questions evolutionists can't or won't answer

Here is a challenge to evolutionists: Please answer all the questions below to the best of your ability.Could provide us with the evidence that life could originate from non-life via purely natural processes?(HINT: there isn’t any: http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm )How could that be objectively tested and falsified?What are the alternatives if life could not have originated via purely natural processes?Why are those alternatives un-scientific?If abiogenesis and evolution are separate why does one theory begin where the other ends? (abiogenesis ends with the formation of progenotes and that is where the theory of evolution begins)How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that progenotes evolved into procaryotes?*How could we objectively test the hypothesis that eucaryotes evolved via procaryotic endosymbiosis?*How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that true multi-cellularity evolved from colonies of single-celled organisms (i.e. the Volvox)?*Or for that matter how could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that the eye could evolve?*I asked these three questions of Ken Miller on a USA Today chat pertaining to the PBS series Evolution. This was his response:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I think that the best tests in EACH of the cases you suggest have already been done. They involve careful tests of DNA sequence homology to test the assertions that each group shares common ancestry.And such tests have always come out in the affirmative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Problem is I didn’t ask for the best tests. I asked for objective tests. Homology in biology is easily evidence for a Common Creator. IOW the only way that the tests came out in the affirmative was because that is what the testee wanted (because any alternative was excluded a priori) and has nothing to do with objectivity.Bottom line is the Theory of Evolution is a philosophy and should be discussed in that venue. That is until it can be objectively tested.------------------
John Paul

Joe Meert:
Snipped all the nonsense about abiogenesis.John Paul:
I agree. Abiogenesis is nonsense.Joe Meert:
Ken Miller's response was more than adequate.John Paul:
Not even close to adequate unless you are an evolutionist already.Joe Meert:
The evidence for evolution can be found in numerous journals, books and other scientific sources (including answers to many of your 'evolutionary' questions).John Paul:
I have looked and guess what? The questions aren't answered.Joe Meert:
Evolution can be observed in the lab and in the field.John Paul:
How many times do I have to say this- evolution isn't the debate. What is debated is the starting point, the extent and the apparent direction of evolution.Joe Meert:
That is part of the reason that it is not under scientific debate. For other questions in evolution, there are not any answers (yet).John Paul:
If there aren't any answers it shouldn't be taught as if there were.Joe Meert:
For abiogenesis, there are no clear cut answers, but people are thinking and testing ideas of how life got started.John Paul:
That's great. Theoretical musing on alleged past events gets us what?Joe Meert:
Basically, you are faulting science for not answering everything and rejecting out-of-hand the evidence that has been presented for evolution.John Paul:
That is incorrect. I am faulting evolutionists for pushing something that can't be objectively tested. That's it.Joe Meert:
No one can stop you from closing your eyes, ears and mind to the evidence.John Paul:
In reality my eyes, ears and mind are wide open. It is evolutionists that have theirs closed.Joe Meert:
No one can stop you from posting this same 'challenge' on every discussion board you can find. Mostly, no one can stop you from pretending your 'challenge' disproves evolution as a science.John Paul:
All I am doing is trying to find out how to objectively test the theory of evolution. It doesn't appear that you can help me.Joe Meert:
What we can do, is ask you to study the literature and come back with a scientifically publishable refutation of that evidence.John Paul:
I have studied the literature. Guess what? No one has a way to objectively test the ToE.Joe Meert:
Chat board challenges such as these are limited in their utility (for either side). I'm surprised Ken Miller gave you that long of an answer since I am sure he knew you would reject anything he said anyway!John Paul:
Glad to see you wasted your time with this non-response. Something I have come to expect from you. Ken Miller couldn't answer me if his life depended on it.Does anyone care to at least try to answer the questions I posted?------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
(Yawn) You mean, again? We've been through all of this before JP.

---

John Paul: (sigh, shrug)
Thanks for your typical non-response edge. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. This has been explained to you on several occasions yet you refuse to listen. Oh well. And yes there is a huge difference between saying evolution and saying the theory of evolution. You just don't understand the difference because you are quite happy blurring the distinction. By doing so it makes it appear tha Creationists don't agree that things change. Creationists since the time of Carolus Linneaus (Karl von Linne, 1701-1778) knew that the species were not fixed (and therefore not indicative of the originally Created Kind). IOW, Creationists knew of speciation over 200 years ago.The grand sweep of the theory of evolution can't be objectively tested and it can't be verified. Its theoretical musings add nothing to the advance of science.------------------
John Paul

jeff:
Now we can discuss JP's loathing of science ( which he always denies...but always seems to be trying to change it ).John Paul:
Seeing that engineering is applied science and I have an engineering degree, it would be safe to say I don't loathe science. After all applied science is my life's work. I even got a quite substantial bonus at work for my "scientific approach...". What I loathe is what evolutionists are doing to science in the name of their dogma. Too bad jeff is too narrow minded to see the difference.If we listen to jeff's stupid remark it would also mean that Newton, Pasteur, Pascal, Mendell, Linne et al. also loathed science, after all they were Creationists.Science is a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, especially concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe.Theoretical musings on past unobserved & untestable events are fine and dandy but they don't build bridges, they don't put men on the moon, they don't cure diseases, they don't bring good things to life, and they don't add anything to the advancement of science or mankind.Lord Kelvin (also a Creationist) once said that heavier than air flight would not be accomplished- science and engineering proved him wrong (maybe he meant just in his lifetime). Edison was against Tesla's idea of alternating current, science and engineering again took over. These were ideas that could be objectively tested and verified. The theory of evolution takes an observation (variation in organisms) and falsely extrapolates it without the benefit of objective testing and definitely without verification. The fossil record is no ally of the ToE as about 99% does not show evolution. Yet edge thinks it has to be explained and the ToE allegedly does that (not).------------------
John Paul

