Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

The only thing worth responding to in this post of yours is to remind everyone for the record, that I never said the word conspiracy or used it or insinuated it. YOU DID.

Er, Asgara pointed out that your posts are not relevant to the threads in which you are posting them. E.g. you don't respond to the posts of others in which content relevant to your posts appear ... and there are plenty of those. You just repeat the same unsupported claims over and over again.

quote:

---

You are right Asgara, nobody is posting content relevant to my posts.
I will cease the philosophical attack and claim victory by default.
(exemption to NosyNed)
  —willowtree

---

Apparently willowtree is lacking in comprehension skills and is unable to discern the meaning of the topic title. The word "scientific" is significant in the title. Why s/he would claim victory for presenting a philosophical argument is a complete mystery.

quote:

---

Even though I initially refused to participate in this topic, I've been prodded to reconsider.

---

Your childish behaviour has been noted. However, even when presented with a simple test of your Miltonian beliefs in the initial post, you have refused to address the test or the subsequent data which demonstrate that Milton's assertions on the thylacine and convergent evolution are absurd.

quote:

---

All posts in this topic from now on will be scientific evidence.

---

That was the original intention of the thread.

quote:

---

Please give me until after the New Year (Jan.2 or 3).

---

Does this mean that you have never had the "scientific" evidence against evolution available?

It doesn't matter why someone isn't able to respond immediately. No one is required to devote any time to the forum that they can't afford to. There are probably some more important things to do. (Right now getting dinner is moving up that list).

---

Common sense isn't

No, they are available. I will continue using Milton as a source and a couple other things.I never claimed science capabilities like most of you display. I have always maintained that all of you are brilliant - its not a matter of opinion.I latched on to Milton because he is not a creationist, which makes him independant corroboration of some of my starting assumptions contained in my worldview. Milton carries enormous weight of credibility in my eyes and I hope you can at least understand that.I also have plainly declared in argument that the problem with evolution is that the ordinary person cannot understand it - that because of this a certain amount of trust is required. This is an honest observation and I am one of these ordinary persons. I believe what you don't know can be used against you.I will post the evidence that excites me and wait and read the responses. I also realize that a certain amount of knowledge is required to participate in a science debate, that the communication can only go so low to accomodate layman before error is risked.My rejection of evolution has been in the philosophical arena which in my view precedes the scientific evidence. This is well known, and I will not re-argue, but I will cite and focus on Miltonian evidence that corroborates the obvious ax that I grind : "God Sense" creationism.Even though I vehemently disagree with the reasons you cited in originating this topic, I will post my evidence as a reply to your post # 1, and I will then notify notable participants of the post.

And you have posted only a bit of his material so far and it proved to be wrong and silly. I presume you will pick more carefully next time?

---

Common sense isn't

This is from post # 59 in this topic :http://www.alternativescience.com/...origins-transitions.htmThis will explain who Hunt is.

Oh, Kathleen Hunt. Sorry, I didn't make the connection.I find it interesting that you take her to task for providing exactly the kind of thing I understood you to be asking for: an effort by a paleontologist to condense and synthesize her field for a non-specialist audience. Latin names aside, she provides a pretty comprehensive list of species that paleontologists have discovered and named that provide the basis for their contentions concerning the lineages that led to the diversity of life-as-we-know-it. She is very careful to note what is "pretty sure" from what is "maybe", and briefly describes in easy-to-understand language why the fossils are placed in which taxonomic categories and relationships. She may be wrong in a few details - which will undoubtedly be revised as new evidence is uncovered - but in the main her FAQ is about as comprehensive and clear as it gets.The FAQ also provides a nice springboard for people who want to dig deeper as it were. It does NOT, and wasn't intended to, provide the detailed bone-by-bone evidence as to why one critter is categorized in lineage A as opposed to B. That requires a much more rigorous and detailed analysis which is beyond the purpose of the FAQ.Most of Milton's reply to which you linked is rather useless pontificating. At no place in his essay does he provide any evidence that counters Hunt's FAQ - rather quibbles over her use of the indefinite wording often found in scientific papers and essays from any science. This choice of wording stems from the tentative nature of scientific inquiry and conclusions, since any conclusion has the potential to be falsified in the future. She NEVER claims that her FAQ is set in stone (to coin a phrase), rather that what she wrote represents the concensus of the scientists she's using as a source. I would, however, like to address a couple of Milton's points. Actually, what she wrote is quite reasonable. This isn't Christian apologetics - she's stating quite clearly that the basal (earliest) shark fossils are ambiguous. "I don't know" is a quite acceptable answer in science - any science. Moreover, she does describe several species to species transitions in the shark lineage later in that FAQ section, and several quite concrete examples in other lineages. One of the reasons her FAQ is so good, IMO, is that she is very careful to state what is known from what is "maybe". Milton's dismissing of the huge volume of fossil evidence because some of the transitions are qualified (i.e., not a series of begats), is disengenuous at best. This point really shows Milton at his worst. In the first place, even taking his assertion concerning the amount of sedimentary rock as valid (I'm no geologist), the rocks are not all homogenous - some of the sediments are marine, some riverine, some estuarine, some fresh - so the assemblages of critters in one place aren't necessarily going to be the same in all others of the same age. In the second place, it would be pretty silly to expect Hunt to include the ammonite sequence in a FAQ on vertebrate paleontology, since they aren't vertebrates. In the third place, both the ammonite and trilobite series shows exactly the type of gradual progression Milton demands: in the trilobites we have about 250 million years of progression from relatively simply, undifferentiated critters in the early Cambrian diversifying into four complete orders over time. Even longer with the ammonites. And in a lot of cases, these transitions really are the gradual species-to-species-to-genera-to higer taxa transitions Milton is saying are absent.[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-01-2004]

