The Darwinist Cult Conspiracy

[Scott Deitche]

I'll be happy to refer you to dozens of peer-reviewed papers and publications on the latest work in RNA

Here's a link to a good article from 1998 in ScienceDaily. The article is about an important peer-reviewed paper that was published in Nature, and discusses the theoretical "ancient RNA world" in relation to the early evolution of life.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/...80917081316.htm

"Peer review" can be as meaningless as "evolution".

Peer = Equal.

Wrong = Wrong

Dumb = Dumb

A theory reviewed by someone who belongs to the same cult as the theorist

will certainly agree with other members of the cult. Like getting Posner to

peer review Bugliosi's book.

More sensible would be reviews of theories by those who question the theory

and know the questions to ask to deflate the theory.

Peer review depends on who the peer is.

Jack

Peer reviewed science means adhering to a strict set of criteria to make sure the research in question is valid and scientific.

[Dave Greer]

I'll be happy to refer you to dozens of peer-reviewed papers and publications on the latest work in RNA

Here's a link to a good article from 1998 in ScienceDaily. The article is about an important peer-reviewed paper that was published in Nature, and discusses the theoretical "ancient RNA world" in relation to the early evolution of life.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/...80917081316.htm

"Peer review" can be as meaningless as "evolution".

Peer = Equal.

Wrong = Wrong

Dumb = Dumb

A theory reviewed by someone who belongs to the same cult as the theorist

will certainly agree with other members of the cult. Like getting Posner to

peer review Bugliosi's book.

More sensible would be reviews of theories by those who question the theory

and know the questions to ask to deflate the theory.

Peer review depends on who the peer is.

Jack

If your view of how science works is correct, how do you explain the huge paradigm shifts in various areas of science over the last few years?

Cosmology for example?

How is it possible that theories that rail against the mainstream can become accepted and integrated into the scientific consensus? As many have over the last 10 years? 30 years? 100 years? 1000 years?

Peer = Equal.

Wrong = Wrong

Dumb = Dumb

That's like saying 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, therefore 1=3 ... a strawman argument. What is your point?

Edited February 18, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Bob Goodman]

If Darwins theory is true then why is it that so many people are practially blind unless they wear glasses? Wouldn't they have been selected out of the gene pool a long time ago?

[Jack White]

With all their erudite theorizing, Darwinists refuse to address a simple very basic principle

of logic...IT MUST WORK THE FIRST TIME, OR IT CANNOT WORK AT ALL.

So...what was the first animal nourishment system like? What if a mouth evolved but it had no

stomach? What if it had no chemistry to digest food? What if it had no elimation organs? How did

the first stomach know it needed food? The first animal had to have a complete nourishment

system in place from lips to anus...or it would die of starvation. In fact, unless it BEGAN with

a complete system which WORKED THE FIRST TIME, it could not survive to evolve.

So...what if the first animal somehow evolved EYES, but the eyes had no retina nor optic

nerve? Of what use were such eyes? The animal would be blind and unlikely to survive

because its vision system DID NOT WORK THE FIRST TIME. Before eyes "evolved" and

blind animals could suddenly see...what sense took the place of eyes? Why and how

did eyes evolve?

So...how did the first animal reproduce itself? If it had no sex organs, did it suddenly sprout

them? Even if the males suddenly found themselves with penises and the associated sperm

equipment, remember, IT HAD TO WORK THE VERY FIRST TIME or the species would be

suddenly extinct...even if they found an opposite sex with the necessary equipment.

So, whatever you call the process, how did the very first being reproduce itself into another

being...and then into multiple animal and plant species...remembering EVERYTING HAD

TO WORK THE VERY FIRST TIME, or there could be no evolution of anything. If everything

happened by MUTATION as Darwin theorized, did plants mutate into animals, or vice

versa? Why are plant and animal fossils distinctly different, with no sign of a single

progenitor?

So...why are all the species distinct and remain distinct? You don't have horses breeding

with oak trees, or fish mating with birds, or fleas mating with oysters. As a bird watcher

of sorts, I am amazed that no bird species even associate with each other across species.

Crows remain crows and mockingbirds remain mockingbirds. I have never heard of a

mutation or crossbreeding of such species. Is this because each species was that way

originally and did not evolve? In the oldest fossils ever found are sea creatures that still

exist today. No MISSING LINKS have been found that dispute that such creatures were

designed to work right the first time.

