Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9057 total)
83 online now:
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,794 Year: 906/6,534 Month: 906/682 Week: 141/445 Day: 34/22 Hour: 4/2

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   My Book On Evolution
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 132 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 1 of 2 (873921)
03-21-2020 11:01 AM

Thought I would share this here, I have a covenant with Percy, I can't post things like this as a link, not sure where, it's long and it is for reading. The purpose may seem like a slaughter of evolution but really I think I am fair on it, and I even where applicable give some credit to Darwin at least for homologies. It really represents about eighteen years of experience of the debate as a creationist. It really is only a summary of my knowledge though, pretty much the tip of it, but I hope all evolutionists will read it, even if you only read through it in part, now and then. I tried to write it at a slower pace, rather than represent it as a debate so nitpicking points I haven't really went into detail about, may not be appropriate.

I think deep, DEEP down, a lot of it will resonate with any human being, as ringing true, even the sternest of evolutionists must know that you can't just ignore these writings if you are honest.

So I am not trying to slaughter you personally for being evolutionist, I just wanted to give an effort to the "book" form, for want of a better word. This is all ultimately what I am convinced of at an intellectual person, from what I have learnt and figured out.

Yes, I can count, some chapters may have wrong numbers, there has been a lot of editing and I have lost track a bit.

A BRIEF (intellectual) DEMOLITION OF EVOLUTION THEORY.....By Sir Toado Baggins.

Chapter 1.
Nothing Ever Found In The Middle Of Evolving.

When we evaluate evolution as a claim, we have to evaluate WHAT it claims. It claims everything on earth, every sophisticated anatomy came to be by evolution. Every "complete" design, no matter how sophisticated it is as a design.

The first thing we have to do is to observe that there are sophisticated anatomies of various types in place, that are complete as designs. For example, all birds have the design of anatomy to fly, everything they need, flight feathers, the correct wing design and weight, etc..the same with bats, flying insects, they have all of the correct musculature. In this sense everything is complete and designed correctly. But this design-completeness shouldn't be conflated with "evolutionary completeness", because obviously the theory of evolution says that each stage is completely viable including the inbetweens. So do not EQUIVOCATE and say, "you don't understand evolution", as I have specifically shown the difference in what I mean.

So the point I am making is that there seems to be stages that would have to exist which were not complete as designs even if they were viable according to evolution. So for example, if something is evolving from forelimbs which are legs with feet, into wings, or evolving into fins, the "fin" design would be incomplete, and the "wing" design would be incomplete, respectively, if they were heading in that direction evolutionarily. But of course, you have to prove there is a viable, "middle", it's not enough just to claim these things existed.

Where am I going with all this? Well, the point is that both the LIVING record and the FOSSIL record, both show an absence of any evolution that is "in the middle" of evolving any sophisticated anatomy. We only find things at the, "complete" stage of design.

A correct prediction for evolution would be to find things in the middle of evolution in the record of death (the fossils), because evolution claims the fossil record is a history of evolution which should be a history of how wings and legs were invented by evolution. This means to prove wings or legs or arms can have intermediate, "middle" stages, a series of fossils has to be shown where each stage is viable until the design is completed.

Evolution claims every complete design came to be this way, can it not show us how?

We never once see any truly sophisticated design in the fossils, "in the middle" of evolving beyond that of a claim without proof. There is nothing between "non-insect wing" and, "insect wing". There is nothing for bats, pterodactyls, pterosaurs, or birds. The claims they make for things such as birds, Archaeopteryx actually had a complete wing with complete feathers. Any other "candidates" from therapods are only touted to be transitionals. It's common knowledge that transitionals come and go, scientists proclaim P species is a transitional, then a few years later they will call it a distant cousin. Specifically my argument deals with the viability of inbetween anatomies, so transitionals are a broader subject and are much more open to interpretation. I am specifically talking about viable intermediates of DIFFERENT anatomies/phenotypes.

It's the same in the LIVING record, there is nothing in between arm and leg. Nothing inbetween arm and wing, arm and fin, fin and leg. Every organism, if it has legs, has viable, "complete design" of viable legs, arms, wings etc...

The fact is that we would also expect to find evolution in the middle of designing in the LIVING record too because of different reproductive rates and varying selection pressures, some species normalised or in stasis where others are not. You can't say it would be uniform across all flora and fauna and that, "it's already all evolved", because that isn't the case, with evolution theory every stage is viable, meaning an intermediate is just as viable as a non-intermediate stage so where are they? An intermediate stages as a design wouldn't have to evolve towards a complete design according to evolution. So why are NONE at the "middle" stage? Why are there hundreds of species between stages of design? It's a logical silver bullet.

Also things reproduce much faster than other things, and we know are under different environments, different selective pressures. To find nothing "inbetween" isn't realistic, something must be in the middle of evolving legs or arms or eyes or wings. There simply is nothing. Even if the eye is evolved, or legs or arms, this doesn't alter the fact that if something is quadruped for example, and starts to live more and more in an arboreal niche, selective pressure should push it more towards arms with hands, useful graspers. So there is every reason to suppose that evolution should repeat itself where there is a similar selective pressure. Even evolutionists themselves argue that features such as eyes evolved separately some thirty to forty times in history. Yet we never see any direct evidence of this in the living or fossil record, but rather designs already complete and viable.

Are there any living or dead examples of reproduction in the middle of evolving? You have to be rather dense to not realise that only the complete stages are viable with reproduction. It's just obvious that many things in nature only have the "complete as a design" stage, therefore didn't evolve for if they did we would find them in the fossil or living record. There is no hiding from the logical searchlight. There is no rational reason to suppose there would be viable stages between reproductive methods. Just asserting an imagined scenario via conjecture is insufficient, there is nothing ever found between a type of reproduction as it would simply lead to death because how could something reproduce without the opposite s@x if that was the final goal? But with everything on earth needing to reproduce, why has everything already got it's viable mechanism of reproduction? If it constantly changed in the past, leading to many types, why doesn't it now? There is no evidence it ever evolved, in the fossil record or the living record. Indeed the correct prediction for evolution would likely be only one type of reproduction simply because of how difficult it would be to evolve a different method. (though "impossible" seems like a much better word here.) This is an example where there is a false appearance that evolution predicts the evidence but evolution would not predict many types of reproduction, evolutionists only claim evolution done this because of HINDSIGHT. They are FORCED to argue it is what evolution would produce. A correct apriori prediction would much likelier be just the one reproductive method, arguably. That you can even argue it highlights the problem of circular reasoning here.

