Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion

[barrister]

 
Jerry Bergman, PhD (Professor, biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology; Intelligent Design advocate):

“[A] factor that moved me to the creationist side was the underhanded, often totally unethical techniques that evolutionists typically used to suppress dissonant ideas, primarily creationism. Rarely did they carefully and objectively examine the facts, but usually focused on suppression of creationists, denial of their degrees, denial of their tenure, ad hominem attacks, and in general, irrational attacks on their person. In short, their response in general was totally unscientific and one that reeks of intolerance, even hatred.”
 
 

 
William Dembsky (American mathematician, philosopher, theologian; advocate of Intelligent Design):

Even if you’re not fired from your job, you will easily be passed over for promotions. I would strongly advise graduate students who are skeptical of Darwinian theory not to make their views known.’ ... Doubting Darwinian orthodoxy is comparable to opposing the party line of a Stalinist regime. ... Overzealous critics of intelligent design regard it as their moral duty to keep biology free from intelligent design, even if that means taking extreme measures. I’ve known such critics to contact design theorists’ employers and notify them of the ‘heretics’ in their midst. Once ‘outed,’ the design theorists themselves get harassed and harangued with e-mails. Next, the press does a story mentioning their unsavory intelligent design associations. (The day one such story appeared, a close friend and colleague of mine mentioned in the story was dismissed from his research position at a prestigious molecular biology laboratory. He had worked in that lab for ten years. ... Welcome to the inquisition.”
 
 


The Darwinian Inquisition
Oct/14/14 06:00
http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/the_darwinian_inquisition.html

[docelmo]

^I don't quite get your explanation. But from what I gather you wanted new species, pronto.

Here's something I got from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation — you don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.

Second, it's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.

This is why "need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.

At the opposite end of the scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!

Something about ebola too: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/141003_ebola

Simply this, the theory of evolution should be able predict what you will observe and what you will not. You should be able also to envision obsevations that would make the theory false. All you have to do is provide answers to this question based on the mechanism of the theory of evolution.

What i understand from the berkeley quote is that nAtural selection result in slow progresive process of changes in organisms. But what is actually observed in the macro and microscopic organisms do have changes but only as far the species is concern. There is no cross specie change.

[barrister]

Lynn Margulis (American biologist; developed a theory of the origin of eukaryotic organelles, and contributed to the endosymbiotic theory):

"More and more, like the monasteries of the Middle Ages, today's universities and professional societies guard their knowledge. Collusively, the university biology curriculum, the textbook publishers, the National Science Foundation review committees, the Graduate Record Examiners, and the various microbiological, evolutionary, and zoological societies map out domains of the known and knowable; they distinguish required from forbidden knowledge, subtly punishing the trespassers with rejection and oblivion; they. . . . determine who is permitted to know and just what it is that he or she may know."
 
Margulis was fuming about the difficulty she was having in getting her concepts of evolutionary mechanisms considered. She goes on to complain that

". . . if an individual with ambition to study nature rejects neo-Darwinist biology in today's ambience, he becomes a threat to his own means of livelihood . . ."
 

Willingly Ignorant
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/willingly-ignorant/

[docelmo]

Saan bang part nag deviate?

Its not a matter of just deviation but  the inclusion of many other observations/theories/mechanisms to explain what is observed that the theory of natural selection cannot.  This in effect makes Evolution not testable and impossible to predict. At the same time impossible to envision what will make it false……In this regard evolution does not rise to the level of a scientific theory.

Punctuated equilibrium  is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and rapid (on a geologic time scale) events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.

The "punctuated equilibrium" theory of Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould was proposed as a criticism of the traditional Darwinian theory of evolution. Eldredge and Gould observed that evolution tends to happen in fits and starts, sometimes moving very fast, sometimes moving very slowly or not at all. On the other hand, typical variations tend to be small. Therefore, Darwin saw evolution as a slow, continuous process, without sudden jumps.

Convergent evolution describes the independent evolution of similar features in species of different lineages. Convergent evolution creates analogous structures that have similar form or function, but that were not present in the last common ancestor of those groups.[1] The cladistic term for the same phenomenon is homoplasy, from Greek for same form.

