Here's how I see it

[Shiner]

It's nice to find this forum.

I believe that God created each kind of organism with intelligent design and inherent wisdom. He also instilled each creature with an adaptive phenotype so that all created animals could multiply and fill the earth by spreading out into many different environments and habitats. The advantage of this is obvious: Rather than having to wait thousands or millions of years for the correct mutation to provide the necessary genes, God made it so animals can adjust themselves on-the-fly to changing environments.....and then if these environments continue, the biological adjustments will be passed on to future generations.

It's a brilliantly simple idea that science simply refuses to test. In fact, this concept petrifies evolutionists to the core. Have you ever noticed how neo-darwinists never even discuss adaptive phenotypes or the ability of new traits to arise during development via the environment? Never. Oh, occasionally you might hear the word "saltationism" or "Lamarckism" thrown about in a negative tone, but evolutionists rarely have the guts to face reality to dive into these subjects deeply. In fact, I have never read an in-debth discussion about plasticity or environmentally induced biological changes in a neo-darwinist's book. And it's not that these people are dumb.....They're just simply too afraid to go there, in fear of planting seeds in people's minds. Their whole world-view depends on people's faith in their thoery -- and that there are no reasonable alternatives. So they just play like the alternative isn't there.

But if it can shown that animals' evolve/change in a different way than what evolutionists say, then their theory must be overthrown. They say the evolution of new traits happens gradually through the population over thouands/millions of years through random mutation via selection...I say it happens instantly, within the lifetime of the individual animal...no selection needed.

I also say new traits emerge in offspring nonrandomly in response to environmental cues. These traits form during development or even afterwards during the lifetime of the animal. New traits can be a result of plasticity or in the form of mutation during development. If the mutation occurs in somatic cells, only the individual (parent) organism is affected. If the mutation occurs in the germ cell, the mutation may pass on to the next generation -- though not necessarily expressed in the parent in which it arose.

It's as simple as that.

Both of these mechanisms I present are not new...I did not dream them up. It's just that evolutionists choose to ignore them.

So here's my proof:

new traits (fur color) formed instantly in offspring via diet of mother:

http://www.biotech-info.net/moms_diet.html

new traits form (moth wing pattern) during development based on external conditions, including background colors. (see bottom picture.) By the way, this disproves the peppered moth as an example of "proof" of Natural Selection.

http://ourfcs.friendscentral.org/moths/ ... nism1.html

Can evolutionists lead me to a link where a controlled experiment on animals was done?....where they tested to see what traits formed upon an environemental change??

I'd also like to see a controlled test done on animals that shows Natural Selection in action.

[Cathar1950]

I believe what the Bible says. I believe that God made humans in his image. I do not believe that humans were made first in the image of a worm or a parasite, only to be later elevated to our current status. I do not believe a brain such as our own can "evolve." I do not believe that we are accidents. I do not believe that God is inherently accidental. I believe we are all part of a giant book of life. There are just too many signs that this world was created for us to be here. Everything is too fine-tuned. Love does not evolve from nothing

I see no reason to believe what the bible (a collection of 66 books) says nor have you shown any reason.
No you are right humans were not made in the image of worms or parasites. That would make then worms or Parasites not humans. We would not be elevated we would have evolved.
You seem to lack the rudiments of understanding.

yea you are making it clear that there are non-selectionists evolutinists....my question is how they get a man from a monkey without selection. I don't understand how that works.

It is obvious you don’t understand.

Yes. But I'm not a geologist so I couldn't really comment on that. My gut, though tells me that the continents were not separated gradually over millions of years. I bet it was quick.

What would make you place your bet on? Your gut at least seems to be in sync with your understanding and both are lacking.

[Shiner]

I see no reason to believe what the bible (a collection of 66 books) says nor have you shown any reason.

I see no reason to believe in random muations or natural selection -- neither have been proven to support your theory. Not only that but they've been shown to be impossible to create anything. Mutations are destructive, conservative mechanisms -- as is natural selection.

The rest of your post is worthless.

[Grumpy]

supersport

I see no reason to believe in random muations or natural selection -- neither have been proven to support your theory. Not only that but they've been shown to be impossible to create anything. Mutations are destructive, conservative mechanisms -- as is natural selection.

The rest of your post is worthless.

Four lies in a row.

1. Both random mutation and NS are facts, deal with it.

2. They created everything.

3. Mutations are advantageous as often as they are destructive, most are neutral.

4. One post by Cathar1950 is worth more than all of your posts combined(except for the inadvertant humorous value of your abyssmal lack of understanding of the simplest concepts in scientific endeavors, get someone to explain the big words).

Grumpy

[supersport]

supersport

I see no reason to believe in random muations or natural selection -- neither have been proven to support your theory. Not only that but they've been shown to be impossible to create anything. Mutations are destructive, conservative mechanisms -- as is natural selection.

