I think God made the planet and universe with the intent that we develop as we are doing through evolution, but that is just my take on the arguement I am trying so hard to avoid

How so? How is genetic change in a controlled situation different than in the wild? Breeding specific strains of plants (or animals) doesn’t require high-tech equipment. You just mate the strains with the qualities you want to propogate and then keep repeating the process with the progeny that displays those traits. The same process happens in nature. In one way the breeding happens naturally, in the other it’s arranged by outside forces. The actual passing down of genes happens in the same way.

You say, “Darwin’s theory says through many intermediate steps, fish evolved into human beings.” It says no such thing. Darwin’s theory of natural selection says that traits that help an organism survive and thrive are passed down to succeeding generations, while organisms that have traits that are less favorable don’t succeed as much.

You say, “Physically, a creature is limited to be what its genes allow. A whale can’t give birth to a dog–it only has whale genes.” Well, duh–that’s what speciation is. Not only can a whale not give birth to a dog, a killer whale can’t give birth to a sperm whale. Different species. And how did those different species develop? Evolution.

You wrote, “(Darwin)assumed that animals essentially had an unlimited capacity to adapt to their environments; an assumption which has been disproven by genetics alone.

First of all, Darwin was a scientist–he didn’t “assume”. He spent much of his life working on his theories and there are thousands of scientists who have also dedicated their careers to the subject. I don’t know what you mean when you say that genetics proved that animals don’t have an “unlimited abilty to adapt to their enviroments”. Well, no, I don’t think you’ll see poodles sprouting laser cannons or trout learning kung fu. There are physical limits to evolution, just as there are in chemistry of physics. But animals and plants do adapt to their enviroment.

You wrote, “Even after millions of years in the jungle, donkeys would still be donkeys, because they only have donkey genes.”

Stealing what your wrote in the line preceeding this one, This simply is not true. Do you think that in a million years donkeys will look the same as they do now? You plop a herd of donkeys down in the Serengeti and, if they survive a thousand millennia, they’re gonna be quite a different animal. They’d have to be in order to survive. Will they naturally evolve into giraffes, or gazelles? No. The donkeys best able to adapt will survive to procreate, and those offspring that thrive will have offspring of their own, and so on down through the centuries until you have some as-yet-unseen creature able to survive in that environment.

You wrote, “Modern evolutionists assert, to resolve this dilemma, that a fish’s genes mutated into human genes over eons”. No they don’t. They would say that organisms evolved over eons into human beings (and every other living thing). Mutation is not synonymous with evolution. I think you’re confusing the two, because you then write, “According to evolutionary theory, an organism develops some new positive characteristic through a mutation, better adapting to its environment. The creature then passes this mutated trait on to the next generation, and eventually, it spreads through the whole species. Organisms without the trait, being weaker, die out (survival of the “fittest”). Through this process, fish gradually evolved into men.” This is complete nonsense. Evolution does not require mutated genes.

So far as Dr. Spetner’s important book that you quoted, a five-second Google search found an article pretty much tearing his theory to shreds. One scientist publishing a book arguing against a theory does not automatically destroy that theory. Especially one that has been studied as rigorously as evolution.

You write, “Mutations delete information from the genetic code.” Incorrect. Mutations occur when genetic copying is affected in some way. It messes the code up in some way–it does NOT necessarily mean that genetic information is destroyed.

Which of course counters the argument that developing a resistance to antibiotics is a BAD thing for bacteria. Why should a mutation that allows a bacterium to better survive antibiotics lessen it’s chance of survival? How does this new trait make it weaker than other bacteria, as you assert?

Your error in thinking that mutation=evolution comes through in the analogies you make about “beneficial” mutations, which are beyond ludicrous and not worth discussing. So far as your claim that “some evolutionists” claim that sickle cell anemia is beneficial because those who suffer from it cannot get malaria, that is again ludicrous. Name me someone who says having this terrible disease is a good thing because it keeps those who have it from getting another terrible disease.

You then switch gears with the following statement:

“There is no evidence whatsoever that evolution is true. Nobody has ever observed a star evolve from hydrogen, life evolve from chemicals, a higher species evolve from a lower species, a man from an ape, or anything like that; nor have they been able to create any of that in a laboratory. No one ever observed evolution in action, no one knows how it works, or even how it might work, even if it were true. Nobody has ever seen it happen, despite thousands of experiments that have tried to produce it, and nobody has come up with a workable explanation to explain it.”

Every word you wrote is false. There is an enormity of information to show that evolution is true. Scientists have observed star formation. We have fossils showing how species evolved over time, including how man evolved from apes. We observe evolution in action from those fossils, and from the organisms that descended from them. And, of course, we have developed a workable explanation for how this all happens. It’s called evolution.