CONCLUSION: The general absence in both the living record and fossil record, is overwhelming. A few examples of unproven CLAIMED inbetweens will in no way suffice against the size of the claims of evolution, and evolutionists have to show there are a series of viable anatomical stages between sophisticated, designed features such as wings or legs or reproduction. There simply aren't anatomically viable "inbetweens" reasonably and logically, because organisms have to have viable wings, hands, feet, legs, reproductive anatomy and fins right from the start, which is why everything on earth presently alive has them, and everything dead had them, because they were always complete designs because there simply isn't any such thing as macro evolution. That is what anatomy shows us, and it is therefore by far the best argument that creatures all had to be designed from the start with all the correct features in place to begin with. This is a much stronger argument LOGICALLY because it makes total sense but to slowly get the things needed by evolution with no viable middle stages makes no sense, or is, "NONSENSE" which is compounded by the fact that needful things are needed on day one, not millions of years later.

Be deep down honest with yourself, you MUST SURELY KNOW there is simply no evolution here in these things I have explained. If you doubt it, take any fossil whatsoever, did it have viable legs or arms? Did it have a viable reproductive system? It betrays common sense and logical reasoning to even hope that such things could exist in an incomplete state of design. There is simply no rational reason to believe there is a shred of truth to the macro evolution of such features but every reason to believe the great designer could create hundreds of viable feet, legs, arms, eyes, wings...etc...

Chapter 2. Abiogenesis And Evolution.

Evolutionists argue that abiogenesis isn't part of the theory of evolution, because they describe different things. It's true they describe different things but they both describe how a part of evolution theory would come to be. A primordial common ancestor or ancestors, are figments of evolution theory, so abiogenesis is the description of how something evolution comes to be. A primordial ancestor has never been found to be a factual thing that exists, only evolution theory says it exists, and abiogenesis exists in order to bring that evolutionary product about.

Think about it, abiogenesis could never describe how a giraffe or tree came to be, meaning abiogenesis as a belief, is only viable if firstly evolution exists to provide a common ancestor for abiogenesis to produce.

The logical conclusion is that even though they are separate claims, essentially abiogenesis is only invented and only has relevance to evolution theory SOLELY, meaning it is a MOOT point that they describe different elements of essentially the same naturalistic saga given abiogenesis is supposed to create the evolutionary non-existent ancestor and nothing else!!!. How can it not be a fundamental part of evolution given this is the case?

So it is a weak objection given it is obvious that the notion of abiogenesis only exists to provide some scientific means to get a common ancestor for evolution to act upon. Why even bother to pretend otherwise?

As for abiogenesis, again the problem is that everything about a lifeform speaks of teleology rather than dysteleology.


Usually people discuss the probability-issue with abiogenesis but I think there is a stronger argument as to why abiogenesis is actually science fiction.

My argument isn't from probability. My argument is that some things will reasonably contradict reality and therefore be false, not based on probability but based on an understanding of the real world. The law of non-contradiction tells us that all contradictions are false things by definition.

To highlight the difference between probability and unrealism, the reason why it's truly improbable that you won't win the lottery this weekend, is because of numbers (maths), but it isn't truly a matter of probability as to whether a celebrity will knock on your door tomorrow and ask to marry you. This latter example is not a matter of probability because it has nothing to do with numbers. We may colloquially say, "it is unlikely" but what we really mean is not that it is improbable, but that it is an event that just does not happen in reality, as it is inconsistent with things we know happen, from our experience of reality. In the same way it is not improbable that a naturally occurring piece of metal will never shape itself into a car chassis with 500 thread holes 55mm by 75mm. It's simply that some shapes have no reason to occur in reality under normal conditions unless there is a designer reason. It wouldn't be a case of saying, "we just need to give it enough time", because we know time and numbers have nothing to do with it, it's that random chance simply cannot produce such specified complexity as it's against reality and contradicts the nature of reality which shows us there are only designer causes for such design.

With abiogenesis it's the same thing. It isn't just improbability that is occurring though that is partially the case, it's that there are no reasons in reality for why a cell should construct itself even in a simple form, and there seems to be no such thing as any simple cell, the most reduced version is still staggeringly sophisticated.

It would be no different by analogy, to arguing that a cathedral would eventually create itself. It wouldn't, because there are no realistic reasons for it to do so. There is no dysteleology in this example, because there are only designer reasons for designed things to exist. (teleology).

The proof is in the pudding. Experimentation for abiogenesis yields poor results every time because the problem is because there is no teleological designer (agent), and it is supposed to happen naturally, and randomly, this means the ongoing construction of a designed thing like a cell, has no reason to continue to be constructed. Sort of like if this writing you are reading right now was written randomly, because there was no ultimate purpose in nature for this book to continue, it wouldn't continue. At some stage it would "stop" because there is no GOAL present if there is no designer. No prescience.

Think about it. Let's say something like a small polymer of homochiral amino acids creates itself and avoids hydrolysis somehow. Okay, fine. Now tell me, what reason is there in nature for this process to, "continue" until you have a protein, then continue until you have other things present like DNA? Then continue to a cell, then continue to an organism?

Answer: if it is random chance, then there is no reason in reality for it to continue so the process will be stopped by entropy long before it is completed since nature would not have any goal to create a living thing.

By analogy imagine nature creates a small, crude brick wall. Does nature have any reason to continue the build over time so that it becomes a cathedral? No, and even if it is argued it did very slowly over time, erosion would break down the wall long before the cathedral was ever built, just like hydrolysis breaks down peptide bonds, which is why all experiments for abiogenesis only lead to one conclusion; that it is science fiction. There is simply no reason for nature to "fight" against the more commonly abundant entropy which exists, and breaks things down, unless nature is a sentient being.

CONCLUSION: Ongoing construction projects are only ongoing if there are designers. If there are no sentient beings there to continue the process, there is no physical reason in science, for the process to continue and no reason for entropy to be stopped. Only an intelligent agent stepping in, would make sense in that scenario.

We can now create an argument thus;

- Evolution depends on there existing a common ancestor, and for evolution to be scientifically viable there must be a way for this ancestor to arise which is some sort of abiogenesis.
- Abiogenesis is reasonably false therefore evolution is not scientifically viable.

How can this argument be wrong? You would have to argue the absurdity that evolution occurred even if there was no ancestor for it to occur upon. Think about it, evolution can only happen if natural selection can act upon some form of organism, but scientifically if there is no way by which that organism can exist then evolution is built on a foundation of sand. The only way evolution could be upheld in this situation if abiogenesis is reasonably false, which it is, is if one is to depend on God creating a common ancestor, which breaks scientific rules of methodological naturalism, as a God cannot be argued from gaps. (GOTG fallacy.) Or to say there is some natural designer of life on earth, which would be preposterously unscientific also, as it would be pure speculation, and who built the aliens given they would also be finite?

So then there is no escape for evolution, even Darwin said if his theory was in any way to depend on the supernatural he would, "utterly abandon" his theory of evolution.

