The Rudeboy
2009-01-16, 13:20
This would have been posted and refined better if I had known before hand about this "20 years its over" situation. Anyway,
There is a lopsidedness in discussions. I've accepted that. That won't hinder my explanations in any way. Do not appeal to some creationist assumptions about science to reject an idea that is the opposite of a strict evolutionary theory in order to make a reply.
Currently all facts are interpreted according to a person, the person uses a reference. even what I am doing right at this moment. Generally, Evolution is interpreted behind Naturalism. Naturalism assumes that things came into existence, without divine intervention. This includes that nonliving matter spawned living matter, apes gave way to humans, non-intellect created intelligence, yearning created religion, ect. Through Naturalism, you can deduce Evolution. Many accept Evolution as the correct answer to the question of descent, becuase creationism seems to be the only other option, and is unnacredided.
But we did not come to the idea because we discovered it, we guessed that it existed and then looked for proof. -who do you think would identify with this?
I reject believing in the modern evolutionist idea, and the modern humanistic and naturalistic viewpoints. I reject them becuase I interpret them as such (equate "without cause" as "without divine intervention" as in "by accident"):
The universe came into existence from generally unsubstantiated particles expanding, without known cause. The solar system formed in the right proportions to have the right combination of compounds and elements on Earth, which is the proportionally correct distance from the Sun, without cause. The non living matter on Earth came into a living form, without cause. The matter eventually became man, and man eventually became intelligent, and eventually discovered astronomy, mathematics, and the like, as by products, as accidents of the movements of atoms.
If it was all chance, if it was an accident, why should I believe the general interpretation to be true? Why should I accept the general consensus?
I don't question observational science dealing with discoveries made in real time during that given moment before the speculations and inferences, only the theories made from speculations about the past made as though they were observations that have yet to be proven wrong, or baseless assumptions as many in the past have (Bohr's idea of an atom, or early bloodletting).
We observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past. To prove something, a credible eye witnessing of the event is required. This is impossible for the time before we existed.
It is the belief that we are of primordial pond scum which originated from nonliving matter, and at the end we like everything else will become extinct and cease to exist, along eventually with the Earth and the entire universe for that matter which perplexes me. I actually hardly disagree with the entire statement, yet my idea of a man from dust turned back into dust after death in a world that will suffer a terminal apocalypse and end all existence is met with ridicule, loosely speaking. I see a marginal difference with heated debate and defensive walls only as a result of personal experience with persons and those persons' personal ideas and experiences. This is why I am confused, since the similarities are so ignored.
But to my arguments:
Evolution in the strict Naturalistic idea, refers that non living chemicals organize themselves into self replicating organisms. All current existing living matter are allegedly originated from this one process. The genetic encyclopedia of DNA had to be created from this nonliving matter. How did the matter do this? Through the self replication and slight mutation, causing genetic diversity.
But in modern times, the genetic diversity, at least for heterozygous reproducing organisms, comes from the reshuffling of the genetic data, since only a slight amount is stereotypically shown, and the greater amount genetically stored and held, recessive, or just cataloged. Millions of sperm everyone, millions of them. Mutations are rarely effective without the chance of drastic danger to the organisms survival. Mutations can also come in the form of deletion of genes, causing a loss of data. How does a mutation of a single celled organism, a loss of data, create a diversity? Likewise with the Founder effect, in relation to the bottleneck. The surviving organisms have a much lower amount of genetic diversity. This leads to the surviving genes being the only to repopulate the species. How does diversity rise from this? A species is formed since the genetic data is so drastically changed from the original species. Two new species, from the original gene pool.
I combine this with the lack of transitional species in or out of the fossil record to substantiate my skepticism of a evolutionary naturalistic tree of life. Particles to man is just unbelievable to me as a result of this. There are only gaps. I haven't seen a small vector of progress nor a large vector of progress, and I do eagerly want to see it. I do. "rapid evolution" and unfossilizable body parts are poor excuses. Turtles leave excellent fossils, and have no intermediates.
