"Darwin Day" Topic

Hi

Gunny, lets keep this a discussion of something besides the "Troll rule".

Doug, you have fallen back into a variant of "I don't know, therefore god did it" argument with:"science is only just beginning to formulate theories that can be tested." and the rest of that section.

Science hasn't explained a great many things, but god being in the gaps is just another assertion. This especially applies in that you apply the "flyspeck" dismissal to the one side, but not to your side. If you assert GOD, then you should specify the details so that the athiests can attack YOUR gaps!

just to be fair, I mean.

Science is about testing. Saying "it hasn't tested everything therefore…" is actually empty of content. TJs anti-evolution stuff fails because science HAS tested things they assert didn't happen, for no other reason than basic observer bias. The form is "I already believe, therefore any test otherwise must be wrong".

Without a test for god or any aspect of god beyond the gaps, we are left with faith, but not science.

Rocky

There can't be a test for TFW; "it" is the only "thing" that cannot be tested. Any number of manifestations of TFW can be tested but not itself.

But that isn't the point I was making: nobody can advocate for a theory of how life got started on Earth without looking at the cosmology. Well, they CAN if they want to, but why would anybody listen? We're just too small, virtually non existent on the scale of the universe: and life is all supposed to have started up here? I think that physics/chemistry IS the answer; but cosmological-scaled physics/chemistry.

To assume life started up here all by itself is tossing the 99.99999(ad infinitum)% of the rest of the universe, the suns, solar dust, black holes, "lifeless" planets (in total less than .5% of the universe), then all that dark energy and dark matter….

Doug – you have no way of assessing the actual odds relating to all those 99's you're tossing around, so no way of saying if abiogenesis on earth is less likely than outside arrivals, either of life itself or immediate pre-cursor molecules. And the universe is quite large, and time quite long, so .5% of it might well be enough to support abiogenesis.

That won't stop Doug from throwing about any "facts" or numbers around, he has the certainty of an ideologue. As someone on another science thread clearly sized him up, "… you will not let a little thing like facts ruin your certainties about things far more informed people … are far less certain of." An accurate assessment, methinks.

In my experience those most lacking in scientific training have the most entrenched viewpoints and are very slow to change their minds. Those with the most scientific experience are far more guided by the evidence and form their opinions based on this evidence. Opinions are far more plastic and adaptive. Therefore, certainty comes only with overwhelming evidence that has withstood decades or centuries of challenges.

Despite the trepidations of TJ and other IDiots, er… I mean ID supporters and Doug with his cosmological gobbley-gook, evolution has weathered every challenge thrown it's way. If fact current scientific discoveries continue to bolster evolution to the point that it's most vocal critics (such as Dr. Michael Behe) have grudginly admitted that it makes the most sense. (Behe, however, prefers a Non-Darwinian mechanism that he has yet to elaborate on.)

Even the Discovery Institute authors of "The Wedge" (the Strategy manual of the IDiots) have admitted that ID cannot win on scientific merit, it cannot even begin to compete. The school system must change so that the next generation of children have their scepticism and natural curiosity knocked out of them and the "materialism" rampant in the scientific field be stopped. Only in this way can Darwinism be stopped and a supposed religious paradise will descend to earth.

TJ and Doug may find some comfort in this scenario. I find the concept frightful.

Ralph

"Blinkered ignorance" can be such a facile, cheap shot: applied to just about anyone from some other perspective.

Doug, all of us suffer from ignorance. Some make a virtue of it. Some try to alleviate it. I happen to think the latter approach is best.

Maybe it is a cheap shot. It surely is an apt observation.

Ralph

Doug – you have no way of assessing the actual odds relating to all those 99's you're tossing around, so no way of saying if abiogenesis on earth is less likely than outside arrivals, either of life itself or immediate pre-cursor molecules. And the universe is quite large, and time quite long, so .5% of it might well be enough to support abiogenesis.