I could give hundreds of examples of this simple necessity. Darwinists have no

proof that any animal or plant could survive IF IT DID NOT HAVE EVERYTHING

NEEDED TO WORK PERFECTLY THE VERY FIRST TIME IT APPEARED.

Jack

[Dave Greer]

With all their erudite theorizing, Darwinists refuse to address a simple very basic principle

of logic...IT MUST WORK THE FIRST TIME, OR IT CANNOT WORK AT ALL.

<snip>

So...what if the first animal somehow evolved EYES, but the eyes had no retina nor optic

nerve? Of what use were such eyes? The animal would be blind and unlikely to survive

because its vision system DID NOT WORK THE FIRST TIME. Before eyes "evolved" and

blind animals could suddenly see...what sense took the place of eyes? Why and how

did eyes evolve?

<snip>

Jack

I'll restrict my reply to the eye. There's an interesting video on how eye evolution may have occurred here (Quicktime) or here (Real Player).

Whether this explanation is correct or not I don't know, but it doesn't seem illogical. The "camera-like eye" eye could have evolved over hundreds of thousanfds of generations from light-sensitive cells on the surface of the skin. This is backed up by the existence in nature today of partial eyes (e.g. cup-shaped eyes in some flatworms). The "Why and how" aspect is answered because of the minimal advantage gained by a creature as its vision gradually improved.

Incidentally, who's to say the human eye has finished evolving? Although it enables many of us to see clearly, it is a flawed design. Blood vessels form on the inner surface of the retina (Image B below), which can lead to bleeding into the eye. Compare this to the squid eye (Image A below), which is otherwise very similar to the human eye. Blood vessels form on the outside of the retina.

Edited February 19, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Jack White]

The last time I looked I have "defeated" the Darwin cultists in this "debate"

because nobody has addressed nor answered my three major premises:

1. Science depends on predictable CAUSE AND EFFECT. Evolution is a theory which is

concerned ONLY with effect. It is unscientific because it proposes no CAUSE for a theorized

effect. Nobody here can say what caused evolution.

2. Science depends on proving a theorem by REPLICABLE observations or experiments

which produce the same results dependably time after time. Nobody here has cited any

successful replicable observation or experiment which produces evolution of a new species.

Evolution is unscientific because it cannot be replicated nor observed. There is no fossil

record that even suggests all fossiled creatures evolved.

3. Evolution through mutation, which is a Darwin requirement, requires GIGAZILLIONS

of SUCCESSFUL mutations to produce every species plant and animal life, statistically

impossible. No scientist has explained how each mutation MUST BE SUCCESSFUL THE

VERY FIRST TIME IT APPEARS, or it would not survive. Each system of each plant or

animal HAD TO WORK RIGHT from the very beginning...so if any part of a nutritional

system is missing from mouth to anus, it cannot work and that creature will not survive.

No Darwin cultist here has addressed this simple principle. Successful mutation every

time for every species is bad science.

Don't bother with additional postings about "peer-reviewed" papers unless you have

answers for all three of these premises. This is about COMMON SENSE, not theories.

Evolution is UNSCIENTIFIC by definition.

Jack

Edited February 21, 2007 by Jack White

[Don Jeffries]

Jack,

I agree completely. Charles Fort's books are full of hilarious explanations from various disciples of modern science when they were confronted with things that are "scientifically impossible." Things like blood, frogs, fish and rocks falling from the sky. Things like comets not behaving in the way astronomers had predicted they would (his "New Lands" is almost all about astronomers and their incredibly bad track record). In more recent times, these same scientists have explained away the thousands of sightings of UFOs with magic-bullet type nonsense like "swamp gas" (actually quoted as an explanation for a UFO sighting by then Congressman Gerald Ford) and the ever-present, extremely versatile planet Venus. The primary tenet of modern science is a total unwillingness to accept that there are unexplainable things in this world, or that there is a supernatural realm. This is as strong a part of their dogma as faith is to religion. Remember that the scientists of their day rejected Coopernicus and Gallileo. When Immanuel Velikosky first published his "Worlds In Collison," his theories were widely ridiculed by the priests of modern science. Some fifty years later, they are now pretty much accepted by established science. When Erik Von Daniken published his "Chariots Of The Gods," he was widely ridiculed by those same priests of modern science. He is still ridiculed, but if his theories are eventually accepted like Velikosky's were, scientists will never act as though they were ever in question. If modern science weren't a racket, and were run by altruistic, detached seekers of the truth, then we would have had a cure for cancer a long time ago, and human life spans would have been significantly extended. There are certainly dedicated scientific researchers out there who are only committed to the truth, but they are overshadowed by the huge, dogmatic collossus of organized science, much as a humble parish priest is dwarfed by the power and interests of organized religion. Science should be simply a process of obtaining knowledge through research and expermentation, but more scientists today are concerned with obtaining research grants and peer recognition.