Abiogenesis is clearly false, there are no factual reasons to accept it. The argument that the Urey-Miller experiment favours it is actually merely a Modo-hoc fallacy because the production of amino acids, if the sole focus of the argument, concentrates only upon the material a cell is made from, and ignores the other things that makes a protein and a cell, what they are, which is their construction according to specified complexity, then it's modo-hoc fallacy because there is a logical value in the construction of the cell, the construction of the protein, beyond merely the material it is made from. A racemic mixture of amino acids does not lead to a homochiral polymer, with the correct amino acids in the correct order. There isn't one example of random amino acids producing anything even close to a protein, and because of the aforementioned reasons, there is no reason why this would be consistent as a scenario, with reality. There are no randomly natural reasons for why a protein must be built and even if it could be, that is where it would end, because nobody is there to continue towards any goal as random nature would have no goals to create a cell. The production of further designs would never happen. A protein would be the best achievement of naturalism, and even that would depend on an awful lot of faith in nature.

Chapter 3. Has Science Proven Evolution? (The burden of proof)

Let's now test equivalency with claims.

Imagine we have one fellow who claims he is a fairly strong man and for a test we get three strong men we know to be strong and have him arm wrestle them and beat them.

That's fairly equivalent as evidence. Or at the least we can say it supports his claim in some equivalent way when compared with the claim.

But imagine if the next day he said that this proved he was the strongest man in the world. Would the evidence be sufficient to prove his claim? No. What would be? Let us take all of the likely strongest men in the world, and imagine he beat them in tests of strength, technically he might not be the strongest man in the world but it would be fairly sufficient evidence he likely is.

So but then let us now imagine that because of that the next day he claims to be superman, the actual man of steel, and he genuinely means it. Would the evidence that he beat all the strongest men in the world suffice as to the claim he is the man of steel?

No, perhaps punching through walls would, but an arm-wrestling success wouldn't.

So can anyone see what is happening here with these examples? An axiom can be stated based on how the claim grows which is this;

"The greater a claim is, the greater the corresponding evidence must be in order to match it in some manner of equivalence, or at the least be good evidence in support of it."

So then where it is not possible to fully evidence any particular claim, if there is a portion of evidence available, is it not reasonable to say that the portion of evidence in some way must be a representation of the claim, even by portion? So then logically if someone claims to be superman, which is the correct evidence in portion? Success at arm wrestling or punching through solid walls?
Obviously punching through walls, meaning a portion of the evidence in some way represents the size of the claim, it would be reasonable to then conclude he may indeed be superman. Not that I am saying you must affirm the consequent, I am just saying that the evidence at least reasonably matches up with the size of the claim, in the portion provided, as an expectation.

So then another example may be, imagine if I claimed to be a professional ice dancer/skater, if we were next to an ice rink would it suffice to the claim according to our axiom if I were to show that I could slide on ice with skates? Or if I were for five minutes to perform moves which looked identical to those you see professional dancers perform, of immense skill?

It's not hard to understand why my logic is correct here.

So where am I going with this? Basically I don't think the evidence and arguments put forward for macro evolution are equivalent in any way to the size of it's claim that it invented every species that ever lived.

If anatomical designs, no matter how clever they are, and how we plagiarise them (biomimetics), came about by evolution I again ask the question, if every super-intelligent anatomy in nature in all it's brilliant solutions to the anatomical problems that exist, evolved, which one is sufficient to match evolution's claim; that a bacteria turning into bacteria and adapting by becoming resistant in the lab, or a bacteria in part, evolving a clever new anatomy in it's morphology?

A little bit like asking the previous questions, IMO. For if someone is only able for one moment to evidence his claims to be superman, punching through a solid wall in some measure is consistently matching evidence. So then evolution's claim is that it invented everything on earth, can it not even show us the invention of one small novel anatomy, even in part?

Now even if you object and say, "that is not how evolution works", if I objected and said, "my friend can't punch through the wall that is not how he operates as superman" would that excuse, logically, mean that we can now conclude he is superman because he doesn't operate like superman?

In the same manner, if evolution can't show us in the present, even the small creation of a novel anatomy, does it then follow that we can conclude that therefore it happened? Or, do we conclude that even though evolution cannot provide the evidence, still the correct logic is to say then that nevertheless even if it could not provide the evidence, this won't mean that it follows that evolution is sufficiently evidenced.

So even if I sympathise and say, "yes, evolution just can't provide the evidence", nevertheless Your problem is that it also couldn't provide it IF EVOLUTION WAS FALSE, which may be the real reason why it can't provide the evidence, and if you ignore this you have effectively reasoned in a circle. In other words, whether evolution can or can't provide us with the evidence, it isn't sufficiently supported as a claim even if scientists believe it is because the evidence put forward is not equivalent to it's claims even by portion.

Be honest, it doesn't match up because a lot of the evidence put forward for evolution is correlation or coincidence, or patterns from a nested hierarchy or circumstantial transitionals with no way to test, or genetic closeness which can't be tested like genuine relatedness can amongst same species where we already have proof of closeness through reproduction, or similar organs in similar types of species, a sharing of traits, etc, etc....but what about the matching evidence showing a clever anatomy can come in part or in full by being created by macro evolution? Evolution claims everything ever made was designed by evolution, can we not see even a simple anatomy in the middle of evolving, to back this grandiose claim?

No, we can't. So the evidence for evolution is not equivalent to it's fantastic claim that it is an all-knowing designer with more intelligence than men. (biomimetics)

The obvious conclusion is that micro evolution's superficial changes do not represent even in portion, any macro evolution that would suffice to the size of the claim correspondingly. This deductive reason is unavoidably against evolution leading to the conclusion that scientists, for whatever reason, are treating evolution as a special case, they're treating it by a double standard because they believe it is the only scientific way to explain life. If evolution was wrong, it would make them look stupid, so it's for human reasons they argue that evolution is a well scientifically proven case. How can it be? Logical notation informs us that this axiom must be observed and evolution is no special exception! If we observe this axiom, evolution is not sufficiently proven.

Chapter 4. Does Life Appear To Be Designed, Or Is It Designed?

Acute reasoning allows us to deduce whether life is actually designed or only appears to be. Dawkins and the like argue that life "appears to be" designed simply as a way of acknowledging the design in life without having to REALLY acknowledge it but there doesn't seem to be any sound argument to actually defend the notion that life only appears to be designed unless we apply a double standard where the features of design in life are ignored even though they are found identically in human made designs. (specified complexity, function, goals, contingency planning, information, correct materials, etc...all of the expected identifying clues of teleology)

Obviously I could make a similar statement about a car, "this car appears to be designed."

It's actually a simple matter, if something appears to be designed, then upon inspection if it is not really designed but appears to be, then we wouldn't expect it to contain evidence of intelligence represented as designer-features.