But "we" are not remotely close to ".5%" What percentage of the total "mass" of our solar system do you think the Earth and Mars are? Throw in the hypothetical biological life present on Europa and Ganymede: are there any other spheres in the solar system that could possibly possess life? Add them together and what percentage of the SOLAR SYSTEM are they? I have no idea, as a number that I would advance: but I will go out on a limb and say that "we" life-sustaining spheres, in total, amount to far less than even .01%. In other words, statistically non existent compared to everything else within the solar system. Add in the "empty" space between solar systems; add in the "empty" space between galaxies: and those spheres where life is diminish even more: becoming "non existent" to the point where if, allegorically, they were as impurities in the clearest glass, we would not even be able to register them.

To assume that life only begins ON those spheres without recourse to the universe at large: well, such a concept simply boggles my poor mind, how anyone could approach abiogenesis from such a "blinkered" position….

In my experience those most lacking in scientific training have the most entrenched viewpoints and are very slow to change their minds.

You haven't noticed that I am not even talking about TFW at all lately. I'm pointing out the fact that you, et al. the entrenched "educated" ones seem incapable of admitting the fallacious logic of assuming that abiogenesis is earth-bound. I point out the unlikelihood of it being solely an Earth-bound phenomenon and somehow this becomes an example of my, "…not let[ting] a little thing like facts ruin [my] certainties about things far more informed people … are far less certain of…"

So point out the fallacy in what I just said to imrael.

TJ and Doug may find some comfort in this scenario. I find the concept frightful.

How odd: you've conflated my belief in the NC (TFW) and TJ's selective "proof" of the non existence of biological and cosmological evolution.

I do not deny either kind of evolution. Because I look at the "in an evolutional eyeblink" advent of homo sapiens and claim outside manipulation is more likely an explanation: you assume I mean "TFW did it". Despite my acceptance that empirical evidence does not support ID (the universe is chaotic in part and far from producing "perfection"), you still lump me in with those whose beliefs are the result of lacking a formal education: meanwhile dismissing giving any answer to questions I raise.

Why do you accept the infinitely lesser probability in chasing after an answer to abiogenesis?…

Hi

Ya, doug hasn't objected to evolution. He just insists that, somehow, we cannot discuss Darwin without speculating on Abiogenisis.

To me, this is like insisting I speculate on the names of your great great great great grandfathers because I know you had them.

R

I'm pointing out the fact that you, et al. the entrenched "educated" ones seem incapable of admitting the fallacious logic of assuming that abiogenesis is earth-bound.

Thanks for the attack. If you took the trouble to read my last post what i say is that the I dont know whether life began. Nor do you, but sustituting mysticism, ridiculous made up statistics and calling everyone who disagrees with you names is neither useful nor interesting.

We haven't heard form TJ in a while.

I notice he still has not had the good manners to answer a civil question; namely;

When a Prof. of Biology gives a lectures on Youtube then the contents can be rejected because of it appeared on Youtube. So in what circumstances would that lecture be acceptable to TJ? Could such a format also be shared with the rest of the TMP community?

Enquiring minds want to know!

…doug hasn't objected to evolution. He just insists that, somehow, we cannot discuss Darwin without speculating on Abiogenisis….

I don't insist: I just don't find evolution on earth ALONE an interesting enough subject for discussion….

…sustituting mysticism, ridiculous made up statistics and calling everyone who disagrees with you names is neither useful nor interesting.

Mysticism? Where did I insert that? By insisting that homo sapiens appearance in an "eyeblink" of evolutionary time is evidence for outside manipulation? (that's the closest I've come to touching "TFW" in weeks).

"Ridiculous made up statistics?" How so? I am not being specific about them, mathematically; but surely I err on the conservative side, not exaggeration. Earth and ALL other spheres in the universe that can possibly support any form of biological life like Earth's, must amount to a statistical nullity even less visible than the impurities in the most perfect glass (You see, I am not a mathematician; I resort to analogies).

And if your education limits you to seek the answers to life on Earth without looking to the cosmos, then you are "entrenched" (or "blinkered", as Ralph would say it); that's not a personal attack or name-calling, just an honest assessment….