Divergent evolution is the accumulation of differences between groups which can lead to the formation of new species, usually a result of diffusion of the same species to different and isolated environments which blocks the gene flow among the distinct populations allowing differentiated fixation of characteristics through genetic drift and natural selection.

Parallel Evolution is the development of a similar trait in related, but distinct, species descending from the same ancestor, but from different clades.[1][

[bumblebee]

^Well forget about these sub-theories for the time being and let's look at evolution in a larger scale. I'd like to think we agree on evolution, yours through ID, mine through natural selection.

[docelmo]

^Well forget about these sub-theories for the time being and let's look at evolution in a larger scale. I'd like to think we agree on evolution, yours through ID, mine through natural selection.

Sir, you can't set aside all those so-called sub-theories precisely because all those is Evolution in a larger scale. If you say there are changes within the species level then this occurs and have been observed. But this is not what evolution claims, it claims that this changes jumps or crosses across species barrier (eg. Fish to reptiles) with natural selection acting on mutation as the mechanism of change. Thus this view of Evolution is not compatible with ID.

[dodie]

No its not, i believe in Jesus Christ and what the Bible teaches since bata pa. To me there is a beautiful place prepared for us in heaven. Eternal life yan. No more suffering. Eternal din ang hell. Forever suffering. Paano if you  killed somebody and want to go to heaven? We have freewill nga. Kaya sa judgement day we will know where we will go. Well that is what i believe in and not forcing anybody. Sa religion thread nalang yan pero related din ito sa topic dito imo.

yan brother, na gag ka tuloy kse you believe in creation eh and you believe in god too!
basa basa na lang tayo..si DOCelmo, one man wrecking machine na yan!

cmmn doc, schooled us big tym

[barrister]

 
Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible
Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
© 1999 Creation Research Society. 
 

Abiogenesis is the theory that life can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under proper conditions. ...
 
xxx
 
... As Coppedge (1973) notes, even 1) postulating a primordial sea with every single component necessary for life, 2) speeding up the bonding rate so as to form different chemical combinations a trillion times more rapidly than hypothesized to have occurred, 3) allowing for a 4.6 billion- year-old earth and 4) using all atoms on the earth still leaves the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10,261.  Using the lowest estimate made before the discoveries of the past two decades raised the number several fold.  Coppedge estimates the probability of 1 in 10^119,879 is necessary to obtain the minimum set of the required estimate of 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life form.
 
At this rate he estimates it would require 10^119,831 years on the average to obtain a set of these proteins by naturalistic evolution (1973, pp. 110, 114).  The number he obtained is 10^119,831 greater than the current estimate for the age of the earth (4.6 billion years).  In other words, this event is outside the range of probability.  Natural selection cannot occur until an organism exists and is able to reproduce which requires that the first complex life form first exist as a functioning unit.
 
 
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

[barrister]

 
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)."
 
- Richard Dawkins

[dpogs]

yan ang sinasabi ko... numbers can't explain evolution...

[barrister]

 
 
Allen Clifton (Co-founder, Forward Progressives):
 
 
"The Simple Truth About Creationists: They’re Too Stupid to Understand Science"

[barrister]

 

'Oh God': Dawkins forgets name of evolution's bible
St Valentine's massacre in religion wars as Dawkins forgets full name of seminal Darwin book
BY Tim Edwards
LAST UPDATED AT 13:54 ON Tue 14 Feb 2012.

... Dawkins made much of the fact that 64 per cent of people who said they were Christians in the census were not able to identify Matthew as the first book of the New Testament.
 
The second time Dawkins mentioned the finding, Fraser asked him if he could tell him the full title of On the Origin of Species, the book by Charles Darwin considered to be the 'Bible' of evolutionary biology.

Dawkins stated emphatically: "Yes I could."
 
"Go on then," said Fraser.
 
Dawkins's halting reply, complete with an improbable appeal to a higher authority, went thus: "On the Origin of Species, er, with... oh God... On the Origin of Species, um... There is a subtitle... er, um, with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."
 
The correct answer is, of course, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
 
A triumphant Fraser said: "You are the High Pope of Darwinism. If you asked people who believe in evolution that question and only two per cent got it right it would be terribly easy for me to say they don't really believe it after all.
 