[Jack White]

Don...interesting that you mentioned Venus as a culprit in unexplained sightings.

Last night I had an unexplained sighting. I do not claim it was anything other

than unexplained...in fact it likely was something explainable.

I live within view of the downtown Fort Worth skyline. From my balcony I can

see approximately 40 percent of the heavens, and often gaze at the stars and

planets. It is interesting to watch Venus, Saturn and Jupiter set in the west

over the skyline.

Last night about midnight I looked out the window and noticed a very bright

light at about ten degrees above the downtown skyline. It seemed brighter

than any of the planets. I was very puzzled because I usually do not see

planets at that time of night so near the horizon, and this seemed too bright

for to be a star or planet. I watched it for about five minutes and it remained

stationary. It never moved. It was in the air, but was not "flying".

I left the window for about five minutes and then went back and looked again,

and THE BRIGHT LIGHT WAS GONE! It was too soon for a planet to have

dropped ten degrees below the horizon!

Finally I decided the unexplained light could have been the police helicopter

hovering over a scene of police interest, and it had either departed or turned

off the spotlight. But it was an oddity that otherwise defies explanation.

Thanks for your observations.

Jack

[Dave Greer]

Jack

You still haven't clarified what the discussion is supposed to be about. Is it how life began, how life evolved, or UFOs?

[Dave Greer]

Dbl post.

Edited February 21, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Jack White]

The last time I looked I have "defeated" the Darwin cultists in this "debate"

because nobody has addressed nor answered my three major premises:

1. Science depends on predictable CAUSE AND EFFECT. Evolution is a theory which is

concerned ONLY with effect. It is unscientific because it proposes no CAUSE for a theorized

effect. Nobody here can say what caused evolution.

2. Science depends on proving a theorem by REPLICABLE observations or experiments

which produce the same results dependably time after time. Nobody here has cited any

successful replicable observation or experiment which produces evolution of a new species.

Evolution is unscientific because it cannot be replicated nor observed. There is no fossil

record that even suggests all fossiled creatures evolved.

3. Evolution through mutation, which is a Darwin requirement, requires GIGAZILLIONS

of SUCCESSFUL mutations to produce every species plant and animal life, statistically

impossible. No scientist has explained how each mutation MUST BE SUCCESSFUL THE

VERY FIRST TIME IT APPEARS, or it would not survive. Each system of each plant or

animal HAD TO WORK RIGHT from the very beginning...so if any part of a nutritional

system is missing from mouth to anus, it cannot work and that creature will not survive.

No Darwin cultist here has addressed this simple principle. Successful mutation every

time for every species is bad science.

Don't bother with additional postings about "peer-reviewed" papers unless you have

answers for all three of these premises. This is about COMMON SENSE, not theories.

Evolution is UNSCIENTIFIC by definition.

Jack

The Darwin cultists could not answer my queries above, so I can justify declaring

victory without even mentioning my really good stuff.

Jack

[Dave Greer]

<snip>

The Darwin cultists could not answer my queries above, so I can justify declaring

victory without even mentioning my really good stuff.

Jack

1. Maybe there's no-one on this board who would desctribe themselves as a "Darwin cultist".

2. Applying the same logic to the thread on your Apollo studies, I guess that means the "Apollo believers" can also justify declaring victory, since you neglected to defend, amend or withdraw your claims?

EDIT

But just to push the debate along...

1. Science depends on predictable CAUSE AND EFFECT. Evolution is a theory which is

concerned ONLY with effect. It is unscientific because it proposes no CAUSE for a theorized

effect. Nobody here can say what caused evolution.

Isn't mutation a cause? Environmental pressure? Inheritance?

2. Science depends on proving a theorem by REPLICABLE observations or experiments

which produce the same results dependably time after time. Nobody here has cited any

successful replicable observation or experiment which produces evolution of a new species.

Evolution is unscientific because it cannot be replicated nor observed. There is no fossil

record that even suggests all fossiled creatures evolved.

