Question Evolution!

I apreciate that you apreciate they are designed. The real question is, "what is the best answer, solves the problems best, for designs?".We can see in human-designs that there are distinct advantages to planning, intuition leading to creative and original solutions good contingencies. I submit the example of the differential to stop wheelspin. The solution is relatively simple, but not and easy contingency to come up with. I don't see why two simple mechanisms answer these problems more than an incredibly intelligent mind. We can see specific design-contingencies in nature, that are greater than human designs. It seems rational to at least admit that an all-wise mind answers better than a blind and limited process.I am not having a go at your post, there are some things you have said which could open a can or worms, you allude to the problem of evil.There are evolutionary postulations, posteriori explanations for why things are a certain way, maybe against the evolutionary grain, so I think it is only fair that we also can postulate as to why there is evil in the world, and whether that is because of bad design or not.We don't actually believe that the present-day world is an example of God's design, but a remnant of it. Uniformatarian views say that the present is the key to the past.A general Theism, or religious beliefs, make a designer implausible because of the problem of evil, but the bible actually explains whey there is suffering in the world, because it is a fallen world.You have to remember that things may look very clear-cut to you from your own subjective position, but they also look clear cut from ours. We are also baffled as to why you apparently don't see the obvious.(Don't batter me, fry me, and devour me, I am not replacing Jimmy, I is giving my own squiff-piggling thoughts from my own disgustering reasonings your majester.!

Maybe if Anel Vadren had asked the real questions instead of the fake(?) ones then we would be able to have a more constructive discussion.Could you link to the 15 real questions please?

Personally I am not aware of the campaign or the questions. I don't tend to put much store in those comments.I know I appear very much to be a strong creationist but I also question creationists and what they say. From the reasonings of evolutionists here at EvC, I usually, "hear" the devil's advocate in my head when a creationist is talking, I will ask him a question an evolutionist would ask to see if he would give the rhetoric many like him unfortunately rely on or whether he will try and use intelligence, like I try to do.There are lots of able creationists, like maybe that master chess player, Jonathan Sarfati is it? But of course, like anyone, creationists can fall into the trap of using poorly formed summaries that don't adequately expound their beliefs. Or propaganda. To use that word, "lies" implies evolutionary scientists are willfully lying to us, and that's pretty unnecessary terminology. Best to stick to arguing the exact information, the majority of scientists are likely just doing their sciencing.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

There is evidence of design rising naturally; there is NO evidence of design arising supernaturally.It really is that simple.

Depends on the kinds of designs and the kinds of designers that we know exist. Obviously life wasn't designed by a human designer. The only other designer we know that existed at the time was heritable variation and selection. Agreed.We can see in evolutionary derived designs that they are extremely complex, almost impossible to truly understand, filled with subtlety, strange inefficiencies, solutions that no human would ever have dreamed of, pointless redundancies, and a whole heap of irreducible complexities. It seems reasonable superficially. But not in light of knowing about evolution. First of all, an all-wise mind is an unaccounted for entity (where did it come from, how does it exist?), for which there is no evidence. I could just as easily postulate a slightly wise mind.But the kinds of solutions that biology has shown us, are exactly what we would expect from a mindless process with no forward planning. I don't remember doing that. Was it the malaria thing? The malaria comment was just an example of something I have seen creationists raise as a problem for evolution. But there exists no counter explanation. There is no explanation for how flagella came to exist, or where tails come from, or why the Lancet Liver Fluke has such a convoluted lifestlye (from snail slime, to ant brains, to sheeps gut, to sheep poo, to poo-eating snails) . It's just divine will. No mechanism. That's what I was saying. That bafflement is on your side alone. I understand how people can believe it was the work of divine will. I just don't think they've read and understood as much about evolution as I have. They have protected themselves against critical thinking about evolution because it threatens their faith, which is one of the most important things things to them in the world.And I don't think 'clear-cut' is exactly right. I had to do a lot of training, and get embarrassed by my many errors before I could think remotely scientifically. It was a painful experience that took a lot of humility and a lot of crossing out.Indeed, when I came to this debate it was because someone made a claim about thermodynamics which 'seemed off' but if true, would change my entire perspective on evolution. So I investigated and found that it was bunk. Indeed, as I learned more about evolutionary biology and the creationist's arguments against it, it served merely to strengthen my opinion of evolution. It was more subtle, interesting and complex than I had believed. I was miss-sold biology at high school, where we mostly did anatomy and the like.If it had been more about evolution, and especially genetics, I'd have probably loved it. The evolution that we covered was embarrassingly sparse. The only question on my exam about evolution was actually about adaptation: I was asked which of the following birds is adapted to a soaring lifestyle, with picture of something like an albatross and a sparrow. You don't need to understand evolution to get that right! Hopefully, my disagreement and expansion won't have been perceived as a battering.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Questioning evolution is part of the process, but you question it with data and evidence. I think what you meant to say was you want to deny evolution and deny the data, deny logic, and deny rational thought, and to that invitation i have to say no thank you. Occasionally Subbie is correct, and this is one of those times. I 100% agree as painful as it is to admit.