Milton hasn't stated what he thinks would "demonstrate" evolution to the extent that he requires it. I would alo like to know how he thinks that stellar formation is demonstrated to the degree he requires.Since I'm not a psychologist I would not like to offer any firm ideas on why Milton "thinks" the way he does. However it appears that he hates science because it contradicts the nutty things he wants to believe in. As I showed in my previous pos Milton says thigns that are quite clearly false - so can you offer a better explanation ? While you're at it you can explain why you still trust what he says.As for Philip Johnson, all I can say is that his writing makes me understand why so many Americans distrust lawyers.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 01-01-2004]

quote:

---

It doesn't matter why someone isn't able to respond immediately. No one is required to devote any time to the forum that they can't afford to. There are probably some more important things to do.
  —nosyned

---

Nosy, I think your rationalisation of willowtree's reluctance to provide scientific evidence against the theory of evolution is overly generous.wt has been posting on this site for a number of weeks. In an earlier thread wt asserted to have scientific evidence against evolution (as well as the philosophical piffle, mined quotes, appeals to inappropriate authorities and conspiracy fantasies). My purpose in this thread was to offer wt the opportunity to provide the scientific evidence against evolution. In all of that time, apart from bleating about being goaded into responding to this thread and reiterating claims of the superiority of the philosophical argument against evolution, wt has not provided one substantive post providing scientific evidence against evolution. And wt's claim of lacking time at the moment does not prevent wt from posting further insubstantial messages.I think my conjecture on the absence of wt's claimed scientific evidence is firmly supoorted. But I await with bated breath wt's long-foreshadowed scientific evidence.