"…limits you to seek the answers to life on Earth without looking to the cosmos…"

My POV on that subject depends, admittedly, on a default assumption that the cosmos is homogenous, ie: what happened here on earth is not special/unique not because there is some overarching dark-matter/TFW/seeding mechanism that one must contemplate/consider/include in whatever idea/theory one may have, but is so simply because the conditions in any one spot of the cosmos (eg: this particular hunk of matter) are not significantly distinguishable from any other possible spots.

dunno if that makes any sense…

I believe in a cosmos homogeneity theory as well.

But the visible universe is less than half of one percent.

Dark energy and dark matter are more than 99%.

The racing galaxies are "carried" on the DM and DE, like motes riding in a "sea".

The DE is c. 75% and the DM is c. 25% of the universe.

The universe therefore "powers" or gives life to the visible planets/moons where life manifests. So the homogeneity of the visible cosmos is caused by what binds them together, the DE and DM, ergo the visible cosmos is not separated. That's the theory anyway….

Doug, don't get too carried away with Dark matter and Dark energy. There is a good chance they have very little to do with life.

Any material that does not emanate energy is cold, to the tune of a few degrees above absolute zero. Totally inhospitable to life as we know it. Certainly, a major hindrance to any chemical reactions or metabolic activities.

Life can only exist if there is a nearby energy source with a boundless energy supply. Like the sun. Even if the visible universe (more accurately the radiating universe) is only 1% of all of the Universe, then life will be found there. That is still a big thing, with billions of suns in only our galaxy.

Maybe the dark matter and dark energy is the physical "body" or matrix needed to support the 1% important stuff.

Perhaps an apt analogy is with a protein, penicillinase. This is a class of enzymes secreted by penicillin resistant bacteria which inactivate the antibiotic by cleaving the beta-lactam ring. The enzyme may be made of a chain of thousands of amino acids. But the actual working part (the part that cleaves the penicillin) is only made from a few amino acids. The vast majority of the protein is purely structural, simply to get the working parts together.

Maybe the universe works in an analogous fashion.

Just me musing.

Ralph

Maybe the dark matter and dark energy is the physical "body" or matrix needed to support the 1% important stuff.

Nicely put: that gets closer at the idea in my head.

The DM and DE "carries" the "absolute zero stuff" about; and when minute parts of it impact with a vital energy source like the atmosphere of a planet, voila! abiogenesis….

when minute parts of it impact with a vital energy source like the atmosphere of a planet, voila! abiogenesis…

Well not quite voila!

You need chemical complexity. We need a multivalent chemical like carbon or silicon. Therefore your hypothetical solar system has had to fly through the "soot" of destroyed previous suns. Without that you get no complex molecules forming, ergo no life.

Then you need a molecularly simple universal solvent to make a proper "stew" for these chemicals. Initially this is extracellular but eventually it has to be intracellular. Therefore you need water.

You need a proper temperature gradiant. Therefore you need to be the right distance from your sun.

You need a stable sun that gently radiates it's heat. No pulsars and the like please. It has to be the right size too.

The planet has to be big enough to support an atmosphere so the gases don't bleed off into space. But not too big. It has to provide a proper albedo.

Oh ya, it needs an active liquid nickel-iron core. The magnetosphere saves us from our heat source. An active planet is a live planet.

The planet needs to be in the inner part of the solar system. Why? It needs to be a solid planet. Not compressed gas giants like the outer 4 in this solar system. (This condition could prove to be waived).

I'm no physicist so there must be many other hundreds of other conditions needed for abiogenesis to have a chance. Many of which we don't understand as we don't have a great grasp of abiogenesis in the first place.

Ralph

This may be of interest showing why Darwin should be supported:

link

Okay, not "voila!" every time. I knew that.

You need a proper temperature gradiant. Therefore you need to be the right distance from your sun.