Since you asked nicely.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

See section 5, "Observed Instances of Speciation".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

There are observations happening in the world today that provide evidence for evolution.

Source: http://www.phschool.com/science/science_ne...icks_split.html

A species of walking stick, an insect that pretends it's part of a plant, may be evolving into two species by adapting to different environments.

The insect, Timena cristinae, seems to be adapting so that it can hide on either of two species of plants. By doing so, it's probably morphing into two separate species, says Cristina Sandoval of the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Such a process of parallel evolution fits into basic theories of natural selection but few scientists have documented real cases, Sandoval and her colleagues at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, Canada, say in the May 23 Nature. The stickleback fish in North America are the other clear example, they say.

The walking stick, named for Sandoval, comes in two genetically determined color patterns—with or without stripes. In California's Santa Ynez Mountains, the striped insects tend to be more common on a plant called chamise while the unstriped ones predominate on blue lilac.

Lizards and birds zestily eat walking sticks of either pattern, so camouflage offers a big advantage. The researchers found that each form of the insect was more likely to blend into the foliage when on its preferred plant species. Mating tests in the lab showed that each insect type preferred mating with one of its own color pattern.

"This is an example of speciation in process," Sandoval says.

There are many people involved in experimental evolution around the world. Some related reading:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_...ental_evolution

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evo...EVcontents.html

3. Evolution through mutation, which is a Darwin requirement, requires GIGAZILLIONS

of SUCCESSFUL mutations to produce every species plant and animal life, statistically

impossible. No scientist has explained how each mutation MUST BE SUCCESSFUL THE

VERY FIRST TIME IT APPEARS, or it would not survive. Each system of each plant or

animal HAD TO WORK RIGHT from the very beginning...so if any part of a nutritional

system is missing from mouth to anus, it cannot work and that creature will not survive.

No Darwin cultist here has addressed this simple principle. Successful mutation every

time for every species is bad science.

You forgot to mention the unsuccessful mutations. Unsuccessful mutations will not persist. From what I've read, there are FAR more unsuccessful mutations than successful ones.

Source - http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp (an anti-Evolution website!)

The late Hermann J. Muller, Nobel laureate in genetics, said: “Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences” (1950, 38:35). Evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky candidly admitted that favorable mutations amount to less than 1% of all mutations that occur (see Davidheiser, 1969, p. 209). Dr. Dobzhansky even remarked that “most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors...” (1955, p. 105). C.P. Martin, also an evolutionist, wrote in the American Scientist: “Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely.

It's also wrong to suggest that complex systems had to spontaneously evolve as a whole. Noone is suggesting, for example, that the human eye evolved in a single generation, or small number of generations. (See my post in earlier thread).

Edited March 6, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Scott Deitche]

The last time I looked I have "defeated" the Darwin cultists in this "debate"

because nobody has addressed nor answered my three major premises:

1. Science depends on predictable CAUSE AND EFFECT. Evolution is a theory which is

concerned ONLY with effect. It is unscientific because it proposes no CAUSE for a theorized

effect. Nobody here can say what caused evolution.

2. Science depends on proving a theorem by REPLICABLE observations or experiments

which produce the same results dependably time after time. Nobody here has cited any

successful replicable observation or experiment which produces evolution of a new species.

Evolution is unscientific because it cannot be replicated nor observed. There is no fossil

record that even suggests all fossiled creatures evolved.

3. Evolution through mutation, which is a Darwin requirement, requires GIGAZILLIONS

of SUCCESSFUL mutations to produce every species plant and animal life, statistically

impossible. No scientist has explained how each mutation MUST BE SUCCESSFUL THE

VERY FIRST TIME IT APPEARS, or it would not survive. Each system of each plant or

animal HAD TO WORK RIGHT from the very beginning...so if any part of a nutritional

system is missing from mouth to anus, it cannot work and that creature will not survive.

No Darwin cultist here has addressed this simple principle. Successful mutation every

time for every species is bad science.

Don't bother with additional postings about "peer-reviewed" papers unless you have

answers for all three of these premises. This is about COMMON SENSE, not theories.

Evolution is UNSCIENTIFIC by definition.

Jack

The Darwin cultists could not answer my queries above, so I can justify declaring

victory without even mentioning my really good stuff.

Jack

Really good stuff Jack? You still don't know the difference between evolution and abiogensis. INstead of trying to have a debate, you trot out grade-school name calling. And you refuse to answer any posts to you.

