Wow, you first need to read some of the threads about evolution before attempting to make it out to be a religion.. And evolution generally refers to only the biological evolution of life, not cosmology.

Have you ever considered not copying and pasting from a Creationist website?

And "comic evolution"?

LOL! 

noor, I have actually, and still hold my position. Perhaps you would like to answer my challenge found in my closing sentence, if you were so inclided.

Patrician, thanks for catching the typo, I got it fixed-up for you. But however good a proof-reader you are, you also failed to offer something besides a mere opinion.

I hope to hear from you both soon.

I'm not a scientist, so I'm going to wait for the biologists here to debunk that.

Edit - And I doubt you've read Deludedgod's threads about evolution here.

As opposed to you failing to express an original opinion that hasn't been refuted multiple times?  Check Deludedgod's posts.  I can't be arsed copying and pasting them. 

But wait a minute...agnosticism and atheism also fit because both are "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" and "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" and "something one believes in and follows devotedly." Even by my definitions, atheism fits both, and agnosticism fits the second one.

That is complete nonsense. Either position is merely an admission that theism is nonsense, not a set of beliefs, merely a single statement. Check your logical fallacies, because you just made about six, including the negative proof fallacy.

1) Cosmic Evolution - The creation of space, time and simple matter

Something tells me you are ripping off a creationist website. At any rate, we have the ability to trace the origins of the cosmos back to one Planck Second after the Big Bang. The data we get from the WMAP is so authoritative we can calculate the event spheres to within 1% accuracy. The science behind cosmic evolution is extremely accurate.

2) Nuclear Evolution - The creation of elements heavier than helium
3) Astronomic and Planetary Evolution - The forming of planets, stars and galaxies

These two are the same thing, and if you had half a brain, you would know that. Anything above helium can only be generated by nucleosynthesis in stars. When a supernovae forms, the remnants are scattered across star systems, and pulled together by stellar gravity to form planets.

5) Chemical Evolution - The creation of life from non-living material

Ha. Abiogenesis again. Seeing as no creationist has ever given a cogent definition of life, they must admit that life is continuum. This is rather ironic because this is what we have said for 200 years. If you cannot tell me the difference between life and nonlife, then your argument on this ground is worthless.

Well the first six do collectively fit the definitions of a religion, ie my first definition and dictionary.com's first. But is it something believed on a sort of faith as my second definition asserts, or is it supported by concrete conclusions derived from the scientific meathod?

That is nonsense. The data we have on these is so authoritative, and our instruments so accurate. I should know. It's my job.

(1) Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Common cosmological misconception about the singularity of the universe. In quantum physics, the illusion of substance is given by the fact that the universal forces are in disunity. he Greeks thought that you could reduce something by an infinite number of steps. Quantum physics says no. When we shatter the atom below the level of the quark (and all those other particles that stream out when we smash them together like W-bosons etc) we find that we cannot reduce it anymore. I shall go into this into detail in a moment. Well, presumably, when people mean the unique property of matter giving it its substance, they mean its mass. Mass is the mysterious force which gives inertia to an object in motion. The answer is the Higg's boson particle, which physicists now confirm, will almost certainly be discovered when the LHC magnet is turned on underneath Geneva at the CERN institute. If you feel the need to go into why the Higg's Boson causes matter to resist a force applied to it in motion (otherwise known as mass) you can ask me, otherwise I shall skip electroweak gauge theory (the science behind it) and move on.

There is definitely a lot of human perceptive prejudice with the atom. We imagine it as a little ball, a solid sphere of substance inside which are more little balls called protons and neutrons, with smaller little balls called electrons zooming around it. In reality, this is not what an atom is like. That is absurd. Presumably I don't need to point that out. Nonetheless, (I promise all of this will have a point, bear with me) an atom does behave as though it had a fixed radius due to the strong repulsions caused by interacting electron clouds and the very tiny dipole that results. This is called the van der Waals radius. An atom therefore, behaves as if it had a specific boundary, whereby anything within the boundary (the protons and electrons) belong to it. And for all intents and purposes, it does. Nonetheless, an atom is not a little ball. It is not physical the way we understand it.