You write, “Evolution is imaginary and not even part of the real world, which leaves creation as the necessary explanation.”

So, the idea that genetic traits are passed down generation to generation, leading to infinitesimal changes that, over eons, result in transformational change…you find this “imaginary”. Despite fossils and animal husbandry and genetically altered crops and whatnot. This is all “imaginary and not part of the real world”. But the idea that an invisible man in the sky created all this, an invisible man that no one in the world even conceived of for the first 10,000 or so years of human history and…that “must be the necessary explanation”.

A question–if life was indeed created by God, how do you explain the genetic mutation you wrote about? Sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, cystic fibrosis…why did God create them too? Are we simply to take it on faith that there’s a reason for these terrible diseases, or is it best to fall back on what Woody Allen once said. “If it turns out that there is a God, I don’t think that he’s evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he’s an underachiever.”

You close by saying, “It is logical, therefore, to believe in a primal creation by past supernatural processes because we cannot deduce anything about it except that it happened.” I can’t see how you can say that it’s “logical” to believe in a supernatural process when there’s no evidence whatsoever to support that conclusion. There’s no data. Logic breaks down at that point. You can take it on faith that some supernatural being created the Universe, and that’s fine, but it’s not logical. People who believe in God have to have faith that God exists, because He (or It, or They) don’t provide proof of existence. Scientists are trying to determine just what happened when the Universe was created. Maybe someday they’ll find out, and maybe they’ll pull back that curtain and God will be sitting there saying, “It’s about time you figured it all out.” Though if I think we do discover that God created all this, one of the first things He’ll say is, “What did you think of evolution? Pretty good idea, if I say so myself”.

Darwin’s theory says through many intermediate steps, fish evolved into human beings. So how did fish acquire the genes to become humans? Physically, a creature is limited to be what its genes allow. A whale can’t give birth to a dog–it only has whale genes. A girl can’t be born with blue eyes without genes for blue eyes.

In Darwin’s day, Genetics as a science didn’t exist. He assumed that animals essentially had an unlimited capacity to adapt to their environments; an assumption which has been disproven by genetics alone.

He wrote: “By this process long continued…it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe.” So…Darwin believed you could take, say, donkeys, and if you put them in the right environment, they could, given enough time, become giraffes. This simply is not true. Even after millions of years in the jungle, donkeys would still be donkeys, because they only have donkey genes.

Modern evolutionists assert, to resolve this dilemma, that a fish’s genes mutated into human genes over eons–but mutations are abrupt alterations in genes. They occur only very rarely. According to evolutionary theory, an organism develops some new positive characteristic through a mutation, better adapting to its environment. The creature then passes this mutated trait on to the next generation, and eventually, it spreads through the whole species. Organisms without the trait, being weaker, die out (survival of the “fittest”). Through this process, fish gradually evolved into men.

But this hypothesis no longer holds up. Dr. Lee Spetner, who taught information theory for a decade at Johns Hopkins University, and the Weizman Institute, spent years studying mutations. He has written an important new book, “Not by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution.” In it, he writes,

In all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information…All point mutations that have been studied in the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.

Mutations delete information from the genetic code. They never create higher, more complex information. What are they actually observed to cause in human beings? Death. Sterility. Hemophilia. Sickle Cell Anemia. Cystic Fybrosis. Down’s Syndrome. Over 4,000 diseases. The genetic code is designed to run an organism perfectly–mutations delete information from the code, causing birth defects.

To advance their view, evolutionists have long pointed to mutations with beneficial effects. The most common example given; mutations sometimes make bacteria resistant to antibiotics (germ-killing drugs). And so, the argument goes, “If mutations can make bacteria stronger, they must be able to do the same for other creatures.” Dr. Spetner points out that this is based on a misunderstanding, for the mutations that cause antibiotic resistance still involve information loss.

For example. To destroy a bacterium, the antibiotic streptomycin attaches to a part of the bacterial cell called ribosomes. Mutations sometimes cause a structural deformity in the ribosomes. Since the antibiotic cannot connect with the misshapen ribosome, the bacerium is resistant. But even though this mutation turns out to be beneficial, it still constitutes a loss of genetic information, not a gain. No ‘evolution’ has taken place; the bacteria are not stronger. In fact, under normal conditions, with no antibiotic present, they are weaker than their nonmutated cousins.

It’s often possible to deduce a benefit from information loss. Suppose you ripped the windshield wipers off your car. Any benefit? Yes, your windshield could never be scratched by the wipers. But don’t we all prefer wipers? Or suppose we just did away with cars completely. That would be a huge loss of information and technology, but there would be benefits, right? Less pollution, nobody would die in car accidents, or get injured by air bags.