The rest of your post is worthless.

Four lies in a row.

1. Both random mutation and NS are facts, deal with it.

2. They created everything.

3. Mutations are advantageous as often as they are destructive, most are neutral.

4. One post by Cathar1950 is worth more than all of your posts combined(except for the inadvertant humorous value of your abyssmal lack of understanding of the simplest concepts in scientific endeavors, get someone to explain the big words).

Grumpy

You must have missed this link that rob gave....you ought to read the description:

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book ... 0300108656

But if that's not enogh for you....check out Sean Carrol's Book -- which also distances itself from Neodarwinism -- as does "How the Leopard changed it's Spots" by Brian Goodwin -- as does "Why a Fly is not a Horse" by Guisseppi Sermonti -- as does "Genetic Entropy" by Dr. J.C.Sanford -- as does "Readers of the Book of Life" (Contextualizing Developmental Evolutionary Biology) by Anton Markos. None, of whom are Chirstians or Creationists. All are either Biologists or geneticists....and all consider neo-darwinism false -- they just have varying ways of expressing it. Regardless, though all the rules have changed...and RM + NS is effectively dead.

You're in for a long, hard fall, Grumpy. Your thoery is just about worthless at this point.

[Rob]

You must have missed this link that rob gave....you ought to read the description:

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book ... 0300108656

But if that's not enogh for you....check out Sean Carrol's Book -- which also distances itself from Neodarwinism -- as does "How the Leopard changed it's Spots" by Brian Goodwin -- as does "Why a Fly is not a Horse" by Guisseppi Sermonti -- as does "Genetic Entropy" by Dr. J.C.Sanford -- as does "Readers of the Book of Life" (Contextualizing Developmental Evolutionary Biology) by Anton Markos. None, of whom are Chirstians or Creationists. All are either Biologists or geneticists....and all consider neo-darwinism false -- they just have varying ways of expressing it. Regardless, though all the rules have changed...and RM + NS is effectively dead.

You're in for a long, hard fall, Grumpy. Your thoery is just about worthless at this point.

Ok, my opening title is a joke! Don't choke on it you Panselectionists!

Superport, it is a welcome change to see someone who both appreciates the import of Evolutionary Developmental Biology and grasps that we are in the middle of a scientific revolution as we speak. I have great compassion for those who don't have the means to grasp the huge volume of data and information forthcoming from the domain of evolutionary biology. I have less compassion for those so-called educators that are supposedly educated, the religiously dogmatic mechanistic materialists and Panselectionist Neo-Darwinian dogmatists, that reveal the same level of stubborn refusal to honestly examine the scientific facts forthcoming from evo-devo.

They remind me of the history of continental drift and plate tectonics. The same kind of recalictrant dogmatism stiffled the acceptance of the scientific evidence that eventually won out over the narrow minded dogmatism of uniformitarian theories about geological evolution.

BTW, thanks for the additional leads on the evo-devo studies. I have read Carrol. Great book.

[Grumpy]

shiner

All of your quote mining has been exposed

http://www.christianforums.com/t3739883 ... tml&page=5

Self Improvement showed how you don't even understand the quotes you mine.

Evolution is a fact. Whether it is primarily caused by NS or Punk-eke or Evo-Devo it's still evolution, not creationism.

You must have missed this link that rob gave....you ought to read the description:

Maybe your post will cause rob to rethink his confrontational style, after all he also knows that evolution is a fact, he just thinks evo-devo is more important than NS. He likes to attack other accepters of evolution in favor of his own views of the causes. Now he's got you quote mining him to try to discredit evolution, you either misunderstand his position or you are bearing false witness in misrepresenting his position. Maybe he will learn something from this that I told him long ago, that there are people out there looking for the least disagreement among scientists in order to use that disagreement against the science itself, I told him then it was much more important to explain evolution at a grade school level than to argue about esoteric differences among evolutionary scientists, he called me a bunch of bad names(like he recently did QED). Well, now it has happened to him, he's been quote mined in support of creationism by someone who doesn't understand a thing about what he is attacking(that would be you, supersport).

Grumpy

[Rob]

Evolution is a fact. Whether it is primarily caused by NS or Punk-eke or Evo-Devo it's still evolution, not creationism.

Finally, something Grumpy and I can agree on. Nevertheless, enjoy the fall Grumpy. And if you can't, might I suggest you sleep through it. Otherwise, your blood pressure might get a bit to high.

Maybe your post will cause rob to rethink his confrontational style, after all he also knows that evolution is a fact, he just thinks evo-devo is more important than NS. He likes to attack other accepters of evolution in favor of his own views of the causes. Now he's got you quote mining him to try to discredit evolution, you either misunderstand his position or you are bearing false witness in misrepresenting his position.