Imagine you see in the distance a bridge that APPEARS to be designed. How can we know whether it appears to be designed and is or only appears to be designed but isn't? Well, imagine if we examined the bridge and there were no side-rails so that people couldn't fall over the side. One element of intelligent design is contingency-planning. We know that if it was really designed well, the intelligent designer would have put rails there. Secondly, the surface is rough, it is not constructed for walking on. Again, this shows there is no real specified complexity. There is no design to the arch either, showing detailed patterns that can't come about by chance. Can you see what is happening yet? We are seeing that our bridge is revealed as something that only appears to be designed but actually isn't because the true elements of intelligent design are missing. Imagine now we see the material the bridge is made from is crumbling away, and the top part is wonky. A designer would use materials built to last, not crumbly, loose, naturally occurring material. One element of design is use of the correct materials. Find me an eyeball made from wood.

In the same way when we investigate lifeforms, they over-qualify as designed. They're riddled with the defining features of design which are what reveals genuine intelligence has gone into them, like with things we know to be designed. Some evolutionists not well educated in critical thinking, MISTAKE this reasoning for circular reasoning, but circular reasoning is where you assume the conclusion, not where you find out what genuine features are contained in things everyone agrees are designed, so as to know what the signs of intelligence are both inductively AND deductively.

It is then reasonable using deduction, to infer that we can identify design by it's ubiquitous but varied characteristics, but essentially all of the features will be found in any animated, sophisticated mechanical design. It is then backed up by the fact that all sophisticated designs of sophisticated intelligence level in terms of being equivalent to life, in being animated mechanics, inductively are only ever found to come from designers. There is not one example outside of life of any animated mechanical contrivance which does not contain the designer features that show an intelligent agent has made it.

So we deduce what makes something designed, from things that are, by seeing if they provide identifying characteristics, which they do. To then say that the better conclusion is something with those features isn't designed is to effectively use special pleading fallacy where a double standard is used where the individual would likely infer design if the object in question was not contentious but would change their mind if told it supports the notion life was designed by a Creator.

Even experimentally this is a simple matter to prove, all you do is present the question as neutral, if the evolutionist is not suspicious s/he will likely agree that the object in question would reasonably be designed if it shown the signs of intelligence, but if you were to reveal that the object was a dead frog, there is a 100% probability they would back track and change their mind because they don't want to acknowledge that life requires a designer, or they will pretend there is some difference which is actually inconsequential but they will argue has tremendous weight.

As for the formalities, my argument for design (ID Syllogism) are written below in my own code to simplify; where the obvious symbols are shown;

"all" = *, and "is" = <, "if" is >, and ~ is "ergo" or "then" where applicable.

Form of ID syllogism:

*x~p, yThe only negation possible according to formal logic is;

>^p~^*x. (If object in question is NOT designed therefore it will NOT have ALL the features of design) --modus tollens--

>^*x~^p. (Denial of antecedent fallacy.)

>p~*x. (Affirmation of consequent fallacy.)

You also cannot switch terms, (equivocation) and pretend I am arguing something I am not thus;

"you are arguing some x~p" (equivocation of antecedent premise/strawman fallacy)

So the form of my ID syllogism in english is;

If you have all the identifying features of sophisticated intelligent design, then you have something intelligently designed. (This is the law of identity, NOT circularity, most laymen conflate the two)

Life has all the features of sophisticated intelligent design

Ergo life is designed.

PREDICATED ON: This argument is formally valid, obeys the ponen/tollens. The argument is backed up by equivalent real-life examples of the same logic when applied ubiquitously. You can literally use any example thus;

If you have all the identifying features of a human/football/television you are a human/football/television. (law of identity, and we identify things by examining what they are deductively)

P has ALL the features

Ergo P is human/football/television.

(it should be noted many evolutionists have said they have found fault in my arguments but I deemed both them and their complaints to be underqualified, pedantic or plain wrong. It's only natural to think that what occurs to you is a novel objection but it's highly probable I already am aware of the objection and have an answer for why it is in actuality, negligible.) The most common error is to believe premise one is predicated on induction. It's actually based on inferring what the obvious signs of teleology are in an object by identifying them as we would anything else so you can't use a double standard. We know when something is deliberate. The feature itself, people tend to not understand, IS the intelligence. For example the arrangement of parts in a differential are the only clever way to avoid wheelspin, the design, the reason we know why it is intelligent, is in how clever the invention is. To say "show me more" signs of intelligence would be logically preposterous, for the clever arrangement specifically designed to solve a specific problem, IS the "intelligence" in the design as it shows the problem was deliberately solved by how accutely specific the answer is, which is pretty much the definition of "deliberate invention". This is deduced, because we know not inductively, but from experience of reality, that intelligence is the cause of intelligence. This is tautologous, and a tautology is defined as "true by definition". Think of it in these terms, if we examine a human skeleton so as to recognise it's anatomy, if a body contained that anatomy we could deduce it was human, not based on induction, for we would only need one example of a human being we know to be human. In the same way we only need one example of an intelligently designed animated mechanical design, to know what makes that thing an intelligent design, because of the features of intelligence within it that show that intelligence. But note even if we didn't know there was a designer, that wouldn't make the intelligence of the design go away, it would still be there displayed in the cleverness of the contrivance itself, and the obviously deliberate solutions to obscure, innate problems with that particular invention. In the same way if we removed the down-force from an F1 car and it couldn't corner fast the following objection would be absurd; "that's inductive, you only tested one car, you must test every car, in every world.")

Even if there is ultimately some technicality you could use thee rhetorical device of "playing it up", to magnify, and argue my syllogism is wrong for I.D. the truth of the matter is, as evidence you couldn't hope for more direct, stronger evidence of design when inspecting an object, than to find all of the usual direct evidence of intelligent thought, in that object.

There are so very many examples of this in nature that it's a case of, "where to begin?" If we just take one example, the Muller cells in the eye. Because the nerve net is in front of the photo receptors so that the receptors somewhat are blocked, the Muller cells are a funnel-like cell that is at one end present at the surface of the retina, but this end is very large and funnel like and spreads out to join with the others, but as they pass through the net they are thin and long. This is a very simple, elegant and intelligent design solution so that the maximum surface area of light on the retina is in place to collect the most light possible, and to collect the image, so to speak. This way the receptors can be refreshed from the choroid and the Muller cells can negate the nerve-net problem.

Generally in the field of biomimicry, there are hundreds of designs taken from nature because quite simply they are far smarter than anything we can come up with. If it is down to evolution, since evolution has no intelligence it would seem like a contradiction to pose that evolution came up with the design, but if it's a matter of the best explanation, obviously a designer specifically coming up with the designs is a much stronger argument than evolution hoping to get the best designs by chance mutation. And how many times would the correct designs come about by evolution? This would be like winning the lottery hundreds of times over, that evolution by coincidence just happened to provide ALL of the correct anatomies, ALL of the correct materials and ALL of the best designs physically attainable.

This rather boring bit now is a brief response to some of the "bad design" arguments evolutionists put forward, which is a bit boring so you may want to skip to chapter five.

Slothful induction fallacy occurs when someone doesn't focus on where the majority of the evidence is pointing, and instead they will find a reason to go with the opposite conclusion. "Lazy induction", basically means, they focus on one or two pieces of evidence but will ignore the overwhelming evidence.