"It's just not fair to ask people these questions."
 
http://www.theweek.co.uk/religion/religion/45324/oh-god-dawkins-forgets-name-evolutions-bible
 
 
 
=================================
 
 
YouTube radio recording:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv2U2Xp2Nu8

[docelmo]

plausible - (with zero evidence) has no credibility

My belief is that the theory of evolution is more rational than the belief in god.

So, if I say that it is "plausible" that your comment is a result of intelligence........it has zero evidence or no credibility?
Or if I say that it is more plausible that the post/comment was "created" by an Intelligent Being.....It has ZERO evidence?

Sir, you just made use of a faith-based word BELIEF! Thats not very scientific.

The fact is it is Evolution that has Zero evidence!

If the theory is really more rational( as you claim) than our belief in God, then it would be really easy for you to answer the following:
What is the mechanism of the theory of evolution?
What will this mechanism predict?
What observations can make it false?

Has there been any experiments that has demonstrated abiogenesis?
Has anyone observed macroevolution? Cause-less effect? Sponteneous generation?
All of these needs to be present for evolution to be true!

 This lack of observation proves that evolution does not fall under the definition of science, all evolution has are assumptions to prove an assumption! The fact that evolution is also unobservable highlights that evolutionary theory is “faith-based” in the sense that direct evidence is lacking for several of its fundamental assumptions.

On the other hand is intelligent design scientific and testable? Can intelligence be tested and verified? In reality, intelligence in the Universe can be tested and verified. The SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) project is a classic example of the testability of intelligence. According to this program mathematical patterns, codes, languages, algorithm and fundamental laws are just some of the evidence that some type of intelligence exists!

And one more thing: Is your comment/post  a result of or evidence for Evolution or Intelligent Design?

[barrister]

 
Human/chimp DNA similarity
Evidence for evolutionary relationship?
by Don Batten



... Similarity (‘homology’) is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ car. They both have air–cooled, flat, horizontally–opposed, 4–cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

... While previous studies have focused on base substitutions, they have missed perhaps the greatest contribution to the genetic differences between chimps and humans. Missing nucleotides from one or the other appear to account for more than twice the number of substituted nucleotides. Although the number of substitutions is about ten times higher than the number of indels, the number of nucleotides involved in indels is greater. These indels were reported to be equally represented in the chimp and human sequences. Therefore, the insertions or deletions were not occurring only in the chimp or only in the human and could also be interpreted as intrinsic differences.
 
http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity#f7

[barrister]

The theory of evolution originally included abiogenesis.  But there's one big problem these days --- it is now commonly accepted that abiogenesis is impossible.
 
The evolutionist's solution?
 
Very simple.  Just pretend that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
 
 
 
“Abiogenesis is Irrelevant to Evolution”
by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
 
... There is a growing trend among evolutionists today to attempt to sidestep the problem of abiogenesis by contending that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather is a theory which starts with life already in existence and explains the origin of all species from that original life form. However, this approach is merely wishful thinking—an effort to avoid the logical import of the Law of Biogenesis.
 
... Historically, evolutionists have recognized that abiogenesis is a fundamental assumption inherent in evolutionary theory, and intuitively must be so. In 1960, British evolutionary physiologist, G.A. Kerkut, listed abiogenesis as the first assumption in a list of non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is founded.
 
... atheistic evolutionary geologist, Robert Hazen, who received his doctoral degree from Harvard, admitted that he assumes abiogenesis occurred. ...Hazen further stated that in his assumption of abiogenesis, he is “like most other scientists” (2005). It makes perfect sense for atheistic evolutionists to admit their belief in abiogenesis. Without abiogenesis in place, there is no starting point for atheistic evolution to occur. However, many evolutionists do not want to admit such a belief too loudly, since such a belief has absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. It is a blind faith—a religious dogma.
 
... The reality is that abiogenesis stands alongside evolutionary theory as a fundamental plank of atheism and will remain there. The two are intimately linked and stand or fall together. It is time for the naturalist to forthrightly admit that his religious belief in evolution is based on a blind acceptance of an unscientific phenomenon.
 