What if a mutation causes a child to be born deaf? Any benefit? Yes, the child would never hear curse words. But don’t we all want children who can hear? In the same way, evolutionists, by viewing a particular mutation in a limited context, may describe the mutation as “beneficial” and incorrectly say it represents evolutionary progress. A good example is the disease sickle cell anemia, which some evolutionists have portrayed as beneficial because its deformed red blood cells are immune to malaria. But this is akin to saying it would be good to cut off your toes to prevent athlete’s foot. Like an armless man, the wiperless car, and the deaf child, these “beneficial mutations” turn out to be information losses.

This is quite a problem for evolution. Because if Darwin’s thesis is correct, and all life began as a single cell, then chance mutations must have designed and engineered nearly every biological feature on Earth, from dolphin’s remarkable sonar system (which is the envy of the US Navy) to the human heart, which is an ingenius structuure. Blood is pumped from the right side of the heart to the lungs, where it receives oxygen; back to the heart’s left side, which propels it to the rest of the body through more than 60,000 miles of vessels. The heart has four chambers; a system of valves that prevents backflow into any of these; electrical impulses form a natural pacemaker control the heart’s rhythm.

Rarely, mutations cause babies to be born with congenital heart disorders, making blood shunt to the wrong place. There is no known case of mutations improving circulation. Hemoglobin-the blood’s oxygen-carrying component–has over forty mutant variants. Not one transports oxygen better than normal hemoglobin. To accept evolution, we must believe that human blood circulation–a wonder of engineering–was constructed by chance mutations, when actual observation shows they damage it.

The Case Against Darwin, Why the Evidence Should be Examined by James Perloff

There is no evidence whatsoever that evolution is true. Nobody has ever observed a star evolve from hydrogen, life evolve from chemicals, a higher species evolve from a lower species, a man from an ape, or anything like that; nor have they been able to create any of that in a laboratory. No one ever observed evolution in action, no one knows how it works, or even how it might work, even if it were true. Nobody has ever seen it happen, despite thousands of experiments that have tried to produce it, and nobody has come up with a workable explanation to explain it.

It has been falsified at least as far as today’s world goes. This does not prove it happened in the past, but evolutionists should at least recognize that evolution is not science, because it is not observable. Evolution must be accepted on faith.

There is no evidence that evolution took place in the past. As we’ve seen through Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings, the tree of life, vestigial organs, etc., there is no evidence from genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry the fossil record or taxonomy that evolution is true or ever has been. Nobody has ever recorded evolution in any kind of creature into a more complex kind of creature, so the blind faith that requires someone to believe that an organism as complex as the human body could jump out of the primordial soup by accident must be tremendous.

All known vertical changes go in the wrong direction. An average of at least one species has become extinct every day since records have been kept, but no new species have evolved. Stars explode, comets and meteorites disintegrate, the biosphere deteriorates, and everything dies, so far as historical observations go, but nothing is evolving into greater complexity.

Prehistoric changes in the sedimentary rocks of the earth’s crust, where billions of fossils of former living creatures were preserved we can clearly observe, show extinction, not evolution. Numerous kinds of extinct animals are found, like dinosaurs, for example, but never in all of these billions of fossils, is there a transitional form. No fossil has ever been found with half scales and half feathers, half legs and half wings or a half-developed heart, half-developed eyes, or any other such indicator.

If evolution is true, there would be millions of transitional types among these multiplied billions of fossils - in fact, EVERYTHING should show transitional features. If one were to rely strictly upon observed evidence, past evolution is false.

Evolution is imaginary and not even part of the real world, which leaves creation as the necessary explanation.

And there is a lot more evidence in genetics, biology, the fossil record, taxonomy and so on, for creation.

This is confirmed in quantity by the law of decay, the law of conservation in quality, and the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

The first law says, in all real processes, the total quantity of matter and/or energy stays constant, even though it changes in form. A parallel principle in biology notes that ‘like begets like’. Dogs are dogs, donkeys are donkeys, wolves are wolves, although they can appear in many varieties. The Second law notes that the quality of any system-the usefulness, its complexity, its information value-tends to decrease. In living organism, true vertical changes go down-not up. Mutations cause deterioration and a loss in genetic code, individuals die, species become extinct. In fact, everyhting in the universe is headed downward toward cosmic death.

The First Law states in effect that nothing is being created or evolving. The Second law notes that there is, instead, a universal tendency for everything to disintegrate down, and finally to “die”. The whole universe is growing old, wearing out, headed toward stillness and death. This universal “increase in entropy” leads directly to the conclusion that there must have been a creation of things in the past; otherwise everything would now be dead, since they’re universally dying right now.