For those of you who have followed this debate from its inception originating in the other closed topic, I want to quickly review the status of my argument.God, in the book of Romans, declares that His wrath is unleashed upon persons who deliberately exclude Him from the creation table. Contrary to the claim of contained in rational enquiry - that says no position is taken concerning the Divine - Dr. Scott interprets Romans to say you are taking a position concerning Him and God rats you off as to your true motive. Any person that claims this Divine neutrality under the disguise of the claim of rational enquiry is arbitrarily excluding God because they do not want to deal with a Creator. In response to this rejection God punishes these persons by removing their ability to see and deduce His fingerprints in creation.Persons suffering this wrath have had their hearts/mind darkened by God for refusing to include Him as a possibilty - they have no "God sense" which explains the existence of the philosophy of materialism/naturalism/evolution as a whole.One poster questioned this type of punishment by wondering why God didn't make them lepers or threaten to rain fire and brimstone down upon them ?Those judgments all involve the possibility of coming to ones senses and avoiding eternal judgment which doesn't effect your being but your well being.Whereas the removal of "God sense" is final and irrevocable. Simply stated, God wants nothing to do with you ever again. He will allow you to live out your natural life but you are essentially a walking dead man rejected by God for rejecting Him.Then in response to this argument someone would always mention evolutionists who do credit God ultimately, then I would respond by saying that I am obviously addressing those who do not as I am now.The entire argument of "God sense" is that God must be considered as the ultimate Creator and to be thanked (Romans 1:18-25)(2 things) If not He disables your ability to recognize Him.These arguments were the unique thing that my theism brought to the debate. Occasionally, when I have the opportunity to influence an impressionable agnostic, I will state the the "God sense" argument and watch their face light up when they finally ascertain the reason why so many brilliant people fail to see God in creation.I submitted a lot of posts covering the preceding philosophical arguments, which said arguments (if true) automatically make defective all scientific evidence that anyone wants to offer as proof against a Creator/Intelligent Designer. The preceding arguments also explains the defect : which is the ineligibility of a Designer being involved. Other than this the evidence is legit and brilliant.I reject theistic evolution because they fail to differentiate how exactly their theism affects the claims of evolution and its terminology. Since when does theism seek a lower seat and become subordinate to any entity and ideology ? When the pseudo-peacemakers of TE misrepresent the God of the Bible by seeking the acceptance of the atheists of neo-Darwinism through their despicable brown-nosing at the expense of genuine theism which is not compatible with the philosophy that under girds evolution.There can be no peaceful co-existence between the God sense of theism and the God senseless evolutionary claims when the origin of species is at stake.Also contained in the previous arguments was my accusation that evolution intentionally uses logidemic language to impress ordinary persons for the purpose of gaining trust and credibilty. One poster misunderstood this argument by offering to decode any "opaque jargon" that I didn't understand. My point was : What you don't know can and will be used against you. Unless evolution can be explained practidemically ordinary people will be forced to trust the veracity of the sources and their mouthpieces. Exceed an ordinary persons ability to understand - you are "logidemicizing". However, in science discussions I acknowledge that the level of intelligent communication can only go so low before error is risked.I am biased towards evidence that is consistent with my worldview (everyone is whether they admit it or not). This is why Richard Milton and his work carries an enormous weight of credibility in my eyes. He is not a creationist by his own vehement admission which makes the evidence he offers independant corroboration of my starting assumption : Evolution is not true.Previously I posted some evidence from his book "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism", evidence that excited me like :QUOTE : "How can a mouselike creature have evolved into two identical wolflike creatures (and two identical moles, etc.) on two different continents ? Doesn't this coincidence demand not merely highly improbable random mutations but miraculous ones ? " END QUOTENosyNed countered that he could tell the difference between the two wolf skulls.But Milton's point is intac : Virtually identical creatures evolving on two different continents via random mutation ?Then there was the evidence of Milton's claim that Darwinists cannot demonstrate to a non-Darwinist conclusive scientific evidence to substantiate the theory the same way the National Physical Laboratory can demonstrate physical constants, the College of Surgeons can demonstrate the circulation of the blood, or the Greenwich Observatory can demonstrate the expanding universe.EvC member Quetzal was probably the only poster that took this evidence seriously.In post #81 of this topic Quetzal offered a well reasoned reply.The basis of his argument was to downgrade Milton's claim that the other disciplines actually do "demonstrate" their claims. I suspect this argument was initiated for the purpose of attempting to legitimize the reduction of the threshold of scientific scrutiny that evolution should be held to.Quetzal argued that evolutionary biology is a "historical science", which is meant to say that it is harder to demonstrate, which (if true) makes Milton's ultimate point true. Milton and I believe that no "sweetheart exemption" should be given for any reason. Catastrophism researchers are never given what Quetzal might have implied.Then there was the Leakey/Pilbeam quote. I cited Milton who offered it as evidence to his claim that the amount of evidence by volume proving the "crucial gap" "between the hypothetical apelike primate ancestor and ourselves"...."the missing link" is "meagre" according to David Pilbeam. Leakey placed Pilbeam's quote in the context of the "fossil void" which I interpret to be what Milton was just quoted as describing.In the other previous debate (now closed) EvC member Darwinsterrier, speaking in the exact same context of the Pilbeam quote said:QUOTE "You could fit the entire hominin fossil record in the boot of, well maybe a large estate. (No, I won't translate; Americans never bother!) But the question is, so what ?.....It is not sheer quanity that matters...." END QUOTEWe have Leakey/Pilbeam/Darwinsterrier (all staunch evolutionists) making an honest assessment of the amount of evidence that exists in the record in question which said record is the all important evidence which makes or brakes the entire theory as far as man evolving from an ape.Milton's ONLY point was to say that there isn't enough evidence to claim victory, regardless of the beliefs of the quoters which is not the issue. The issue is that Darwinists are giving a false impression that the theory is fact based upon a small quantity of (debatable) evidence.The single biggest delay that has prevented me from posting further evidence is because I have very recently had my beliefs concerning RM&NS be questioned by myself in light of evidence that I find in the Bible which in my view supports the skeletal basis for RM&NS.I simply do not understand RM&NS enough to post evidence against it.I do not understand Milton's objections enough and those who vehemently disagree with him.However, in the context of a thorough thrashing of Intelligent Design, Darwinsterrier made the following comment :QUOTE : "...well that's fine with me. I don't think these things were designed at all....." " Have a god involved by all means, if you wish. But it will have to be a god that has used evolution....or has made things look exactly that way." END QUOTEThe unique argument that I brought to this deabte is intac: God is involved and I do credit Him ultimately unlike Darwinsterrier who cannot see Him because he interprets the process to be "purposeless and mindless" which to him evidences that a Designer was not involved.I believe, to use Darwinsterrier words, "(God)...has made things look exactly that way "Nature is only a secondary avenue to deduce Him from, the primary avenue is the record of His word, however in either case He will not present Himself overwhelmingly as to negate the pearl of great price which He seeks : Our trust and faith.One more from Milton:QUOTE "There is ample evidence that the young of many species are born with highly specialized abilities that they cannot learn from their parents or others of their species and which therefore must be inherited.One of the most striking examples of this kind of behavior is that of the cuckoo. As is well known , the hen bird lays her egg in the nest of another species. The cuckoo's parents both migrate some 12,000 miles to South America while the cuckoo chick hatches and attempts to tip his rival chicks out of the nest.Once the young cuckoo is fledged and grown it, too, will fly 12,000 miles south to join the parents it has never met at the winter quarters it has never seen, with perfect navigational accuracy. END QUOTEAnybody care to tell me how the ToE explains this one ?Now from mainstream anti-Darwinist Phillip E. Johnson quoting Michael Behe :QUOTE "When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis retinal, which rearranges within picosecondsto trans-retinal. (A picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein's metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds the transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP.)" END QUOTEJohnson's point is that molecular mechanisms are irreducibly complex.I qoute Johnson :QUOTE "What this means is simply that they are made up of many parts that interact in complex ways, and all the parts need to work together. Any single part has no useful function unless all the other parts are also present. There is therefore no pathway of functional intermediate stages by which a Darwinian process could build such a system step by tiny step." END QUOTEThe next thing I have is a question : If the information written in DNA is not the product of DNA, then where did the information come from ? Who or what is the author ?Johnson quoting George C. Williams :QUOTE " You can speak of galaxies and particles of dust in the same terms, because they both have mass and charge and length and width. You can't do that with information and matter. Information doesn't have mass or charge or length in millimeters. Likewise, matter doesn't have bytes.... This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms." END QUOTEI think most of you can predict where I am going with this.Johnson concludes :QUOTE "....highly complex information that is independant of matter implies an intelligent source that produced the information.... ' END QUOTEI will intensely anticpate your responses....I think I see vultures already......