But Mars had life, for a while, when it cooled before Earth did (being smaller); for a time there was the beginning of life on Mars; probably never more advanced than molecular. Then it cooled past the point of sustainability. So the right distance is only required if you expect life to continue for more than a few million years.

Surely the size of the sun has nothing to do with it: since an enormous sun would make Earth into a cinder and be just right for Mars. I've seen comparisons of suns, starting with ours, and moving up in size until ours is a mere speck compared to the biggest suns so far observed. If such a giant was at the center of a much larger solar system, "the right distance" would be a matter of scale and not some hypothetical ideal vis-a-vis Earth's distance in miles from Sol….

Stunning, truly stunning. Thanks for that RAF.

Ralph

But Mars had life, for a while, when it cooled before Earth did (being smaller); for a time there was the beginning of life on Mars;….

That is still being debated. I don't believe a consensus has formed yet.

Then it cooled past the point of sustainability. So the right distance is only required if you expect life to continue for more than a few million years.

No. Mars is too small a planet to sustain an atmosphere sufficient to support life. It bled off into space. And it would be a few hundred million years, actually.

Surely the size of the sun has nothing to do with it:…

Then surely you are wrong. It's not just like having a bigger campfire. It depends on the radiation emitted, the amount of flaring, the longevity of the burn, etc. Look up solar physics.

If such a giant was at the center of a much larger solar system, "the right distance" would be a matter of scale and not some hypothetical ideal vis-a-vis Earth's distance in miles from Sol….

No, there is much more to it than that.

Ralph

Remember that many of those suns you see on those pics are red giants, which mean they used to be much much smaller, our own sun in about 5 billion years is going to expand, sevral hundred times until it surfes is going to be very close to earth current orbit.

So many of thos suns you see on those pics used to be much smaller.

I know that. And, Ralph, I was talking about comparative size ONLY; not other differences that make a sun inimical to life at all. An enormous sun that otherwise had the same properties as our Sol would allow a planet out as far as Mars to support life, because then Earth would be too close, and Mars's orbit would be the ideal….

An enormous sun that otherwise had the same properties as our Sol……

Therein lies your problem. The properties of the suns are dependent of their size. Some suns burn long and relatively cool. Some burn hot and short. Some pulsate. Some give off lethal X-rays. Etc. Etc. It all depends on the physics involved and that is dependent on the size.

It is not like comparing campfires where you have to sit twice as far from the fire that is twice as big. They both are the same type of fire and radiate the same type of radiation (infra red).

Assume we have instead, a small sun, half the size of Sol. But it burns at twice the rate and gives off twice the heat. Would it seem the same at 93 million miles away? Would it have been as conducive to the evolution of Homo Sapiens as our Sol was?

No. It's increased rate of burn would likely cause it to radiate energy at frequencies that may be destructive to large molecules. The radioactive spectrum would be totally different. Maybe it's solar winds would have stripped away our atmosphere. Abiogenesis couldn't occur. Plus at 4 billion years old it would already be burnt out and a red giant. It would expand (probably not enough to engulf Venus let alone Earth) but give off little infra red. Homo Sapiens would never have developed. There are many other scenarios that would not let life form as it did here.

You want a stable, even burning Class G star, like Sol. They are about 7% of all stars (Still a LOT!) Plus you need the dead remnants of Class C Red Giants in the vicinity. Why? Because they triple alpha fuse helium into carbon.

link

Without them nearby everything else doesn't matter. Life won't form.

Ralph

forgot to add:

An enormous sun that otherwise had the same properties as our Sol would allow a planet out as far as Mars to support life, because then Earth would be too close, and Mars's orbit would be the ideal….

Even if the bigger sun was life-friendly and Mar's orbit would be ideal. Mars is too small to retain an atmosphere and it's water vapour. So Homo Sapiens Martianus would still never develop.

Ralph

I was suggesting Earth in Mars's orbit, with a hypothetical sun big enough to offer ideal conditions that far out.

Your info on suns and their differences relative to their sizes is interesting stuff! I learn a lot from you, Ralph and I appreciate what you share….