Fishes to amphibians are an example. It was accepted that amphibians spawned from the Rhipidistian fish, the coelacanth, which was explained that this fish used its fleshy fins to walk on the sea floor before going on land. No one refuted this, so it was accepted. It was impossible not to prove, since the last Rhipidistian lived 70 million years ago according to the fossil record. But a living coelacanth was discovered in 1938 and was observed that the fins were only used for swimming. The soft parts were not transitional. The earliest amphibian, Ichthyostega has fully formed legs, where there was no trace of in the discovered Rhipidistian. My point is that everyone accepted the general idea that they were transitional links, just becuase there was not at that time proof otherwise. This mistake in jumping to conclusions was not a lesson learned.
Another example is the Bacteria resisting penicillin. Don't say that the bacteria that developed a resistance to penicillin evolved. They already had the genetic resistance, but enough of the population and genetic data had to be deleted before it became prevalent. What does the descent have to do with new kinds and new information? Nothing. Then the idea that the mutation caused the resistance comes into play. Usually the bacteria's ability to fight off penicillin is controlled by a gene. The gene inhibits the resistance gene at a certain point. If the bacteria are overwhelmed, the mutation could occur in a form that would delete the controlling gene, allowing the bacteria to resist the penicillin more easily. What does this have to do with new data? Nothing. This is why I see the term evolution as badly stretched and confused. This is all pre existing information, and doesn't explain origin, which is evolutions true department. This doesn't explain particles to man, at least not to me.
A largely unrelated skepticism I have is the proposed evolutionary explanation for the development of Whales and dolphins. It is largely accepted that they originated from a land mammal, the Mesonychids. There are drastic changes required to transition from land to sea. The removal of the pelvis is first. Tail movements are counterproductive to any existing reproductive orifice located in the pelvic region of a land mammal, if referencing the tail movements of the Cetacean whales and dolphins. But the gradual shrinking pelvis would not benefit a land animal which would be unable to support itself, nor a sea creature unable to swim efficiently. The earliest whales had fully functional tales with no land mammal pelvis link. The long amount of time it would take for a mutation or natural selection to occur is also to be noted. The land organism, the Mesonychid, is dated 55 million years ago. Three other transitional creatures, none of which have proportional sizing for a whale, are Ambulocetus, 50 million years, Rodhocetus, 46 million years, and Prozeuglodon, 40 million years. For a mutation to cause an entire gene in the population to create the Land animal to Sea animal transition, it would take at least 5 million years to get 1,700 mutations for an organism living 10 years on average, (the whale). Not only is 1,700 mutated genes not enough to cause this drastic transition from two drastically physically disproportionate organisms, but two transitional applicants do not even cover the 5 million year minimum requirement, Ambulances and Rodhocetus. This is also assuming every single mutation would be beneficial. But the scientific community largely accepts this as the explanation of the whale and dolphin origins.
Then there is the ape to man discussion. Countless fossils such as the Australopithecus afarensis "Lucy" , the A. africanus, and the Homo H. erectus are believed to be the transitions to man. However these are further away in relation structurally and genetically to man than the chimpanzee is. The anatomist Charles Oxnard made detailed analysis of these species and discovered the stark differences including the fact that the species overlapped at many points. (C.E. Oxnard Nature 258:389-395, 1975.) These were not transitional species or missing links to the genus Homo. The genetic similarities between humans and any organism is an inference and interpretation, not a law. It is interpreted that one lead to the other, yet it could just as easily be interpreted that the car designer used the same car parts on two different cars at the same time, without assuming that he had to make one car, and then after making that car was able to make the next car with only advanced parts from the previous car.
Anomalies in evolution are common. These "exceptions to the rules" are mere examples of flaws in the theory. An antigen receptor protein has the same unique single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this isn't explained by a shark/camel linkage. The human lysozyme is closer to the chicken lysozyme than any other organism. But this is not explained by a human/chicken transitional fossil. Hemoglobin is found in vertebrates, but also in mollusks crustaceans, and bacteria. This similarity is not dependent on a transitional evolutionary link, and couldn't be, much as the similarities between man and ape are not dependent on an evolutionary link, but are only accepted as such.
As a result of all of this, I see divine intervention as my only possible basis for believing in science. If there was no divinity before and during existence, then the probability of order, or existence, would be low. Because of a belief in Divine intervention, I can have a belief in Science. I have faith, not knowledge, that this is a rational universe on laws, becuase of a rational divinity. Now everyone gets to make the assumption that I somehow think there is a bearded old man in the sky writing everyone's shit down for judgment, becuase of my simple belief.