Grumpy, let me be perfectly clear. There are many souls out there that will never be able to grasp the complexities of the facts regarding evolution. I neither disdain them nor spend my time spewing hate filled nasty invective at them as you have regularly done on this site. The truth is, if the facts are beyond their honest grasp, then who are you or I do treat them less than fairly. Some should know better; many simply don't know better and it is not really their fault. Especially when they have had to be subjected to the narrow minded dogmatism and stereotypes which often passes as so-called science education in our lower level educational system.

The truth is, it those who claim to be educated themselves and proclaim themselves educators, yet who pervert science by replacing its spirit of inquiry with narrow minded dogmatism such as the mechanistic materialism and Panselectionism some so-called scientists claim is the only scientific answer (when in reality there is a vast number of scientists who refute such false scientism), or stereotyped answers that hide the vast and living debates about yet to be discovered truths waiting for young, inquisitive minds to explore, that I find more culpable in the current creationism-evolution debate that wastes so much time and energy.

Some are really uninformed and uneducated when it comes the complexities of evolutionary theory, but then, what is your excuse for exhibiting a dogmatic mindset Grumpy? You once said to me in private PM that while you recognized these inconsistencies and questions, that we (as though there is some "we" and "them" camp) should not speak openly of these things in front of so-called "creationists." What a farce, what a betrayal of truth, honesty, and openness, the very values that should guide any search for truth, whether in be in the domain of science, philosophy, or religion.

Let me see Grumpy, you were suggesting I distort the truth for truths sake. And this from a self-proclaimed science educator! No Grumpy, I don't take any suggestions from you very seriously, given your quick willingnes to sacrifice truth for polemics for no greater pupose than to win an agrument.

Shiner errs because he doesn't understand. What is your excuse Grumpy? You claim to know better, do you not?

In the end, those who distort the truth for the sake of some polemical argument will lose, for I have confidence the truth will win out in the end. That is why creationists keep losing in the court room; because it is obvious when they take things out of context and distort the truth. And if so-called scientists resort to the same tactic, they too will lose in the end.

But I am confident there are enough honest scientists, philosophers, and religionists that will come forth to testify that the truth in all its various ways of being expressed will win out in the end.

[supersport]

Shiner = Supersport

All of your quote mining has been exposed

What's wrong with quote mining?


Evolution is a fact. Whether it is primarily caused by NS or Punk-eke or Evo-Devo it's still evolution, not creationism.

I guess that depends on what you consider "evoution."


Maybe your post will cause rob to rethink his confrontational style, after all he also knows that evolution is a fact, he just thinks evo-devo is more important than NS.

I've read Sean Carrol's book cover to cover. Quite honestly, although I think it falls a bit short in several areas, at least it's a step in the right direction. Finally, science is coming around to the fact that evolution happens during development. I'm not sure he ever answered whether or not these physiological changes happen on accident or not though. That, I'm still trying to uncover that about evo devo. Maybe Rob can help me out.


He likes to attack other accepters of evolution in favor of his own views of the causes. Now he's got you quote mining him to try to discredit evolution, you either misunderstand his position or you are bearing false witness in misrepresenting his position.

Hey I'm kind of interested in what he has to say. I've heard from neodarwinists. It's refreshing to hear something outside of that dogmatic cult.


Well, now it has happened to him, he's been quote mined in support of creationism by someone who doesn't understand a thing about what he is attacking(that would be you, supersport).

Hey...if someone says something a good quote or a logical piece of information, I have no shame in quote-mining! What's wrong with that?

[Goat]

Shiner = Supersport

All of your quote mining has been exposed

What's wrong with quote mining?

<SNIP FOR BREVITY>

Hey...if someone says something a good quote or a logical piece of information, I have no shame in quote-mining! What's wrong with that?

Maybe you do not understand the term 'quote mining'. "Quote mining" is the technique where you partially take a line or two from someone out of context, and make it look like they were saying something they were not. When you look at the context in which the sentance was made, it was either making another point, or it was saying the exact opposite of the point you are making. This is at the very least misrepresenting someone. At the worst, it is a deliberate fabrication, also known as a lie.

[supersport]

Shiner = Supersport

All of your quote mining has been exposed

What's wrong with quote mining?

<SNIP FOR BREVITY>

Hey...if someone says something a good quote or a logical piece of information, I have no shame in quote-mining! What's wrong with that?

Maybe you do not understand the term 'quote mining'. "Quote mining" is the technique where you partially take a line or two from someone out of context, and make it look like they were saying something they were not. When you look at the context in which the sentance was made, it was either making another point, or it was saying the exact opposite of the point you are making. This is at the very least misrepresenting someone. At the worst, it is a deliberate fabrication, also known as a lie.

oh..ok...I didn't realize there was a sinister connotation to it. I woulnd't generally try to misrepresent someone. I see nothing wrong with dishing out quotes though.

Evolutionists evidently think that every quote is taken out of context. S