This fallacy is what all arguments pertaining to "bad design" in life, are. They are all based on focusing on a gnat and swallowing a camel.

Example 1, the pharynx/larynx. Forget the fact we can viably chew, swallow, speak, whistle, shout, whisper, smile, frown, breathe, eat and drink from one entry-point, and forget that we can viably drink upside down, eat upside down, forget that we can spit, laugh, lick, taste, sing, sneeze, cough, regurgitate, belch, Bork, and forget the perfect structure of the voice-box, where we can successfully change the tone of our voice and how audible it is. Forget this is all a neat package including aesthetics, and just focus on the fact that we can potentially choke. (the evolutionist's complaint).

Example 2 is the eye.

- successful light-penetration of nerve net through clever Muller cells that collect light from largest possible surface area of the retina.
- Successful refreshment of the photo receptors through the choroid.
- we can see in colour
- we have the software to take the elemental colours and interpret all of the subtleties thereof when merged.
- The lens and eyeball is self-washing, unlike when you have spectacles.
- We can change the focus of our eye, and see in immense detail and clarity.
- We can adjust to the dark by the pupil opening. (humans are diurnal not nocturnal so this would be more advantageous for nocturnal animals so the design seems to be limited but a cat's pupil opens fully which is why you see their eyes glowing, which is the layer behind the retina.)
- The eye lid can stop dust from entering our eye and it doesn't get heavy because it is the correct weight for the muscles.
- We have the exactly correct types of fluid in the eye such as the rhodopsin. It is very sensitive to light and perfect for low light conditions. (correct materials)
- correction of aberration.
- Neat, and beautiful structure.

This is of course only what the camera eye in humans does succesffully and there are dozens and dozens more viable designs in the eye which enable sight, of which I am not qualified to give you the list of the likely 200 more well designed things.

Forget all that, and just focus on an irrelevant blind spot or the direction of the photo receptors, atheists would argue, but have you noticed this blind spot only presents itself as a problem with your eyes for the first time in your life, when an atheist invents an experiment and has you find the blind spot with paper and a pen. As for the photo receptors, anatomists of the eye have shown that they're actually the correct way around because of the problems this solves such as blood refreshment from the choroid.

So even when evolutionists score a couple of goals, they tend to not be genuine goals, the design of the human eye has no malfunction because of those complaints, and choking is actually not part of the pharynx anatomy, a mass wedged in the trachea is not a malfunction. But even if these were valid complaints can you see the problem? Look at the induction highlighted in blue, all of the facts are pointing to incredible intelligent design, not evolution. The percentage of evidence HIGHLY by majority, favours design, but only one or two PURPORTED facts, fit evolution. (They don't really fit but the point is, slothful induction occurs when you only focus on one or two facts, and ignore hundreds of facts that point to another conclusion.)

Finally, if there was bad design, which there doesn't seem to be once you look past the superficial complaints by evolutionists, even so that would still require a designer, because as we can see from man-made products, sometimes people don't always come up with the most reliable designs for a device and there is a recall, but those devices still required a designer.

If evolution was true I would expect bad design to be rife, OR, be more prevalent as we go further back in the fossil record, where we would see evolution's trial and errors.

P.S. A logical test to see if the blind spot is truly an issue is the use of reductio ad absurdum. That is to say, if someone came up to you and said, "look, I will show you where the blind spot is on your car, sit in your car and I will show you, as another car passes you, where you can't see in the mirror." Well, the first thing you would say is this; "why would I need you to show me, most drivers are aware of this?" But have you noticed when an atheist tries to show you the blind spot in the human eye, you do need him/her to show you where it is? So then logically speaking we can deduce that the blind spot in the human eye can't really be much of a problem for the design if we need showing how it's a problem. That is actually proof that the complaint is superficial and inconsequential, for if it was a true problem we would not need it showing to us because it would have been problematic before they pointed it out.

TEST IT YOURSELF. For any complaint the atheist makes for a specific anatomy, isolate that area of anatomy or system, and study how many successful things that system does, how many viable functions which support correct design. You will come up with a very long list of "correct" design, compared with the one complaint the evolutionist will make. THEN find out if their one complaint really is bad design by studying it properly. 9 times out of 10 you will in fact find out the evolutionist misunderstood some aspect of the design, or didn't land a goal because their complaint doesn't really cause any malfunction. A good example is the recurrent laryngeal nerve, it doesn't actually present any malfunction in the design, nor does the direction of the photo receptors in the eye. Now think of all of the things the nervous system does do correctly and compare the mountain of evidence for design with one superficial complaint. 99.9% of the human body shows marvelous design, the 0.1% we think is bad design usually turns out to not be bad design and is actually our own ignorance playing it's part in some way or a misunderstanding of optimal designs

Chapter 5. The Pseudo Predictions And Circular Reasoning Used With Evolution.

HINDSIGHT can be used to pretend evolution would predict scenarios it more reasonably wouldn't. A form of circular reasoning is when hindsight is used where another conclusion is firstly unproven. To explain this here is an example;

A correct use of hindsight would be to say that because life exists, and all things have a cause then life must have a cause, so even if someone argued they did not know how life came to be, they could still say "but it must have came to be somehow". This isn't circular because the conclusion is true.

But if someone is arguing evolution, and the truth-value of evolution is in dispute hindsight can't be used in the same way. So for example if someone argues an organism has went unchanged for hundreds of millions of years or even billions in the case of sulphur bacteria for example, they can't infer that this must be because of an unchanged environment or that's to basically assume the conclusion that there is an evolutionary reason.

For example, we know that it would follow that an organism wouldn't change over such a big timescale if it never evolved to begin with, so to select the conclusion that it is unchanged because of evolutionary stasis is to argue in a circle when reasonably evolution would not predict such examples of unchanged organisms, of all types. An unchanged environment for so many varied species that are unchanged for long periods, is totally unproven and doesn't seem realistic either.

In the same way hindsight can be used to basically PRETEND we would expect certain results from evolution where logically it can actually be shown that we wouldn't necessarily predict that PARTICULAR evidence.

For example there is no reason to suppose evolution would only create one sentient persona in human beings, but it might be expected to produce none at all more reasonably. But evolutionists only argue it produced only humans because of the sole reason that only human sentient personas exist. This is circular reasoning because what is being disputed is whether evolution did create us. This is done with evolution a lot, the only reason people infer evolution produces certain evidence is not because it truly would be predicted evidence of evolution but simply because it is the specific evidence which does exist.

A more realistic expectation might be that evolution could only produce a bipedal ape that does not have a full conscience of morality, spirituality, can write and talk, and have a level of intelligibility more consistent with over-design beyond need. Or another possible reasonable prediction is that evolution if it did create an intelligent person in the human kind, would also produce 678 more species on the human level. But the only reason evolutionists would argue evolution would produce only humans the one time, is simply because they have to. By hindsight they know only human sentience exists so they basically have to pretend we might expect this from evolution. In reality we would expect if mankind is made in God's image, for only humans to be sentient personas. So creation wins on this prediction. It also wins on many other predictions because it can be shown they truly would be predictions for a creation, but they are not predictions for evolution, evolutionists simply circularly infer they are the product of evolution by abusing hindsight.