An atom is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. Inside each of the large particles are several groups of quarks. The particles can be grouped into three generations. The first of which contains the electron, if you are interested. Inside the generations are all six colors of quarks as well as several strange particles like tau and neutrinos. All these particles are called fermions, and they make up all the familiar matter that makes the trees, the mountains, the dog, you, me etc. None of these particles has a mass the way we understand the term. It does not have a physical quality giving it "substance". Rather all are created by different spins on electromagnetic interactions with the other type of particles, bosons (which make up photons, gluons Higg's Bosons and all the other particles or waves responsible for interaction with the fermions to create matter). At this level, matter then, has no physical substance, rather it is comprised of organized packets of energy, the arrangement of which gives the illusion of fixed entities we call atoms.

At any rate, the rules break down inside a mathematical singularity, as the formation of the universe was, as the four forces are unified, thusly matter as substance cannot exist until quantum tunnelling breaks the false vacuum fluctuations.

That was discussed here by me:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/miscellanous_forums/6990

If he is listening (he's probably left, so no matter, he should read the discussion following the article about the singularity).

Also, ex nihilo creation, whatever the absurd objections, do not violate the laws of quantum physics. I was in correspondence with another member about the subject only hours ago, and this what I wrote:

Now, if you look around at some of the evolution forums, like the one titled "evolution" started by impeached, and the one titled "comments on the nightline debate" started by noexcuse, you will notice that my responses to each contain a section on the laws of Thermodynamics, which explains in long detail what Victor is referring to. However, this explanation is long and full of formulae. The simple premise is that everything progresses to lower energy states. Now, I agree with Victor about ex nihilo, but I am multiverse theorist, so I would contend that the term "nothing" as we understand, means nothing (ironic). Try envisioning "nothing". Impossible. What victor refers to as "nothing" is technically someting.

What he was talking about, as I said, is spontaneous breaking. Imagine a dam holding back water. This dam is perched on top of a hill blocking a river. If the dam was not there the water would naturally take the path of least resistance and flow downhill. SImple. The water has progressed to a lower energy state, as nature commands. But with the dam there, the water cannot flow downhill. Nonetheless, the water cannot get over the dam, and thus, even though the water is not in its lowest energy state, the arrangement is relatively stable. It is for this same reason that organisms, which are extremely far from chemical equilibirum, do not spontaneously combust.

If the dam is cracked and bursts, the water will flow from the false vacuum, the dam, to the true vacuum, the water. This false vacuum may have been the original state of the universe and it is what victor refers to as "nothing". We also call it a singularity. A singularity is a point where mathematical relationship is not defined. The universe is believed to have been born out of a singularity after a false vacuum fluctuation, when all the essential forces were unified into one.

The universe today is like a broken mirror, with the four forces ruling it disjointed and separate from each other. This is because the original vacuum arrangement is unstable. It broke, and from it gushed the true vacuum- the universe. This unified state, the vacuum arrangement, has another name- nothing.

To quote Victor J Stenger in God, The Failed Hypothesis:

> "If the laws of physics follow naturally from empty space-time then where did that empty space-time come from? why is there something rather than nothing? This question is often the last recourse of the theist who seeks to argue for the existence of god from physics and cosmology and finds that all his other arguements fail. Philosopher Bede Rundle calls it "Philosophy's central, and most perplexing, question." His simple (But book length) answer: "There has to be something" (God the failed hypothesis Pg 132.)
>
> "How do we define "nothing"? What are its properties? If it has properties, doesn't that make it something? The theist claims that God is the answer. But, then, why is there god rather than nothing? Assuming we can define "nothing," Why should nothing be a more natural state of affairs than something? In fact, we can give plausible scientific reason based on our best current knowledge of physics and cosmology that osmething more natural than nothing!" (God the failed hypothesis Pg 132.)
>
> "Nature is capable of building complex structures by processes of self-organization, how simplicity begets complexity. Consider the example of the snowflake, the beautiful six-pointed pattern of ice crystals that results from the direct freezing of water vaopr in the atmosphere. Our experience tells us that a snowflake is very ephemeral, melting quickly into drops of liquid water the exhibit far less structure. But that is only because we live in a relatively high-temperature environment, where heat reduces the fragile arrangement of crystals to a simpler liquid. Energy is required to break the symmetry of a snowflake." (God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)
>
> "In an environment where the ambient temperature is well below the melting point of ice, as it is in most of the universe far from the highly localized effects of stellar heating, any water should readily crystallize into complex asymetric structures. Snowflakes would be eternal, or at least would remain instact untill comic rays tore them apart."(God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)
>
> "This example illustrates that many simple systems of particles are unstable, that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since "Nothing" is as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable. It would likely undergo a spoontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter." "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would be be that 'nothing' is unstable." (God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)

(2) Fusion creates many heavier elements, but it cannot produce them all.

