned thing about your god even existing let alone having caused anything, so do yourself and everyone else a favor and stop looking down your nose--it only makes you look like more of an ass for being so confident and arrogant about the truth of something you have no choice but to admit you can't be sure about.

[Strife767]

Well, what exactly do those books propose?

Can you give a brief summary that speaks to the core of their arguments?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you really want to know:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/johnson.html

If, on the other hand, you just want to see how much of an understanding 2dim truly has of the stuff in those books, I'm right there with you.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

I have to laugh at your reliance on "Talk Origins Archives".  If there was ever an atheistic web site, that's it.  What you don't seem to understand or want to accept is while evolution is valid, I.D. and evolution are not mutually exclusive. While christians believe the incredibly complex life designs reflect the hand of God, atheists insist it is all serendipity, a crapshoot, or "natural selection" ( has a better sound to it).    God is the unknown factor in this equation, God's hand can't be proven or disproven.  If you and the rest of the heathens want to believe all life is the result of serendipity, go for it.  I'm on the side of the christians who acknowledge evolution is valid but it was designed by God and we are the result of his plan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is enitrely possible that God had his hand in evolution, in fact that may have been god's plan all along. What myself and others have a hard time grasping is the Bibles version of where we came from. 2000 years ago and poof he we are. Sorry, I don't buy it, that's not to say that there is no Intelligent Design.

[Calybos]

Read my response to Strife.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Read the definition of "Science." It involves studying natural processes and NOT resorting to supernatural explanations for anything.

If anyone chooses to believe that a god is behind evolution, they're free to do so--but it's not going to get any air-time in a science classroom, because such speculations have nothing to do with legitimate science.

[Guest Guest]

Read the definition of "Science." It involves studying natural processes and NOT resorting to supernatural explanations for anything.

If anyone chooses to believe that a god is behind evolution, they're free to do so--but it's not going to get any air-time in a science classroom, because such speculations have nothing to do with legitimate science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I got "Darwin's Black Box" from the library this morning. I just finished the first chapter, 21 pages. I would encourage anyone who's interested in "Intelligent Design" to read this book. Just reading the first chapter, you can see how "Macro-evolution" is simply impossible without a "designer". I won't try to explain here why it's so convincing, you'll have to read it for yourself.

[Guest 2smart4u]

I've read both books as well, and I know enough science to spot their errors and (to put it politely) incorrect assumptions, as well as their sweeping generalizations and philosophical meanderings.

If evolution has been falsified, it's a shame that not one reputable biologist across the globe has heard about it--or agrees with you. Must be a conspiracy, huh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"you can spot their errors" ??? Oh PLEASE, don't tell me you think you can proof read a book written by a molecular biologist with a PhD. I recognize you have a misguided superiority complex (Kool-aid will do that), but you need to know your limitations. You are good for a laugh.

[Calybos]

"you can spot their errors" ???  Oh PLEASE,  don't tell me you think you can proof read a book written by a molecular biologist with a PhD.  I recognize you have a misguided superiority complex (Kool-aid will do that), but you need to know your limitations.  You are good for a laugh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In Darwin's Black Box, Behe is doing little more than dressing up an Argument from Incredulity/Complexity and calling it science. He's saying "Look at biological structure X. Since I personally can't think of a way such a thing could have evolved, it obviously must NOT have evolved. Therefore, God did it."

His examples of so-called "irreducible complexity" proceed from some fundamental misunderstandings about how organic structures have, in fact, been proven and observed to evolve, as well as a healthy dose of the God of the Gaps--anything not currently explained is Proof of God's Handiwork. This is a factual as well as a philsophical fallacy, and only those already predisposed to finding fault with evolution would fall for it.

Obvious problems with Behe include

*His failure to address the vast amounts of "junk genes" floating around in our supposedly well-designed chromosomes.

*His proven false claim (Chapter 6) about the "uselessness" of antibodies in isolation. This one is a HUGE blunder that any reputable biologist would be embarrassed to have his name associated with.

*The thousands of examples of bad and near-perfect copies arising from known, and even predictable, replication methods (so much for "new information has to come from somewhere").

*His insistence that No Research has been done on interdependent systems both between and within organisms (or even between metabolic enzymes), when in fact such research already exists.

No, you don't need to be a PhD in evolutionary biology to spot Behe's mistakes. But to embrace Behe's mindset, you just have to declare--as you do, 2dim--that "If it's too hard for me to understand, it must be proof that God did it." The only mystery is why Behe continues to claim that what he's doing is science.

[Guest 2smart4u]

In Darwin's Black Box, Behe is doing little more than dressing up an Argument from Incredulity/Complexity and calling it science. He's saying "Look at biological structure X. Since I personally can't think of a way such a thing could have evolved, it obviously must NOT have evolved. Therefore, God did it."