I'm getting ready to go off to work, my Darwin cult scientist job, but I'll give you a couple short answers

1. Evolution does not propose a cause. Evolution is a process from pont A to point B. Theories of life origin range from primordial soup to space aliens. Based on the latest research (oh wait I forgot I'm supposed to refer to anyone else's work- sorry Jack but that's science) look to the RNA for the starting point. BUt we already posted about this and predictably you failed to address it.

2. Check out the dozens of sicentific journals which produce dozens of EXPERIMENTAL papers each month, over the last 100 years. You're right, there's been no experimentation . But science is also examination of empirical evidence and analysis of data.

3. Gazillions? Is that a quantifiable term. Can you cite where in the research that gazillions of mutations are required? Can you explain how some animals have adapted into niches while other fall by the wayside? Can you show where a mutation must be successful each time? that's a ludicrous notion and most certainly not needed for successful adaptation. At the very basic single cell level there is a means for absorption of nutrients and release of waste- it's there from the start.

So Jack,

What is your alternative hypothesis for abiogensis and/or evolution?

[Scott Deitche]

Jack,

I think my above post may have come across as rather "attacking" in nature. not my intention. Sorry if it reads that way.

John warned us Americans about how we behave on the forum.

BTW Jack, while I , nor any other scientist, are members of a "cult", I do work right next door to the world headquarters of Scientology, here in Clearwater Florida. There's a thread subject if there ever was one.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

The last time I looked I have "defeated" the Darwin cultists in this "debate"

because nobody has addressed nor answered my three major premises:

1. Science depends on predictable CAUSE AND EFFECT. Evolution is a theory which is

concerned ONLY with effect. It is unscientific because it proposes no CAUSE for a theorized

effect. Nobody here can say what caused evolution.

2. Science depends on proving a theorem by REPLICABLE observations or experiments

which produce the same results dependably time after time. Nobody here has cited any

successful replicable observation or experiment which produces evolution of a new species.

Evolution is unscientific because it cannot be replicated nor observed. There is no fossil

record that even suggests all fossiled creatures evolved.

3. Evolution through mutation, which is a Darwin requirement, requires GIGAZILLIONS

of SUCCESSFUL mutations to produce every species plant and animal life, statistically

impossible. No scientist has explained how each mutation MUST BE SUCCESSFUL THE

VERY FIRST TIME IT APPEARS, or it would not survive. Each system of each plant or

animal HAD TO WORK RIGHT from the very beginning...so if any part of a nutritional

system is missing from mouth to anus, it cannot work and that creature will not survive.

No Darwin cultist here has addressed this simple principle. Successful mutation every

time for every species is bad science.

Don't bother with additional postings about "peer-reviewed" papers unless you have

answers for all three of these premises. This is about COMMON SENSE, not theories.

Evolution is UNSCIENTIFIC by definition.

Jack

The Darwin cultists could not answer my queries above, so I can justify declaring

victory without even mentioning my really good stuff.

Jack

Really good stuff Jack? You still don't know the difference between evolution and abiogensis. INstead of trying to have a debate, you trot out grade-school name calling. And you refuse to answer any posts to you.

I'm getting ready to go off to work, my Darwin cult scientist job, but I'll give you a couple short answers

1. Evolution does not propose a cause. Evolution is a process from pont A to point B. Theories of life origin range from primordial soup to space aliens. Based on the latest research (oh wait I forgot I'm supposed to refer to anyone else's work- sorry Jack but that's science) look to the RNA for the starting point. BUt we already posted about this and predictably you failed to address it.

2. Check out the dozens of sicentific journals which produce dozens of EXPERIMENTAL papers each month, over the last 100 years. You're right, there's been no experimentation . But science is also examination of empirical evidence and analysis of data.

3. Gazillions? Is that a quantifiable term. Can you cite where in the research that gazillions of mutations are required? Can you explain how some animals have adapted into niches while other fall by the wayside? Can you show where a mutation must be successful each time? that's a ludicrous notion and most certainly not needed for successful adaptation. At the very basic single cell level there is a means for absorption of nutrients and release of waste- it's there from the start.

So Jack,

What is your alternative hypothesis for abiogensis and/or evolution?

In any meaningful sense evolution of species is a proven fact, but there remain various competing theories concerning the mechanics of evolution, of which Darwins natural selection is one. The question therefore is how do anti-evolutionists propose to explain the the multiplicity of life on Earth, what is your mechanism?