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
[b]

John Paul writes:

---

Lord Kelvin (also a Creationist)...

---

Lord Kelvin believed he had demonstrated through thermodynamic evidence that the earth was around 20 million years old. No matter what label you place on him, were he alive today I suspect you two would agree on very little.--PercyJohn Paul:
I was under the impression that Lord Kelvin's figure was the oldest the earth could possibly be. I know that still is much larger than >10K...
That could be. Many times disagreements lead to new discoveries. Would you want to live in a world where everyone agreed on everything? Boring... As for the "label"

quote:

---

The author of the biography of Thomson [23], puts forward the view that during the first half of Thomson 's career he seemed incapable of being wrong while during the second half of his career he seemed incapable of being right. This seems too extreme a view but Thomson's refusal to accept atoms, his opposition to Darwin's theories, his incorrect speculations as to the age of the Earth and the Sun, and his opposition to Rutherford's ideas of radioactivity, certainly put him on the losing side of many arguments later in his career.

---

from:
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Thomson.htmlWhat would call him? An anti-Darwinist (but not a Creationist)?------------------
John Paul

jeff your stupidity continues to astound me. How the heck did you even make it this far in life?Newton was a Creationist in that he knew we are part of God's Special Creation. Someday you will get off of your lazy a$$ and read about him. You do realize that evolution was postulated by the Greeks well before Newton was around.I don't hate science. Science gave us technology. I love science and technology. Every science class I ever took I aced. An engineering degree required advanced science.Evolutionists are so misguided they feel they have to lie and misrepresent the Creationist's and IDist's position. Pretty sad when you think about it.Too bad no evolutionist posting here can or will answer my questions. I wonder why that is? (they can't or won't just like the title of the post states)------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JP Loather and misrepresenter of science sez:

​

Theoretical musings on past unobserved & untestable events are fine and dandy but they don't build bridges, they don't put men on the moon, they don't cure diseases, they don't bring good things to life, and they don't add anything to the advancement of science or mankind.

​

JM: Oops, JP slips up again during his rants. Let's consider some of these claims:

​

1. They don't build bridges---they most certainly do! Geologists 'muse' over the best locations to find oil and that oil is used during the construction of brdiges, ditto for the location of other materials.

​

2. They don't put men on the moon--they most certainly do! See above also please note that some of the materials used to build the Apollo spacecraft were based on geologists musing over the best locations to mine the elements based on past unobservable events.

​

3.they don't cure diseases---they most certainly do! Musings on the germ theory of illness presented medicine with the opportunity to develop new cures for diseases. Geologists also discovered many of the materials used in the treatment of disease using musings about past events on an old planet. Geologists also muse on how contaminants moved through groundwater and identify regions that could possibly cause disease. So not only do random musings cure disease, they also prevent it!

​

4. They don't add to the advancement of manking- This is easily one of the most absurd statements I've ever read anywhere. I must say, your hatred of science has completely blinded you and I find it hard to believe that a real engineer would say something so patently absurd and false.

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

JOhn Paul:
Joe please go buy a vowel because it is obvious you are clueless. This is what I said Theoretical musings on past unobserved & untestable events are fine and dandy... Notice I didn't say musings as you have responded, I said Theoretical musings on past unobserved & untestable events are fine and dandy..Methinks you have been a geologist for too long and now have rocks for brains.BTW, Pasteur, a Creationist, is responsible for fighting germs, not Darwin.------------------
John Paul

Is this the same Scott Page that doesn't even know what organisms have a femur? I responded to your diatribe on the Baptist Board.If anyone is interested in seeing (ahem) professor page getting his lunch handed to him please go to the following link: http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000158;p=3------------------
John Paul

John:
I don't get it. Scott ate your lunch.John Paul:
Yes, but only after it passed through my digestive system. Thanks for playing!The fact remains there isn't any way to objectively test the grand sweep of the theory of evolution- from some unknown populations of genetically unknowable organisms to the extinct (fossil evidence) & extant diversity we observe today.If you would like we could focus on one of the alleged "great transformations" such as the alleged evolution of cetaceans from terrestial mammals.------------------
John Paul

SLP:
John Paul - is this the same guy that posts as JAFC on the No Answers in Genesis board?John Paul:
Nope. I don't post at NAiG. Too many babies over there. Idiots like you and your buddy Robert that call up people's places of work and lie to try to get them fired.Page you were handed your lunch now shut-up and eat it. You continued drivel is laughable...------------------
John Paul