By analogy this fault in reasoning can be shown with an example. Imagine I argue that life exists because phlogiston created it. Now, we find angiosperms as well as mammals exist, how is this a prediction of phlogiston? Well, because phlogiston created all forms of life, so we expect angiosperms and mammals to exist from phlogiston. Phlogiston is a very plastic cause.

But how do we know phlogiston was ultimately responsible?

Well because we're here after all aren't we, therefore it must be responsible.

Can you spot the circularities here? Does it remind you of anything? It reminds me of evolutionists reasoning.

CONCLUSION: If we actually look at the mechanisms of evolution and how crude they are, we know for example even if selection is not random the mutations would be, so to presume mutations would randomly lead to all of the materials possible for millions of anatomies, and just so happen to be correct is not a reasonable prediction for evolution. In reality we would expect a designer to provide all of the correct materials and designs for life to be viable. A more realistic conclusion is that evolution would only produce crudely designed species, with only one method of reproduction. The only reason scientists argue that we would expect all of the lifeforms that exist to exist if evolution was true, is because they abuse hindsight. They know they have to argue evolution would create an almost limitless diversity of life. In reality they only get to argue that because that diversity already exists.

Logically there just aren't any reasons to simply GRANT that evolution would create everything that does exist. Certainly with biomimetics (people plagiarising the designs from life) the level of intelligence displayed in lifeforms is far cleverer than human intelligence or we wouldn't have to plagiarise those designs. Why would superior intelligent design in lifeforms be a prediction of evolution? The correct logic is that it is a prediction for a supreme intelligent designer. The correct prediction for a mindless, unintelligent process is barely viable designs at best. IF THAT!

Chapter 6. The Fossil Record And Transitionals.

Another circular argument is that the fossil record would be predicted by evolution. In reality why would that be the case? Do we see fossils forming today?

A correct prediction for evolution according to logical rules, is actually that if the fossil record is a history of how evolution designed everything that exists, then we would expect to see in that record that history of evolution. How it designed wings, arms, legs...etc.....but what we see is completion. Even the Cambrian phyla are disparate, with no ancestors. All designs fully formed and viable. Where are the trial and errors?

Let us now take a look at the groups of classification and how long they would take to arise based on the claims of evolution which says humans and chimps are both "primates" in the group mammals, and so even below the group "mammals" we have five million years to get a different type of, "primate". So then how long did the Cambrian forms have to evolve since they are at the, "phyla" level? Obviously if the level of family, or above takes a length of time to evolve, different phyla would take much, much, longer, but by comparison the Cambrian phyla would have had to evolve at break neck speed, leaving no trace of how it occurred, since the ancestors for these groups simply do not exist. No wonder it is caused the Cambrian explosion, because even in evolutionary time, this would be macro evolution speeded up to the point it is untenable to believe it occurred.

Evolution predicts diversity before major disparity on the level of phyla. So then to get different phyla, a lot of divergence has to occur from the common ancestor/s. The fossil record shows disparity before diversity, where many kinds of phyla such as the Cambrian phyla, appear abruptly and fully formed without any history of divergence the evolution-tree would predict. Where are the innumerable transitionals that led to such phyla? There simply aren't any. It is the same for angiosperms and dinosaurs.


Evolutionists spread the propaganda that really it is the fossils that show evolution, but in terms of numbers the handful of transitional candidates they put forward would have to represent a minuscule percentage of the total forms. Even evolution scientists would be forced to admit that 99% or more of the transitionals are missing, meaning that logical rules dictate that the better explanation is to explain away the handful rather than invoking the existence of all of those missing forms.

This is easily explainable without evolution for the "transitionals" simply are not what scientists think they are. They have simply nominated things that show a false appearance of an evolution that mathematics easily predicts without evolution. In anything that is designed and comes in great numbers, there can be an appearance of a false evolution but we still expect by majority the transitionals to be missing given designer things did not evolve.

It is the same with evolution, 99% or more of the transitionals that would have had to exist had evolution occurred, do not exist. This is reasonably a falsification of evolution by use of the modus tollens rule;

The only thing we can reasonably provide as evidence evolution didn't happen is to show it didn't happen which would mean that the evidence to falsify evolution would be invisible evidence in that if evolution did not occur, we can only provide as evidence, an absence of evidence. For if it did not occur obviously it's absence would be the evidence of that.

Question; how can we disprove evolution if evolutionists won't allow us to?

They are free to create imaginative, "escapes", so that they can forever argue that somehow evolution happened. But logically, the modus tollens rule means evolution is reasonably falsified;

- If evolution is true, it is unavoidable that the majority of the transitionals would be found in the fossils.
- The majority of transitionals are NOT found in the fossils, therefore evolution is false.

(CORRECT; modus tollens.)

(The objection that they have found a comparatively small handful of transitionals, related to the full percentage, is slothful induction fallacy.?) The ad-hoc excuses as to why the fossils purposefully hide evolution but deliberately show the creatures that have always existed (real lifeforms) is quite silly. If the fossils are a history of time and the evolution of modern forms, it would show it.

Let us now look at some respective forms and see if we find any evidence or as we expect if evolution doesn't exist, an absence of evidence;

Between the Permian and Triassic we should see the transitionals for lizards?. We don't, BUT, we do see other fossils preserved in rocks of that age. Pre-bat transitionals had to have evolved after mammals had evolved from reptiles, so between the Triassic and the Tertiary we expect to see how bats became bats, through transitionals leading to bats, we don't BUT we do see many fossils preserved in the Triassic and Tertiary including bats, full designed for flight. For example Ichthyosaurs could only have evolved after amphibians evolved into reptiles because they say they evolved from a land reptile, so between then and the first Ichthyosaur fossil, that period should contain the intermediates. It doesn't.

The list goes on and on, and it's a simple exercise, all you do is find the period of time something MUST have evolved. You simply never will, because macro evolution reasonably did not happen because it does not exist.

So what do we find in the fossil record, which shows up without any ancestors and remains the same for, "millions of years"?