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1631 

[dpogs]

well one benefit of believing in evolution... magmumukha kang matalino

[barrister]

 
PZ Myers (American evolutionary biologist; atheist, Darwinist, anti-creation, anti-ID), on the issue that abiogenesis is part of evolution:


"[Myth] #15 is also a pet peeve [of mine]: “Evolution is a theory about the origin of life” is presented as false. It is not. I know many people like to recite the mantra that “abiogenesis is not evolution,” but it’s a cop-out. Evolution is about a plurality of natural mechanisms that generate diversity. It includes molecular biases towards certain solutions and chance events that set up potential change as well as selection that refines existing variation. Abiogenesis research proposes similar principles that led to early chemical evolution. Tossing that work into a special-case ghetto that exempts you from explaining it is cheating, and ignores the fact that life is chemistry. That creationists don’t understand that either is not a reason for us to avoid it."

[RU9]

So, if I say that it is "plausible" that your comment is a result of intelligence........it has zero evidence or no credibility?
Or if I say that it is more plausible that the post/comment was "created" by an Intelligent Being.....It has ZERO evidence?

Plausible is not a rating in EBM.  You rated evolution a C.

You may want to prove the existence of God.

Sir, you just made use of a faith-based word BELIEF! Thats not very scientific.

Definition of belief:
 conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

The fact is it is Evolution that has Zero evidence!

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important
distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad
areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution
looks at changes within species over time—changes
that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species.
Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups
above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently
from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to
reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that
microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory
(as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in
the field (as in Grant’s studies of evolving beak shapes
among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other
mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis
and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations
over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves
inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct
observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include
astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary
biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking
whether they accord with physical evidence and
whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the
idea of descent with modification, one may also speak
of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation
that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all
practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record
and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have
evolved through time. Although no one observed those
transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous
and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence.
Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance,
so they verify their existence by watching for telltale
tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers.
The absence of direct observation does not make
physicists’ conclusions less certain.

What observations can make it false?

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If
we could document the spontaneous generation of just
one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at
least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have
originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared
and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular
species), the purely evolutionary explanation
would be cast in in doubt. But no one has yet produced
such evidence.

This lack of observation proves that evolution does not fall under the definition of science,

Sorry but evolution is defined as knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

On the other hand is intelligent design scientific and testable? Can intelligence be tested and verified? In reality, intelligence in the Universe can be tested and verified.

Intelligence yes but not an intelligent designer.

My turn to ask questions about ID?

When and how did a designing intelligence intervene in
life’s history?
By creating the first DNA?
The first cell?
The first human? Was every species designed, or just a
few early ones?

And one more thing: Is your comment/post  a result of or evidence for Evolution or Intelligent Design?

based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

Your statements agreeing with evolution:

If by Evolution you are referring to small-scale changes/variations in species. This has been observed and accepted...indeed this is a FACT.

You dont go around disregarding evidence that does not fit your diagnosis, you look for another diagnosis.....same goes for evolution!

[RU9]

n. compared sa natutunan ko sa college... wala... pulpol ang 'evolution'... mabuti pa ang lotto... kahit na gawi pang lotto 6/100 yan... posibleng manalo... pero ang evolution nah...

Hindi nah ang answer. Totoo ba ang evolution? yes or mo lang ang answer. so ang odds is 1:1.
Natutunan ko ito sa high school:)

[dpogs]

Hindi nah ang answer. Totoo ba ang evolution? yes or mo lang ang answer. so ang odds is 1:1.
Natutunan ko ito sa high school:)

he he he... nice... same lang din sa creation... totoo ba ang creation... so ang odds is 1:1... kasi yes or no lang din...

you really dont understand the probability of non-living matters becoming a living matter...? based on observable experiement... the probability is zero... and the probablity of the fish becoming a salamander/lizard... based on observable experiment .. is zero...

but if creation is not true it doesnt mean na totoo na ang evolution... same lang din sa evolution... if mali ang evolution it doesnt mean na totoo na agad ang creation...

just show us actual proof that evolution really happened not just assumption... malay mo baka magiba paniniwala ko ... do you actually observe evolution for you to believe it? if not then it's really by faith... nakita mo ba actual paano nagevolve ang isang species to another species? or just an assumption since magkapareho ang body structure? so assumption to prove other assumption? another theory to backup other theory?

there are two group of scientist agreeing and not agreeing to evolution theory... so sino nagsasabi sa kanila ng totoo...