His examples of so-called "irreducible complexity" proceed from some fundamental misunderstandings about how organic structures have, in fact, been proven and observed to evolve, as well as a healthy dose of the God of the Gaps--anything not currently explained is Proof of God's Handiwork. This is a factual as well as a philsophical fallacy, and only those already predisposed to finding fault with evolution would fall for it.

Obvious problems with Behe include

*His failure to address the vast amounts of "junk genes" floating around in our supposedly well-designed chromosomes.

*His proven false claim (Chapter 6) about the "uselessness" of antibodies in isolation. This one is a HUGE blunder that any reputable biologist would be embarrassed to have his name associated with.

*The thousands of examples of bad and near-perfect copies arising from known, and even predictable, replication methods (so much for "new information has to come from somewhere").

*His insistence that No Research has been done on interdependent systems both between and within organisms (or even between metabolic enzymes), when in fact such research already exists.

No, you don't need to be a PhD in evolutionary biology to spot Behe's mistakes. But to embrace Behe's mindset, you just have to declare--as you do, 2dim--that "If it's too hard for me to understand, it must be proof that God did it." The only mystery is why Behe continues to claim that what he's doing is science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I've seen it all now. A science hobbyist with a high school chemisty background disputing a preeminent molecular biologist with a PhD. I won't bother to correct your blather, your resume speaks for itself.

[Strife767]

I got "Darwin's Black Box" from the library this morning.  I just finished the first chapter, 21 pages.  I would encourage anyone who's interested in "Intelligent Design" to read this book. Just reading the first chapter, you can see how "Macro-evolution" is simply impossible without a "designer". I won't try to explain here why it's so convincing, you'll have to read it for yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you understand that what you're suggesting is completely unscientific? The methodology, I mean.

"It couldn't have happened this way, therefore it happened that way" is not the way science works. Creationists are obsessed with trying to find flaws in the ToE, thinking that if they can refute it, then they will somehow have proven their side 'by default.'

Let me make this very clear to every creationist out there--if you ever DO completely overturn/refute the Theory of Evolution (and to date, no one has come close), your argument for a supernatural, 'top-down' "designer" will still be as weak as it was before. Stop slinging mud at the theory you don't like and start proving your own! That is how science works.

Nevertheless, people who understand science and were likely pretty annoyed by many of the inaccuracies in that book have gone to the trouble of addressing its premises directly: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

[Strife767]

"you can spot their errors" ???  Oh PLEASE,  don't tell me you think you can proof read a book written by a molecular biologist with a PhD.  I recognize you have a misguided superiority complex (Kool-aid will do that), but you need to know your limitations.  You are good for a laugh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Funny to hear that from someone who thinks he's better than others just because he has an imaginary friend.

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldO...e.shtml#reviews

Also, let me ask you something, hotshot--if Behe is such a brilliant scientist, how come he hasn't authored a single, solitary piece of research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal?

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldO...ehe.shtml#intro

[Calybos]

Well, I've seen it all now.  A science hobbyist with a high school chemisty background disputing a preeminent molecular biologist with a PhD. I won't bother to correct your blather, your resume speaks for itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

More ad-hominem speculation, vague dodges, and a refusal to follow up with any actual facts. More ducking to avoid acknowledging that you don't have the info or knowledge needed to defend ANY of these problems.

Exactly what I've come to expect from you, 2dim. Now, as soon as you can offer any actual PROOF for your claims, we'll all be here waiting in astonishment. Until then, keep up the childish sniping! It's the best thing you can do to make your side look foolish.

[Strife767]

Well, I've seen it all now.  A science hobbyist with a high school chemisty background disputing a preeminent molecular biologist with a PhD. I won't bother to correct your blather, your resume speaks for itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fallacious argument of the appeal to authority. Not to mention you're being a total hypocrite--you ignore the 99+% of molecular biologists who disagree with Behe, but take his side just because he says what you want to hear.

Regardless, one isn't right based on their qualifications or their convictions, but on the merits of their actual statements. Behe's argument of "too complex to have evolved" is fallacious, and is an argument that is rightly laughed out of every respectable scientific community in the world.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Do you understand that what you're suggesting is completely unscientific? The methodology, I mean.

"It couldn't have happened this way, therefore it happened that way" is not the way science works. Creationists are obsessed with trying to find flaws in the ToE, thinking that if they can refute it, then they will somehow have proven their side 'by default.'

Let me make this very clear to every creationist out there--if you ever DO completely overturn/refute the Theory of Evolution (and to date, no one has come close), your argument for a supernatural, 'top-down' "designer" will still be as weak as it was before. Stop slinging mud at the theory you don't like and start proving your own! That is how science works.

Nevertheless, people who understand science and were likely pretty annoyed by many of the inaccuracies in that book have gone to the trouble of addressing its premises directly: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I love the way you keep referencing this atheistic website. If you're not smart enough to recognize the stupidity of people like Keith Robison, I can't help you. The Darwiniacs are losing ground as science continues to develop more sophisticated tools to examine cell structure at the molecular level. And the more they discover, the more scientists realize it's more than serendipity.