As for uncensored insults at the Baptist Board just look what Scotty got away with:"Of course, I have Wells’ book, and ReMine’s book, and Sarfati’s book, and those authors seem to spend a great deal of time talking out of orifices other than their mouths, so I understand your frustration."Kind of light compared to my alleged insults...------------------
John Paul

Fedmahn:
By the way, I checked the posts at NAIG. It seems that John Paul was indeed posting under the name JAFC over there. He suddenly stopped when it was pointed out.John Paul:
I checked also. Why would anyone take your word for it?Fedmahn:
You really shouldn't tell fibs, John Paul, no matter what cause you are fighting for. You know the story of the boy who cried wolf. Before long people may question your honesty.John Paul:
That would mean SLP can never be trusted. I exposed his lies and misrepresentations so many times I lost count.Thanks for playin' though.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

​

John Paul:
That would mean SLP can never be trusted. I exposed his lies and misrepresentations so many times I lost count.

---

​

You did? I must have missed all that. Funny though - JAFC went on a tear at NAIG a few weeks back claiming that I misrepresented everyone...

---

John Paul:
I have no doubt that you missed it. All that shows is you are pathological and have no shame.One more thing, I do NOT copy you, I MOCK you.------------------
John Paul

SLP:
I even feel bad that you get spanked so hard on BB so often.John Paul:
When and if that ever happens I might feel bad too.------------------
John Paul

Look Scotty, even if I did take the time to splain it to ya you still wouldn't understand.The femur fiasco was just one little tidbit. Then you ranted about doubting a femur being a limb or appendage when the link YOU provided stated that.scotty:
Please provide the documentation that DNA is or appears to be directly related to morphology.John Paul:
LOL! The theory of evolution tells us that or do you think our morphology is similar to the alleged starting population(s)? The ToE tells us that changes in the genome (DNA) led to the changes in the organism that led to the diversity we observe. If DNA isn’t responsible for those changes the ToE needs to be rewritten.Scott Page:
Previously, you dealt only with issues surrounding abiogenesis.John Paul:
That is a lie. As had been pointed out to you earlier.Scott Page:
Abiogenesis is not the 'grand sweep' of evolution, so please explain.John Paul:
Nothing to explain as I never said abiogenesis is part of the grand sweep of evolution.Phylogenic analysis has been offered (by Scotty) as an objective method to test descent with modification (as in chimps & humans having a common ancestor being a branch (or part of a branch) that diverges on the evolutionary bush-like tree of life). In that light the following two questions were asked:1. Do you believe that mutations are heritable?
2. Do you believe that the patterns of such heritable mutations can be used to infer relatedness?1) Is tricky. Yes mutations are heritable. Neutral, harmful and beneficial, mutations can be passed on. However in sexual reproduction they don’t always get passed on. I’m not as tall as my grandfather was, but I am taller than my parents (were). My father was color-blind, I am not, nor are my sisters and brothers, but I have a nephew that can’t see green (not the Special Agent). However his brother’s vision is OK.In humans this is evident- not every organism that is born gets a chance to mate and not every mating couple can conceive. No mating or conception no chance of passing on of the DNA. Take an organism born with a beneficial mutation that its parents didn’t have, nor do its siblings. Not only does this organism have to live long enough to reproduce, it has to do so successfully in order just to have a chance of that beneficial mutation being passed on, never mind becoming fixed. Another factor would be having a genetically impaired mate such that any combination would give you offspring less functional than the better parent is (was). You know, basic Punnett Square stuff and Mendelian genetics.That said, if adaptive mutations were the norm (Dr. Lee Spetner), they would become more readably fixed because they would occur population wide due to the organisms’ DNA reacting directly to environmental pressure(s). However adaptive mutations, unless applied to cleverly written evolutionary algorithm acting with an incrementally sequenced genetic algorithm, couldn’t account for the grand sweep of the theory of evolution.What we would have to determine is what was it about the alleged shared mutations that allowed them to be fixed in the populations? IOW why were they selected for (kept in the population) over this alleged span of time (5+ millions years)?2) I don’t think that every person with sickle-cell anemia is related to the first person that got the mutation that caused that disease and was able to pass it on. (Sickle-cell anemia is caused by a point mutation in a specific locus- a substitution of a T for an A in the codon for the sixth amino acid of the beta chain in the human hemoglobin protein. That mutation changes a glutamic acid to a valine.) Is everyone with Downs syndrome related? The same goes for all genetic diseases. Do you think that every person with the same genetic disease is related to each other? That DNA gets passed on to the offspring doesn’t mean chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
As I previously stated As for apparent similar mutations, again given that we have a restricted selection of possibilities for change to occur, it could be more of a coincidence than it is coinciding. I would like to change that to most likely be more of a coincidenceMutations occurring and getting passed on is just part of the problem. And a mutation getting fixed in a population is another. What the theory of evolution requires is for mutations to accumulate in such a way as to eventually give rise to new structures and organs (assuming of course the alleged starting population(s) didn’t have arms, legs, a spine or a brain). Is there even a way to test if that premise is feasible?