We know more today than last week:

link

link

Waiting for the psuedo-scientists to whine…

Ohh, that drawing in the last link is so cute, he looks so happy.

I can see the creationists now.

OMG, scientist were off by 20 million years, that proves the world is actualy 6000 years

WOOT!!!!

It to the "Special People" at the Discovery Institiute – a group of psuedo-scientists very little time to attack the latest finding.

Here's what a real biologist had to say about there latest temper trantrum:

link

Thanks for the Dr. Meyers link. Unfortunately, what I will most likely retain from the entire argument is a new word I that I learned: "creatard".

I guess Gunny called it correctly.

Ralph

Here is something to save TJ and his creatard friends time; it's nearly every Creationist Arguement:

link

In fairness they do play down the supposed links between Hitler and Darwin, but I'm sure TJ will eventual share that piece of wisdom with us. Even if he fails to answer my December 19th, that was a reiteration my question of December 12th…..

That does sound like someone we know, doesn't it?

Ralph

Another useful site:

talkorigins.org/indexcc

It lists the claims of the creatard and debunks them. There are pages after pages showing just how superious some of the stuff posted here has been.

Ah, a certain contributer to this topic will not accept anything from TalkOrigins. Similar to the way that he/she will not accept anything from YouTube.

Pete

That certain contributor indicated that TalkOrigins was full of errors and outdated facts. When asked to provide any example of errors and mistakes, he didn't come up with any. I wasn't surprised, ………was anyone else?

Ralph

Not "trolling"; just got better things to do with my time…

Ah, a certain contributer (sic) to this topic will not accept anything from TalkOrigins. Similar to the way that he/she will not accept anything from YouTube.

And would you accept anything from a creationist site…? No, I didn't think so…

I found this interesting definition of "life" the other day:

A basic property of life is its capacity to experience Darwinian evolution…

Somewhat biased, eh? Ok, let's go with this thought and see where it leads.

Firstly, for this statement to be true, evolutionists must believe that it is necessary to get the basic chemicals of life up to the point of replication before Darwinian evolution can come into play to build them their fish or dinosaur or bird or whatever (and given billions of years, of course). If life can't replicate, then it sure can't evolve.

The problem is that scientific study after scientific study have shown that the chance formation of nucleic acids (required for the so-called "genes first" theory) is virtually impossible, and so evolutionary theorists had to re-think of their position. Next, they proposed "protein first" scenario – that didn't work either. So, next they proposed that metabolism came into existence first.

This "metabolism first" scenario proposes self perpetuating cycles of chemical reactions as the first stages in the origin of life. This proposal has its critics, and yet another team of scientists have shown that it won't work either.

Vasos, Szathmary and Santos, "Lack of evolvability in self-sustaining autocatalytic networks: A constraint on the metabolism first path to the origin of life", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, January, 2010

This up-to-date research first points out how the genes first scenario is plagued with problems, among them the fact that both practically and theoretically you can't get the required molecules to form up on their own. Then there is the ever present problem of the origin of a genetic code that can copy itself. This problem is recognised right from the first paragraphs in the paper:

Both schools acknowledge that a critical requirement for primitive evolvable systems is to solve the problems of information storage and reliable information transmission. Disagreement starts, however, in the way information was first stored. All present life is based on digitally encoded information in polynucleotide strings, but difficulties with the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides and clear-cut routes to an RNA world, wherein RNA molecules had the dual role of catalysts and information storage systems, have provided continuous fuel for objections to the genetics first scenario.

In other words, a minimum requirement for Darwinian evolution is that there needs to be a reliable storage and retrieval mechanism for genetic information and that requires at least RNA. They continue:

The essence of nucleic acids (RNA, DNA) from the point of view of inheritance is exactly that they can store a lot of information at roughly equal energy/stability levels, exactly the property one requires from "storage".

Note: "exactly the property one requires from storage"… as one would expect of creation. Basically, they are just re-emphasising the fact that you can't get inheritance without accurate information storage and retrieval, and for that you need DNA or at least RNA.