I am using this post of yours to inform you that post #116 is also directed at you. If you choose to respond I will look forward to reading your reply.

I am using this post of yours to inform you that post #116 is also directed at you. If you choose to respond I will look forward to reading your reply.

I am using this post of yours to inform you that post #116 is also directed at you. If you choose to respond I will look forward to reading your reply.

I'm afraid we still aren't insync on this very initial point. It might be an idea to see if we can sort it out before you go off onto an oodle of other topics.Milton had TWO points, you are mixing them up.His first point was that the two animals were "virtually identical" such that it takes an expert zoologist to tell them apart. (we don't have any other way of telling what "virtually identical" means). However, they are similar in form they are not nearly as identical as Milton says they are.Note this part of the Milton quote: "This is no mere general similarity of anatomical detail, but an almost perfect duplication of distinctive species..."His second point is talking about how unlikely mutations would be that produce this result. They are unlikely indeed, if they were the same mutations. You were asked about what this means for the genetic make up of the two animals and a comparison between them. You have ignored this point. The mutations are not the same. The whole improbability point is void because of this. The creatures do not have duplicated (a very unlikely event indeed) genetic mutations. Milton is wrong on this point too.Milton didn't say that similar animals are unlikely. He said "virtually identical" ones are. (though I don't know on what basis).Milton's point about probability was directed at mutations. You were asked what this meant. You ignored that. I certainly agree that duplicated mutations would be very improbable in not terribly closely related species. However, they are not duplicated.His points are only valid if the animals are identical and are very telling if the mutations are identical. Neither case is true.Go back to the quote you posted. Read exactly what he said. What he said isn't true. If you want to waffle and drop the zoologists part and turn "virtually identical" in to "similar" you may. But by the time you do that there isn't any big mystery to explain.

---

Common sense isn't