[RU9]

he he he... nice... same lang din sa creation... totoo ba ang creation... so ang odds is 1:1... kasi yes or no lang din...

you really dont understand the probability of non-living matters becoming a living matter...? based on observable experiement... the probability is zero... and the probablity of the fish becoming a salamander/lizard... based on observable experiment .. is zero...

but if creation is not true it doesnt mean na totoo na ang evolution... same lang din sa evolution... if mali ang evolution it doesnt mean na totoo na agad ang creation...

ito ang original statement mo--

not personal experience... i read it from the Bible... not just from group of scientist... its from the Bible...
no one taught me about creation... i read it myself... compared sa natutunan ko sa college... wala... pulpol ang 'evolution'... mabuti pa ang lotto... kahit na gawi pang lotto 6/100 yan... posibleng manalo... pero ang evolution nah...

i maybe ignorant but i am not a fool to believe in evolution... hindi ako feeling matalino just like others... para magmukhang matalino paniniwalaan na lahat ng sinasabi ng mga 'magagaling' kuno na scientists and because of that they become fools


simple lang naman yan... if numbers cant explain it then dont believe it...

Ngayon dagdag ka ng statement to justify your conclusion. Fair?

you really dont understand the probability of non-living matters becoming a living matter...? based on observable experiement... the probability is zero... and the probablity of the fish becoming a salamander/lizard... based on observable experiment .. is zero...

nevertheless, where is your data to arrive at zero.

what is your sample size?

is the coefficient of variation acceptable?

or guessing guessing lang?

[dpogs]

eto batas ng science... walang living things na mangggaling sa non-living things... di na kailangan ng sample size doon... batas na iyan eh...

para mo na ring sinabi na mananalo ba ako sa lotto... yes or no? so ang chance is 50%...

[barrister]

 
It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. ... [T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. ... How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment.
 
- Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution"

[barrister]

 
The nucleotide sequence is also meaningless without a conceptual translative scheme and physical "hardware" capabilities. Ribosomes, tRNAs, aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, and amino acids are all hardware components of the Shannon message "receiver." But the instructions for this machinery is itself coded in DNA and executed by protein "workers" produced by that machinery. Without the machinery and protein workers, the message cannot be received and understood. And without genetic instruction, the machinery cannot be assembled.
 
 
- J.T. Trevors and D.L. Abel, "Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life"

[dpogs]

see sa DNA pa lang... numbers cant explain it... probabilites/chance no room for DNA... even when we extend the time... still zero probabilities...

It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. ... [T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. ... How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment.
 
- Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution"

or created simultaneously by common designer...

"Concluding that a miracle—or any extremely unlikely event—happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar “miracle” happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer.

Furthermore, it is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor;c such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design."

[barrister]

 

 
 
Evolutionists say, ‘Mutations and other biological mechanisms have been observed to produce new features in organisms.’

...In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating new genetic code, they attack a straw-man version of the creationist model, and they have no answer for the creationists’ real scientific objections.

Scientific American states this common straw-man position and their answer to it.

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
 
On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism’s DNA)—bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example. [SA 82]
 
 
This is a serious misstatement of the creationist argument. The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways that an information loss can confer resistance, as already discussed. We have also pointed out in various ways how new traits, even helpful, adaptive traits, can arise through loss of genetic information (which is to be expected from mutations).

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae, and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. [SA 82]
 
Once again, there is no new information! Rather, a mutation in the hox gene (see next section) results in already-existing information being switched on in the wrong place.1 The hox gene merely moved legs to the wrong place; it did not produce any of the information that actually constructs the legs, which in ants and bees include a wondrously complex mechanical and hydraulic mechanism that enables these insects to stick to surfaces.2

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-5-argument-some-mutations-are-beneficial
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQHgcx2_5o
 
 
 

[barrister]

Since Oparin, evolutionists have performed countless experiments, conducted research, and made observations to prove that a cell could have been formed by chance. However, every such attempt only made the complex design of the cell clearer, and thus refuted the evolutionists' hypotheses even more. Professor Klaus Dose, the president of the Institute of Biochemistry at the University of Johannes Gutenberg, states:
 
More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.
 