There is a lopsidedness in discussions. I've accepted that. That won't hinder my explanations in any way. Do not appeal to some creationist assumptions about science to reject an idea that is the opposite of a strict evolutionary theory in order to make a reply.
Currently all facts are interpreted according to a person, the person uses a reference. even what I am doing right at this moment. Generally, Evolution is interpreted behind Naturalism. Naturalism assumes that things came into existence, without divine intervention. This includes that nonliving matter spawned living matter, apes gave way to humans, non-intellect created intelligence, yearning created religion, ect. Through Naturalism, you can deduce Evolution. Many accept Evolution as the correct answer to the question of descent, becuase creationism seems to be the only other option, and is unnacredided.
But we did not come to the idea because we discovered it, we guessed that it existed and then looked for proof. -who do you think would identify with this?
I reject believing in the modern evolutionist idea, and the modern humanistic and naturalistic viewpoints. I reject them becuase I interpret them as such (equate "without cause" as "without divine intervention" as in "by accident"):
The universe came into existence from generally unsubstantiated particles expanding, without known cause. The solar system formed in the right proportions to have the right combination of compounds and elements on Earth, which is the proportionally correct distance from the Sun, without cause. The non living matter on Earth came into a living form, without cause. The matter eventually became man, and man eventually became intelligent, and eventually discovered astronomy, mathematics, and the like, as by products, as accidents of the movements of atoms.
If it was all chance, if it was an accident, why should I believe the general interpretation to be true? Why should I accept the general consensus?
I don't question observational science dealing with discoveries made in real time during that given moment before the speculations and inferences, only the theories made from speculations about the past made as though they were observations that have yet to be proven wrong, or baseless assumptions as many in the past have (Bohr's idea of an atom, or early bloodletting).
We observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past. To prove something, a credible eye witnessing of the event is required. This is impossible for the time before we existed.
It is the belief that we are of primordial pond scum which originated from nonliving matter, and at the end we like everything else will become extinct and cease to exist, along eventually with the Earth and the entire universe for that matter which perplexes me. I actually hardly disagree with the entire statement, yet my idea of a man from dust turned back into dust after death in a world that will suffer a terminal apocalypse and end all existence is met with ridicule, loosely speaking. I see a marginal difference with heated debate and defensive walls only as a result of personal experience with persons and those persons' personal ideas and experiences. This is why I am confused, since the similarities are so ignored.
But to my arguments:
Evolution in the strict Naturalistic idea, refers that non living chemicals organize themselves into self replicating organisms. All current existing living matter are allegedly originated from this one process. The genetic encyclopedia of DNA had to be created from this nonliving matter. How did the matter do this? Through the self replication and slight mutation, causing genetic diversity.
But in modern times, the genetic diversity, at least for heterozygous reproducing organisms, comes from the reshuffling of the genetic data, since only a slight amount is stereotypically shown, and the greater amount genetically stored and held, recessive, or just cataloged. Millions of sperm everyone, millions of them. Mutations are rarely effective without the chance of drastic danger to the organisms survival. Mutations can also come in the form of deletion of genes, causing a loss of data. How does a mutation of a single celled organism, a loss of data, create a diversity? Likewise with the Founder effect, in relation to the bottleneck. The surviving organisms have a much lower amount of genetic diversity. This leads to the surviving genes being the only to repopulate the species. How does diversity rise from this? A species is formed since the genetic data is so drastically changed from the original species. Two new species, from the original gene pool.
I combine this with the lack of transitional species in or out of the fossil record to substantiate my skepticism of a evolutionary naturalistic tree of life. Particles to man is just unbelievable to me as a result of this. There are only gaps. I haven't seen a small vector of progress nor a large vector of progress, and I do eagerly want to see it. I do. "rapid evolution" and unfossilizable body parts are poor excuses. Turtles leave excellent fossils, and have no intermediates.