Here is a list of some things with a date for where they first show up according to the evolutionary timescale;

The Coelacanth Fish (340 million years old)
Gingko Trees (125 million years),
Crocodiles (140 million years),
Horseshoe Crabs (200 million years),
The Lingula lamp shell (450 million years),
Neopilina Molluscs (500 million years),
The Tuatara Lizard (200 million years).
Avocets (65 million years)
Wollemi Pine (150 million years)
Ferns (180 million years)
Nightcap Oak (20 million years, based on fossilized nut)
Maple Tree (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
jellyfish (500 million years)
Alligators (75 million years)
Gracilidris Ant (15-20 million years preserved in amber)
Turtles (110 million years)
Gladiator Insect (45 million years)
Lace Bugs (15 -200 million years, amber)
Starfish (500 million years)
Bats (48-54 million years)
Golden Orb-Weaver Spider (165 million years)
Pelican Spider (44 million years)
Shrimp - (100-300 million years)
Rabbitfish - (150 million years)
Gall Mites - (amber - 230 million years)
Sponge, Nucha naucum - (220 million years)
Octopus - (90 million years)http://creation.com/...octopus-fossils
Dragonflies. (can't find a date, but they were a lot bigger but that's all, I guess the Carboniferous)
Laonastes Rodent (10 million years up, can't find exact date)
Millipedes. (3-400 million years, aprox)
Sharks: (450 million years)
Vascular plants, land plants. (400 million)
Proxylastodoris kuscheli Beetle. (40-50 million) --was believed extinct until recently--?
non-marine ostracod. Eocene --was believed extinct until recently--
Sabalites Palm tree - Eocene (30-50 million years)
Hydrangea? (23-33 million years/Oligocene)
Alnus flower (23-33 million years/Oligocene)
Swartzia is a tropical tree with some 200 species today (30-50 million years/ Eocene))
Sycamore. "The leaf is not too different from those on the living tree" (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Crinoid Anthedon (150 million years)
Eophis underwoodi (snakes) - (167 million years)
Tardigrada (micro-bears) - 520 million years. (they have many things that large animals have including a gut, eyes, osphagus, brain and mouth)
Sulfur bacteria - 1.8 billion years.
Pollen - (Roraima) an indisputable case of pre-Cambrian 550 million years or so.
Shovelnose Ray (Belemnobatis sismondae) 150 million years
Mayfly - 97-110 million years.?
Moss - 330 million years,. (Apparently no evolution of this moss has occurred for 330 Ma. The fossil record of Sphagnum moss itself occurs in the Cenozoic, which means that the record of this type of common moss appears to be pushed back at least 265 Ma.)

Slothful induction fallacy occurs when people ignore where the majority of the inductive evidence is pointing. Since more than 99% of the transitionals are conspicuously absent, the correct conclusion is to infer an absence of evolution in the fossil record. This conspicuous evidence of absence argued through the modus tollens, is not the same as argumentum ad ignorantiam (arguing from ignorance) because arguments from silence and ignorance occur where the evidence is not conspicuously absent.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless the absence is conspicuous. Now if the fossil record is a history of how life evolved on earth then this is the largest induction of conspicuous evidence to ever exist. All of these forms show no ancestors, no evolution, and there are many more forms that the same could be said about, including all of the Cambrian phyla for example.

Chapter 7. Evolutionary Convergence/divergence.

The true explanative power of evolution originally and perhaps the strongest argument for it is found in the sense it would make of homological features such as the pentadactyl limb. Be it the phalanges in an Icthyosaur (in some species at least), or the frame of a bat's wing, or a human hand, all mammals and reptiles have the same bones at least in that regard. There may be exceptions but the purpose of this book isn't pedanticism and it's many faced tediosities. (as in tedious).

It makes science-sense and is a good explanation for diversity if looked upon in isolation, that there may be in some far past a common ancestor that originally had the pentadactyl pattern in it's forelimb. Let us say that this shared, derived character existed in this ancestor for a moment. The diversity is then explained by the numerous and successive modifications thereof by decent, continually until the final radiation of the tree of life displays disparity at the larger levels such as phyla. (Later on I will explain why the diversity/disparity issue, doesn't match with Darwin's tree.)

Darwin's initial idea and the explanation for homological features is;

1. Clever.

2. Neat and makes rational sense.

3. Has scientific, explanative power.

Of course I shouldn't be quote-mined on any of this, because I am only talking about a part of the theory of evolution described as "divergence", when taken in isolation and all other issues being ignored. But it seems to me divergence is what evolution was supposed to be. Theoretically at least, this was a clever solution if you are to explain life's diversity. life's diversity isn't the only issue of course.

If Darwin's brilliance was divergence, even if the direct evidence would be to find such common ancestors which they have not found, then surely convergence is in the same manner of superlative in the opposite direction, a disastrous ad-hoc turd for evolution-theory, and it's great weakness. I can hear the evolutionist complain, "you don't understand the method behind it". But the problem is that I do understand it. Your problem is I understand evolution theory TOO WELL.

The explanation is (to prove I do know) that the same selective pressure would act in a similar situation, to push a modification in the same direction as another one, thereby creating a homoplastic feature such as echolocation in bats, oil birds and whales. So the story goes, where the same pressure arises, and the same usefulness of morphology then the selection of a similar trait may become inevitable where constrained by design to only one effective anatomical feature.

So then eyes, like wheels, seem to be the best way of achieving P, therefore the constraint if X combined with selection pressure if T would mean XT= convergence.

Not hard to grasp. So then you may say, "is it not also a rational explanation like with divergence?"

It is a sort of half-clever solution but the true problem arises when we look into the logical reasoning of this ad-hoc solution. The first problem I shall mention is the predicted evidence for evolution would actually be that if all forms diverged upon ancestors, then a falsification of evolution counts as any lifeform which breaks that pattern. It simply isn't reasonable to suppose that homoplastic features would be expected from macro evolution and they should count as falsification evidence because they are too powerfully against evolution being the true answer. So really if evolution was true, we would expect one shared, derived character to not be present where it did not "evolve" by divergence where the trunk converges upon an ancestor. Logically that is simply the way to "break" the notion that such shared traits must stem from an ancestor.

So that is a weakness of evolution-theory, that they have INCORPORATED falsification-evidence of evolution and made an argument as to why it is still evolution. By analogy imagine if I theorised that life once existed on Mars, and we found no evidence of life on Mars so to save the theory I countered by saying that this is what we would expect had life on Mars once been there and it all ended in war leaving no trace of anything behind, after millions of years. This would be to INCORPORATE conflicting evidence so as to manipulate that evidence into fitting the theory.

The larger problem is the notion of random mutations. An error in the convergence argument is to focus on selection-pressure and ignore the random nature of mutations. This makes for such farcical scenarios, and here is one quote from Gould to prove how preposterous it becomes, to believe evolution can come up with the same repeated miracles of the exact same designs from scratch, every single time as though it is a super-intelligent agent with astounding prescience;

“This sea-going reptile with terrestrial ancestors converged so strongly on fishes that it actually evolved a dorsal fin and tail in just the right place and with just the right hydrological design. The evolution of these forms was all the more remarkable because they evolved from nothing—the ancestral terrestrial reptile had no hump on its back or blade on its tail to act as a precursor”- Gould.