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_08.html

[docelmo]

Definition of belief:
 conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

Intelligence yes but not an intelligent designer.

based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

I can see that there is a tendency to cherry pick the definition as you see fit or when you want to skirt the question.

With Belief....That's exactly my point your belief on your god Darwin is in the same footing as my belief in God. You can't use one part of the definition and dismiss the other part, you must accept the entire definition as equal parts. Thus my belief in God is no less rational than you belief in Darwin!

On intelligence. ID is also evidence of Intelligence, "design" is just a qualifier. just like when you say; author, writer, director etc etc. in addition logic and reasoning are parts of a very common test.....IQ Test!
And what does the "I" stand for INTELLIGENCE!......baka naman ideny mo pa yan!

i'll  try use analogy to illustrate your answer: intelligence not ID and logic/reasoning not intelligence!

You see a car You say: Nice red sports car! I say: Nice red Ferrari 458!
 In an art gallery You say: Painting of sunflower  I say: Van Gogh's Sunflower
 Iin a computer shop You say: Nice computer I say: Apple Macbook pro
 While surfing our marketplace You say: Nice Int. Amplifier! I say: Nice Cayin CS-55A Int tube amplifier!

more on your other points later....

[docelmo]

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important
distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad
areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution
looks at changes within species over time—changes
that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species.

mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis
and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations
over time.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the
idea of descent with modification, one may also speak
of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation
that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all
practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’”

Sorry but evolution is defined as knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

I say this “blanket” pronouncement because each and every so-called evidence for evolution are mere assumptions and speculations to prove a predicted or pre-destined conclusion.

Calling these changes in the species level as “micro-evolution” is in fact a misleading word because this leads to the implications these observations are evidence is also used as evidence for macro-evolution. I did use the word evolution to describe small-scale changes in species....looks this is also a misnomer to perpetuate the illusion of evolution

This is a bait and switch move employed to make it appear that both mechanism occurs and that they are one and the same……Nothing could be further from the truth! In fact even the use of natural selection is not scientific in the sense that its main tenet is survival of the fittest. In reality survival is not equal to the fittest and vice-versa. As studies in Genetics and Molecular biology show a very different mechanism.....gene dynamics!

In molecular biology, the gene-mutations are mostly caused by the gene-dynamics, not by ‘nature-selection-pressure’, and the following is the list of gene-mutation mechanisms.

Spontaneous mutations (molecular decay), random mutations arise spontaneously; stochastic and typically occur randomly across genes.

Mutations due to error prone replication by-pass of naturally occurring DNA damage. But, DNA repair mechanisms are able to mend most changes before they become permanent mutations, and many organisms have mechanisms for eliminating otherwise-permanently mutated somatic cells.

Errors introduced during DNA repair, errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements.

Induced mutations caused by mutagens (typically caused by radiation or chemical mutagens)..

Gene recombination can also generate particular types of mutations.

Except the induced mutation which subjects to some external (environmental) factors, all the mutation-mechanisms above are well-defined genetic-dynamics, and they are definitely NOT the results of the Darwin-mechanism!


NAS definition of fact does NOT apply to Evolution simply because it has NOT been observed and NOT repeatedly confirmed and therefore cannot be accepted as truth!

Kindly enumerate these "Facts" learned through experiments and observations!

[barrister]

 
Don’t fall for the bait and switch
Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking
by Tas Walker


 
... We have heard of the idea that single-celled animals changed by mutation and natural selection into reptiles, birds, mammals and people, over millions of years.
 
This is what creationists call evolution and they distinguish it from adaptation. Evolutionists call this evolution too, the same word they use for adaptation. That is why there is so much confusion on this issue.

Evolutionists use the same word for two entirely different things (called equivocation), and so you don’t really know what they are talking about.
 
If small random mutations are to produce new genetic information for these amazing changes in animals, then millions of such genetic errors would be needed over millions of generations. That is why evolutionists need billions of years for the idea to be plausible.
 
However, these sorts of changes have never been observed.
 
Variation and natural selection do not produce new genetic information; they only rearrange or remove the existing information.
 
Mutations do not generate new genetic information; they destroy some of the existing information.

Furthermore, the fossils are not consistent with the idea of evolution; the innumerable transitional forms expected are missing.
 
http://creation.com/don-t-fall-for-the-bait-and-switch