Fishes to amphibians are an example. It was accepted that amphibians spawned from the Rhipidistian fish, the coelacanth, which was explained that this fish used its fleshy fins to walk on the sea floor before going on land. No one refuted this, so it was accepted. It was impossible not to prove, since the last Rhipidistian lived 70 million years ago according to the fossil record. But a living coelacanth was discovered in 1938 and was observed that the fins were only used for swimming. The soft parts were not transitional. The earliest amphibian, Ichthyostega has fully formed legs, where there was no trace of in the discovered Rhipidistian. My point is that everyone accepted the general idea that they were transitional links, just becuase there was not at that time proof otherwise. This mistake in jumping to conclusions was not a lesson learned.
Another example is the Bacteria resisting penicillin. Don't say that the bacteria that developed a resistance to penicillin evolved. They already had the genetic resistance, but enough of the population and genetic data had to be deleted before it became prevalent. What does the descent have to do with new kinds and new information? Nothing. Then the idea that the mutation caused the resistance comes into play. Usually the bacteria's ability to fight off penicillin is controlled by a gene. The gene inhibits the resistance gene at a certain point. If the bacteria are overwhelmed, the mutation could occur in a form that would delete the controlling gene, allowing the bacteria to resist the penicillin more easily. What does this have to do with new data? Nothing. This is why I see the term evolution as badly stretched and confused. This is all pre existing information, and doesn't explain origin, which is evolutions true department. This doesn't explain particles to man, at least not to me.
A largely unrelated skepticism I have is the proposed evolutionary explanation for the development of Whales and dolphins. It is largely accepted that they originated from a land mammal, the Mesonychids. There are drastic changes required to transition from land to sea. The removal of the pelvis is first. Tail movements are counterproductive to any existing reproductive orifice located in the pelvic region of a land mammal, if referencing the tail movements of the Cetacean whales and dolphins. But the gradual shrinking pelvis would not benefit a land animal which would be unable to support itself, nor a sea creature unable to swim efficiently. The earliest whales had fully functional tales with no land mammal pelvis link. The long amount of time it would take for a mutation or natural selection to occur is also to be noted. The land organism, the Mesonychid, is dated 55 million years ago. Three other transitional creatures, none of which have proportional sizing for a whale, are Ambulocetus, 50 million years, Rodhocetus, 46 million years, and Prozeuglodon, 40 million years. For a mutation to cause an entire gene in the population to create the Land animal to Sea animal transition, it would take at least 5 million years to get 1,700 mutations for an organism living 10 years on average, (the whale). Not only is 1,700 mutated genes not enough to cause this drastic transition from two drastically physically disproportionate organisms, but two transitional applicants do not even cover the 5 million year minimum requirement, Ambulances and Rodhocetus. This is also assuming every single mutation would be beneficial. But the scientific community largely accepts this as the explanation of the whale and dolphin origins.
Then there is the ape to man discussion. Countless fossils such as the Australopithecus afarensis "Lucy" , the A. africanus, and the Homo H. erectus are believed to be the transitions to man. However these are further away in relation structurally and genetically to man than the chimpanzee is. The anatomist Charles Oxnard made detailed analysis of these species and discovered the stark differences including the fact that the species overlapped at many points. (C.E. Oxnard Nature 258:389-395, 1975.) These were not transitional species or missing links to the genus Homo. The genetic similarities between humans and any organism is an inference and interpretation, not a law. It is interpreted that one lead to the other, yet it could just as easily be interpreted that the car designer used the same car parts on two different cars at the same time, without assuming that he had to make one car, and then after making that car was able to make the next car with only advanced parts from the previous car.
Anomalies in evolution are common. These "exceptions to the rules" are mere examples of flaws in the theory. An antigen receptor protein has the same unique single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this isn't explained by a shark/camel linkage. The human lysozyme is closer to the chicken lysozyme than any other organism. But this is not explained by a human/chicken transitional fossil. Hemoglobin is found in vertebrates, but also in mollusks crustaceans, and bacteria. This similarity is not dependent on a transitional evolutionary link, and couldn't be, much as the similarities between man and ape are not dependent on an evolutionary link, but are only accepted as such.
As a result of all of this, I see divine intervention as my only possible basis for believing in science. If there was no divinity before and during existence, then the probability of order, or existence, would be low. Because of a belief in Divine intervention, I can have a belief in Science. I have faith, not knowledge, that this is a rational universe on laws, becuase of a rational divinity. Now everyone gets to make the assumption that I somehow think there is a bearded old man in the sky writing everyone's shit down for judgment, becuase of my simple belief.