Firstly abiogenesis a simple replicating RNA molecule when the molecule replicated the "offspring" was not a perfect copy if the offspring had a bad mutation then it would have less offspring and his line would eventually die out if the mutation was beneficial like say attracting lipids to itself that naturally form a cell like membrane protecting the molecule then his chance of producing more offspring and his offspring producing even more is higher. 3 billion years later allot of these mutations and natural selections produced us. Chemistry Random mutations, NOT RANDOM SELECTION ???um evolution = mutation + natural selection. And evolution does explain the diversity of life, just not the origin of life that would be abiogenesis. Evolution, gradual steps.hope this video helps you to understand how They dont look like they where designed they look like they evolved. A benifitial mutation that grouped multiple cells together, and more evolution from there. A very beneficial mutation that allowed for more diversity in the genome. Um who stole them they aren't missing. But i know that even if we found every fossil from you and follow your PERSONAL common descent line back to the first cell you still would not be satisfied. They dont Um cause its not a just so story and every scientists agrees with it the 1% who dont have a doctorate in bible reading or computer science. Antibiotics, vaccines, even computer modelling ....... Well its not about history its also about today like why do you think we need newer and more powerful antibiotics for the same stuff penicillin used to cure. The germs EVOLVED a resistance to it. Because its not. Evolution is science it has survived bible basher's for 150 years and it is still science, every piece of evidence agrees with evolution, and so does every new piece that has come in daylie for the past 150 years evolution works. While creationism and ID is not science, they dont work, and you want to teach that in schools.

I notice that about half of your "questions" are in fact blatant falsehoods disguised as questions, as though I were to ask "Why do you practice cannibalism?"You may think that phrasing rephrasing falsehoods as questions in this way shields you from the moral obloquy of bearing false witness. It does not.A question for you: If the best way you can think of to defend creationism is this kind of dishonest piffle, does that not suggest to you, as it suggests to me, that it is not worth defending? Without courage, without integrity, without honor, without dignity, you people are apparently obliged to stoop this sort of thing as the very best you can do. Well, if that's the best you can do, then the thing is not worth doing.

I notice that this question sort of answers itself; How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate?Just by chemistry, without intelligent design.This answers questions 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 11 as well.Mutate and Survive

See, the thing is: CMI knows fuck all about evolution (as evidenced by the absurdity of the "questions"). If one wishes to actually "question evolution", the best place to start is by learning what evolution actually is and what the theory behind it says. You do not, however, question something in the manner that you lot are doing without even the slightest knowledge of the subject. It is obvious that you are not trying to "question evolution" with the intent to learn about it, but rather to defame it and push your creationism.

No, that would be the best place to start if there really was something wrong with evolution. Because there isn't, grotesque and pitiful ignorance is in fact the best vantage point from which to do so.

Those 6 questions define what CMI is really about, and it isn't about a scientific debate. Those questions are as loaded as asking people "Why do you beat your dog?".To use the courtroom as an analogy . . .Imagine that the prosecution presents fingerprint, DNA, ballistic, tire print, shoe print, and fiber analysis evidence all of which links the defendent to the murder scene. The defense attorney looks at the jury and says, "See, they have no evidence that my client is guilty." I think the jury would scratch their head in disbelief, and yet this is exactly what CMI is doing. There is 150 years of accumulated evidence. Their response? What evidence? An honest person would at least address the evidence that has been presented, but CMI is not interested in an honest debate.Of course, CMI will never actually attend scientific conferences where these things are debated and discussed. It is not a scientific movement. It is a political movement, and an extremely dishonest one at that. By their fruits you will know them.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I meant "question" as in "I have questions about evolution". Although, it is still a good idea to question the veracity of the theory and not just take it on faith. You just shouldn't do as the creationists do and ask ridiculous questions that aren't even wrong because you've no idea what evolution is. So, from an acedemic standpoint, "grotesque and pitiful ignorance " is in fact not a good place to do so from. If we were to allow these individuals to "question" theories (in the sense that the OP is) from "grotesque and pitiful ignorance", then we would have ID in the classroom. But instead we should only lend credence to those who cast doubt that are coming from a knowledgeable background.

1.How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? By chemical evolution involving natural selection for function. 2.How did the DNA code originate?As above. (1) 3.How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?With the help of natural selection, drift, and niche filling. Being a microbiologist is filling a very specific niche. 4.Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?It's not. It's taught as one of the major processes that contributes to the evolution of the diversity of life. 5.How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?Mainly by mutation and selection. 6.Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?They don't look intelligently designed when examined carefully, and evolutionary biologists know they're not intelligently designed because they have examined them carefully. 7.How did multi-cellular life originate?By single celled organisms forming into colonies, and then reproducing together. 8.How did sex originate?Through intelligent design by a voyeur? (There are various hypotheses, but we don't know exactly how yet). 9.Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?Who expected which fossils to be discovered when? In a non-evolutionary world, there should be no transitionals. The transitions in form that we have discovered confirm that our biosphere is evolutionary. 10.How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?They don't. "Similar" doesn't mean unchanged. 11.How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?Intelligence and altruism are produced by variation and selection, particularly in social animals. It might be worth noting when you ask that question that the origin of intelligence cannot be explained by intelligence. Morality and meaning are subjective human constructs, and only created indirectly by blind chemistry in that it created us. 12.Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated as ‘science’?It isn't. Hypothetical scenarios to illustrate how evolution can happen are sometimes used in science teaching.13.Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?In our ever increasing understanding of the biosphere, present and past. 14.Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as the operational science?It isn't. 15.Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?Creationism isn't taught in most science classes.

The target audience for this screed is lay people who don't know a hill of beans about science. Most of the questions, and certainly the six questions that Panda answered either present a parody or strawman version of science or present distorted versions of known facts. I find it difficult to believe that nobody at CMI has an inkling about what they are doing.Any person who is fooled to believing that CMI has raised valid issues is being set up for a hammering that might cause him to doubt the entire basis for his belief in God. But I suppose that most YECs are surrounded by people who either cannot or will not expose them to truth.