Having noted that the genes first theory is totally inadequate, they then go on to demonstrate the inadequacies of the metabolism first theory. These three origin-of-life researchers found:

In sharp contrast with template dependent replication dynamics, we demonstrate here that replication of compositional information is so inaccurate that fitter compositional genomes cannot be maintained by selection and, therefore, the system lacks evolvability (i.e., it cannot substantially depart from the asymptotic steady-state solution already built-in in the dynamical equations). We conclude that this fundamental limitation of ensemble replicators cautions against metabolism first theories of the origin of life, although ancient metabolic systems could have provided a stable habitat within which polymer replicators later evolved.

That last phrase is of course is just offering lip service to the metabolism first believers; giving them something to hang on to. In the end, all they could offer was this:

"We do not know how the transition to digitally encoded information has happened in the originally inanimate world; that is, we do not know where the RNA world might have come from, but there are strong reasons to believe that it had existed."

That last phrase is of course is just offering lip service to the genetics first believers… giving them something to hang on to. And, what was that they said? "…strong reasons to believe that it had existed …"? What of the myriad of reasons that they have already pointed out NOT to believe…?

Ignoring the preconceived notion that life is defined by the ability to undergo Darwinian evolution, what they really mean is that a total lack of any means to generate some form of genetic replication by natural means stops Darwinian evolution dead in its tracks; you can't generate a suitable and reliable storage and retrieval mechanism by natural processes. It's not DNA/RNA first and it's not proteins first and it's not metabolism first. So, what is it then…? It's your theory.

Surely such research is yet another nail in the coffin of evolutionary origin-of-life studies. Every naturalistic theory proposed so far for the origin of specified genetic information essential for the storage, mutation and replication in evolutionary theory has been found to be hopelessly inadequate… by good peer reviewed scientific research.

The origin of life requires the input of information from an intelligent, purposeful source and sound empirical science clearly and continually demonstrates this. It just can't happen "naturally".

So, will evolutionists ever give up and acknowledge that life was created?

Don't be daft… all they ever do, all they ever do, is to fall back on their FAITH. "There are strong reasons to believe in the RNA world" they said despite the facts, simply because their total belief and trust in Darwinian evolution demands it. After all, just the thought that creation may be true scares evolutionists… doesn't it?

So, you gladly resort to your total belief in some completely unknown, un-provable miracles of time, chance, physics and chemistry (or anything else you can think of) just to avoid going down the creation route… don't you…?

Quite an intertesting discussion of Abiogeneis, which is of course not the same thing as evolution :)

Your mis-use of the word belief is of course just a lingustic cheap trick, but in other respects congratulations on a fact-based argument. If others dont I'll give this some more time over the weekend.

"And would you accept anything from a creationist site…? No, I didn't think so"

Creationist lie, talk origens don't

I think this might be where TJ gets his "interesting" opinions…

link

Pete

Actually read

Metabolism-First Origin of Life Won't Work 01/05/2010

article on the site link (down the page a little)

TJ has quoted from it almost verbatum.

Pete

And pointing that out means, what, exactly?

I'm with TJ on the manipulation-as-cause. I just don't intend to weak it into any dogmatic "explanation" of what "TFW" is. That, imho, has never been revealed and seems likely to never be revealed (and certainly not on THIS thread; everyone hive off to TBF)….

TJ, why don't you get a Bluey Fezzy "pass" and start a thread on this subject there? That way we can all engage in unfettered conversation without getting DawgHaused.

Interestingly, you are almost the only one who posts here who isn't a Fezzian….

And pointing that out means, what, exactly?

Can you not see how funny this is?

Pete

Hi

"The origin of life requires the input of information from an intelligent, purposeful source and sound empirical science clearly and continually demonstrates this. It just can't happen "naturally"."

Errr. And that intelligent purposeful source is WHO? And who created it? And tell me the test you can describe in your lab that I can replicate in my lab to check your work.