It is logical, therefore, to believe in a primal creation by past supernatural processes because we cannot deduce anything about it except that it happened. The process of creation, the duration, the order of events, -are hidden by virtue of the fact that our present world processes do not create, they only conserve in quantity and deteriorate in quality.

Let’s address Cao’s “points” first. I don’t know of anyone who has “debunked” the stories she pulls out of thin air that are in unnamed textbooks. Ever eat a pink grapefruit? When you hear about botanists developing different strains of grain or rice or tomatoes, they’re cross-breeding different strains so that later generations will produce the qualities they’re looking for. Keep cross-breeding those plants with more and more of the qualities you want and those traits will pass down to their offspring. That’s how evolution works–organisms that have qualities that better allow them to thrive and reproduce will have those qualities passed down to their offspring. And those offspring that thrive will have their qualities passed down, and over millions of years remarkable changes can take place.

Cao saying, “There is no evidence in taxonomy, biology, genetics or the fossil record for evolution, LOL”, is, frankly, breathtakingly dumb. Without evolution there IS NO taxonomy, biology, genetics, or the fossil record. Genetics is the study of heredity in living things. Heredity is the passing down of traits from one generation to another. Evolution says that organisms that acquire traits that are beneficial are more likely to do well and pass those traits along. To say that there’s no evidence that genetics or fossils show proof of evolution is logically absurd and just plain daffy. They’re some of the BEST evidence of evolution.

Evolution, as xformed seems to think, does NOT mean that every living thing on the planet is going to end up talking like human beings. Speech is NOT a quality that is essential to the survivability of geckos. Or maple trees. I mean, come ON.

Darwin did not “assume” that’s how evolution worked. He was a scientist–he didn’t “assume”. He formed a hypothesis, tested that hypothesis, and kept working on that hypothesis the rest of his life. As have countless other scientists–evolution is still a major field of study in biology.

Arguing that species that have been around longer than us should be out voyaging the stars, and that this fact means that evolution “sorta falls apart at many levels”, is “sorta” dumb. Cockroaches should be developing starships? Giant squid? Evolution doesn’t predict that every living thing will eventually reach the same end point. Why and how human beings developed such big brains (well, some of us have) is one of the major topics scientists study today.

No scientist saw the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a model for the Universe as it has been observed. The Universe is expanding. Background radiation levels were consistent with what was expected from such an explosion. Again, scientists have come up with ideas about how the universe was created and tested those theories through observation and calculation. Scientists don’t yet have an explanation for what happened at the precise moment of the Big Bang–general relativity doesn’t work at infinity.

Please recall, it was Cao who said that “nothing ever gains in complexity”. I didn’t say that cars suddenly appear thanks to evolution–I was, incredibly, having to show her that complex items can indeed be made out of simpler ones. You were the one who said that complex systems (like the ones created through evolution) violate the laws of thermodynamics. The fact that you didn’t (or wouldn’t) grasp my example doesn’t speak well for you. Maybe you should read the one link you provided explaining what those laws are.

For an example of something nature made more complex without the help of a human mind, I offer…the human mind. Human beings certainly didn’t develop the human brain–evolution took care of that. Cats have brains. Dogs have brains. People have brains. People have much, much more complex brains than cats and dogs. Care to argue the point?

You say that I’m a contrarian. At times, yes, but not in this instance. Evolution is accepted as fact by the vast majority of people. Certainly by the vast, vast majority of intelligent people. People willing and able to use the brains that evolution gave them.

And exactly which scientist saw the “Big Bang?” Which one has seen a black hole? They tell us (you know, Steven Hawkings and Carl Sagan, et al) that that’s the way it is…Did Darwin see “evolution” or did he assume that’s how it all worked? Have you personally experienced absolute zero?

If Darwin is right, then how come geckos can’t talk (except in GEICO commercials)? If Darwin was right, why are life forms, that have been here longer than us, still here and not already out voyaging the stars to assure their survival? are the “perfect” as they are? If so, if any are being killed, then Darwin would have them continue to evolve to protect them selves through more mutation. The “theory” (still just that) sorta falls apart at many levels. He tells us that things continue to evolve….

As far as the creation of more complex things, I appreciate the irony of your example: Cars are the outcome of “intelligent design,” and not the random chance of atomic structures becoming more complex. That is the entire point of the post.

Do you have a serious example of how nature makes something more complex without the help of a human mind?

I think you need to spend some time reading, instead of being contraian here, just for the sake of being in opposition to all.

Man, not snail darters, spotted owls, plankton, nor sharks, make cars. We are able to find things in our environment and assemble them, and with repeatability.

If, however, you have Ford Explorers “evolving” in a pit near you, can you please make the process create a line of Mazda RX-8s? I’ll be right over if you can!