The problem with this highly unrealistic scenario he paints here (a story) is that the correct design of anatomy is almost treated like a smorgasbord of endless treats evolution can select from at will. But in reality selective pressure comes AFTER random mutations. The mutations that would have to arise to lead to a certain morphological feature would have to also randomly occur in the Ichthyosaur, as they did in the fish. In this scenario, there is no explanation or proof that the ancestors could provide viable intermediate stages without exaptation. (of course the explanation from Gould would be punctuated equilibrium, but what I mean here is that there is basically no way to prove the claim that there could be useful stages between or that the mutations would so arise, without circularly assuming they did.)


By analogy, imagine if I were to be sent each week random parts/gifts from an online sales market like Ebay. I had no choice of what these gifts were (random mutations). Imagine then if I had a need to create something like a car(a constraint), it may then be understandable if another person on the other side of the planet was to participate in the same experiment an they also needed to create something like a car so we both came up with selecting wheels from Ebay because of the same constraint. Yet what are the chances of us having the correct parts just so happen to be obtained? All of the correct wheels that make for a viable axle for example? And what are the chances we would be sent all the parts needed?

In other words, this makes for a sloppily unrealistic scenario to say the least. Here we have dolphins, fish and Ichthyosaurs all with the correct hydrodynamic parts so to speak, all of the specifically correct designs, and yet you have to believe they all miraculously just so happen to come across those designs and you also have to INVOKE all of the intermediate stages, or if the correct word is to be used, you have to PRETEND there were viable intermediate stages that all occurred without a trace even though this is by no means a NEAT scenario but a very sloppy and crude way to arrive at a correct design.

Or you have the most obvious and neat explanation which is that the very same designer of the fish KNEW what anatomy to give the dolphin and the Ichthyosaur to also make those creatures viable swimmers but done it in a variety of different ways by preference of wonderous variety to "inhabit" the earth and seas. For then under this scenario we even EXPECT the correct design from the designer God, because if God created lifeforms it only makes complete sense He would give them what they need to survive properly and viably wheresoever He chose to put those creatures. So then the "fish" design with the dorsal fin, etc..would come from the KNOWLEDGE that the design works best.

It makes sense that a turtle has fins but a tortoise has legs and there is no relation between the two even according to evolution theory, and it's obvious that there is no need for them to converge so strongly upon each other's appearance as to look so similar. A better explanation and a neater one is simply that the designer WANTED a water-version as well as a land version and simply created them. This explains their similarities without any genetic connection between the two, because the reason for the similarities do not physically exist, but would only exist in the unity of the designer's mind. Sort of like finding a signature of the same artist on two very different pieces of art that share a similar theme. This may give the false appearance of a relation between the two but the only relation that exists is they both had the same artist. (please don't say that art does not fu**, need I remind you, neither do trees fu** humans. This is an absurd distraction, because the relevance of my point is that we can find designed things which share features, or characteristics from the same creator.)

Even in my own hobby work I have used for strength, super-glue soaked sewing thread, in various creations, because I need something lightweight but strong. So the point that a Creator will know when to apply the correct method, is obviously logically correct and a prediction for designers/creators.


While divergence makes sense of homologies to some extent if we rule out homoplasies (which we can't logically), nevertheless if we look at the phylogenetic tree of life the evidence for a tree of divergence doesn't really exist properly. People like Dawkins INSIST the tree exists but logically we can show the branches are not there. Reductio ad absurdum also applies here with this example;

"if it did exist they wouldn't have invented horizontal gene transfer to answer for the fact there is no implied root."

The fact they do come up with ad-hoc solutions is evidence Darwin's tree does not actually exist. Quite apart from the fact there would be major homoplasies that exist which would spoil the roots and lead to branches of the tree being held up by thin air, there is also no ultimate and final root/trunk, at the bottom of the evolution tree. The most logical conclusion is therefore that the tree does not exist but instead of admitting to that the scientists try and ever resolve an unsolvable problem. Furthermore the transitionals of that tree are 100% missing. Technically you could say the figure is 99.9 something percent but that would be to GRANT that the tiny percentage of candidates they claim are transitionals, really are when this would be a slothful induction fallacy, it would be no different to arguing that the two beached whales you found on Brighton beach are the positive evidence expected from the claim that 2 billion of them washed ashore. It is simply untenable to believe a microscopic percentage of creatures they name as transitionals, really are transitionals of evolution when that evolution is so conspicuously absent from the fossil record in every ultimate and meaningful transition. The obvious conclusion is that evolution is not there because it never existed.

But this isn't the biggest failure of divergence, but what creation scientists have argued is; that evolution's tree should predict diversity before disparity. In actuality we find disparity of forms BEFORE diversity because the Cambrian explosion provides disparity of morphology in the many differing phyla, and THEN diversity occurs afterward. This heavily implies the reverse of macro evolution, the reverse of Darwins tree so to speak. There simply aren't any ancestors for the Cambrian forms. The same game the evolutionists play over the fossil record of inflating a tiny percentage, also occurs with the Cambrian, and they ignore that all of the Cambrian phyla simply came from nowhere. The disparity of the Cambrian forms exists from nothing, without any evolutionary history. Because the phyla are disparate, if you could somehow argue the absence of transitionals generally by some excuse, you simply can't for the Cambrian because the absence is hyper-conspicuous; there really and genuinely should be evidence of ancestors for so great an explosion, for how can an explosion exist without any mess? The morphological smorgasbord-overkill of designing that would have occurred by evolution at this early stage of history in order to create disparity in so short a time at the phyla-level would definitely not only leave traces but would generally show us the evidence of how evolution invented all of these things. Combine that with the fact that you can only push back many marine forms that are extant today, to that time such as jellyfish or octopus or whatever, showing that all of these forms simply arise in the fossil record and remain unchanged. (see the list in chapter 6) The extinct forms such as trilobites, or any other forms that persist in the fossil record but are now extinct, show the same pattern, for the "period" they did exist, they turn up with no ancestors and no evolutionary history then remain the same.

CONCLUSION of chapter:

Divergence was always a way of explaining homology, and in isolation was a good scientific offering, but new data from new science which has collected over the decades, has led to that neat picture slowly breaking apart. We now know the tree of divergence doesn't really work on our now more completed diagram of that "tree". As for convergence while it may make some sense to converge upon a constrained design it in no way explains specific designs being shared across the board, when in reality this is the prediction for a designer, because the designer we would expect to create all of the best features, and give them to whatever creature needed them, no matter which type. This then explains why things as different as bats and whales might share echolocation or why things as different as pterosaurs, bats and insects might share wings. But evolution doesn't really explain it, it excuses it in convergence, and such features were not truly predictions of evolution but of an all-knowing designer that knows all of His own designs and how to apply them neatly, and where to apply them. This explanation does not depend on millions of missing transitional individuals either, and also explains why every design is so cleverly correct, and also way beyond the level of human intelligence. It would be an absurd contradiction to predict designers wouldn't provide the correct designs, we know from human designs that it is expected that the best design will be used when applicable, such as wheels where applicable to vehicles.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022