Once you have proved god, does this mean that after abiogenesis by this god, that evolution didn't happen, and doesn't happen?

Your "god did it, just believe"is no explanation at all that is better than "abiogensis happened, no lets deal with evolution".

Less actually, as I can study abiogensis and test, I cannot test for god.

The issue with your religious ID references, TJ, the basic point you seem to miss is that the point of "young" is demonstrably not true. Testably not true.

R

That certain "contributor" indicated that TalkOrigins was full of errors and outdated facts. When asked to provide any example of errors and mistakes, he didn't come up with any. I wasn't surprised, ………was anyone else?

You see that "contributor" is incapable of answering any simple, direct and civil question when it is addressed to him.

It the old stage magician's trick of distract – look over here, bright shine object. We don't hold the "contributo's" feet to the fire at let him get away with claims that they are Not "trolling".

The point is simple; IF creatards came up with real science it would be embrassed if it was subject to the normal standards of peer review. The problem is that hasn't happened yet.

Of course the creatards conflate abiogensis with evolution, evolution with eugenics, evolution with atheism/fascism/communism/child molestation/canibalism etc.

We hear from a certain "contributor" what do you know, no answer to the simple direct question!.

Let's ask it again but after over month of waiting I'm not optimistic:

When a Prof. of Biology gives a lectures on Youtube then the contents can be rejected because of it appeared on Youtube. So in what circumstances would that lecture be acceptable to the creatists? Could such a format also be shared with the rest of the TMP community?

Enquiring minds STILL want to know!

Interestingly, you are almost the only one who posts here who isn't a Fezzian….

I'm actually proud of being a Fezzian, compaired to the fate of Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei and the other martyrs for science it's rather mild.

It does erk somewhat that there are those who do get the 'pass' on these boards. Either that or they are better than skirting the rules than we are. The alternative is too unpleasant to contemplate.

I'm actually proud of being a Fezzian…

You are? Where's your fancy yellow "F" inside the black square?…

TJ

Evidence
Evidence
Evidence

Where is the evidence for any form of intelligent designer?

Not "trolling"; just got better things to do with my time…

Better things? You mean plagiarizing creationist websites, and passing that on as your own thoughts?

I'll leave you with these points:

1) I read the article. Hardly an attack on evolution despite what the creatard spin doctors on Creation-Evolution Headlines say.

2) Hey TJ, ever think to look up Dr. Eörs Szathmáry, the principal author of this paper you are championing as proving evolution as being inadequate? This is from his University's website:

"Eörs Szathmáry (1959) is professor of biology at the Department of Plant Taxonomy and Ecology of Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, where he is also the chairman of the PhD programme in evolutionary genetic and conservation biology.

His main interest is theoretical evolutionary biology and focuses on the common principles of the major steps in evolution, such as the origin of life, the emergence of cells, the origin of animal societies, and the appearance of human language. Together with his mentor, John Maynard Smith, he has published two important books which serve as the main references in the field (The Major Transitions in Evolution, Freeman, 1995, and The Origins of Life, Oxford University Press, 1999). Both books have been translated into other languages (so far, German, French, Japanese, and Hungarian). He serves on the editorial board of several journals (Journal of Theoretical Biology, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, Evolutionary Ecology and Evolution of Communication)"

Ya, sure sounds like he is an anti-evolutionist, for sure. Good pick, TJ. By the way, his mentor John Maynard Smith is also an evolutionist. Excellent choice.

3) The same creatard spin doctors get the whole "Tiktaalik" issue wrong. This was already excoriated by Pharyngula. It is on another thread. Thanks to Pete and Gunfreak for that.

4) TJ, when is research exonerating and championing "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design" going to be critiqued on the Creation-Evolution Headlines website? Oh ya, never. Because there is no research forthcoming, is there? Pissing on the work of others is always easier than doing your own.

5) Hey TJ, when are you responding to our questions?

6)

After all, just the thought that creation may be true scares evolutionists… doesn't it?

Honestly, not this one.

Ralph