You are clearly lying about research or you would know this. Fusion creates everything below and including iron. The rest are generated by the colossal heat of supernovae.

(3) Stars die roughly every thirty years, but no one has observed one form.

That is absurd. Simply absurd. Have you ever bothered to check an astrophysics textbook? Ever seen a picture of Orion Nebulae? Ever seen spectroscopic sequence detectors?

(4) The geologic column exists nowhere in the world except in textbooks.

That is nonsense. I could simply phone a friend in the paleontology department and ask him if the geological column really exists, but he woulod think I was an idiot. Strata are one of the best established priniciples in geology.

(5) Abiogenesis has never been witnessed in the lab by natural means.

Uri-Miller? Joan Oro? Gosh, and did you ever find my definition of abiogenesis? What is life? What is nonlife? If you cannot answer you have conceded my position.

(6) It has never been witnessed that one kind of animal bear a differnt kind.

Of course they don't! Your stupidity is unbelieveable! Cladogenestic speciation mechanisms (which have been observed in Drosophilia and C. elegans) are much subtler and slower. But I doubt you could understand. He whole process of evolution is transition in small steps, but often two close species (measured in terms of amino acid divergences in conserved protein domains) are too alike in phenotype for there to be what anyone would consider a "transitional form". As cladogenestic speciation tends to occur when two populations become geographically seperated, the stream of genetic change that causes population X to become unable to interbreed with Y (hence called speciation) is too slow for there to be major recognizable changes within less than several thousand generations.

I had one guy tell me that if evolution is true we should see “bird-reptiles” or something along those lines. That is ridiculous. Those two Orders are separated by 200 million years of divergence. Evolution does not work along such broad lines. These three groups used to live in primordial single cell communities, promiscuously exchanging genes. This is how the foundation genes of all life were selected. But as the three groups went their separate ways, the gene flow pump shut off, and now, it is a rare occurrence when these groups exchange genetic material. By the same logic as the “bird-reptile” fallacy, molecular biologists should see weird Eukaryote-prokaryote hybrids. The divergence occurs long before different Orders proliferate. For instance, let us take the split on the level of Kingdoms. Plants and Animals, these are both Eukaroyta, yet their fundamental differences are much more then genetics. All plants have deep within them the result of an ancient symbioses, chloroplasts as well as Mitochondria, which have the astonishing ability to metabolize light (well, they don’t actually metabolize light, they just use it as a catalyst, but it’s still impressive) The truth is, all 300,000 species of plants are extremely closely related, and all have one thing in common How do we know this? Amino acid tracking. Evolution is dependent on homologous sets of genes called orthologs and paralogs. Genes in multiple organisms that obviously descended from the same common ancestor (anyone who bothers should check the amino acid tracking branching tree of hemoglobin evolution as an example) are called orthologs, while genes which occurred as the result of mutation descended from a single gene (thereby producing two or more new genes) are called paralogs. Both of these are called homologs.

The gene flow pump is shut off long before the divergence at order level. How can these groups interchange genetic material when only within a species can organisms breed? Obviously we are not going to see bird-reptiles or anything ridiculous like that. The different paths of evolution go their different ways.

cross the spectrum of life we see very little originality. From the time of the primordial genome, it has expanded in size due to duplication error. This provides the mutation carrier with superfluous genetic baggage, basically an extra copy of a gene. This copy is free to mutate based solely on random frequency probability. It diverges from its original function guided by Natural selection.

This new gene or section will be closely related to the original, both in function and sequence (although divergence starts widening over time). These two genes are said to be paralogous of each other in the same carrier. For instance, the human genome contains seven haemoglobin proteins, all of which are in a gene family called the haemoglobin family. This is part of a larger family called the globin family, under which all oxygen binding proteins are classed like myoglobins.

When two species diverge, the new genetic arm of the phylogenic tree retains much of the genetic code of it's predecessor. Any related batches of genes in two species are said to be orthologous of each other. The seven human haemoglobins are orthologous to the seven chimp ones.

Basically this is how all of evolution works. Genes duplicate by accident, then these new copies diverge in function over time, species branch off, and whole families of related genes spring up. However, when we trace it back to the proto-cells, all the genes are related. There is no such thing as a truly original gene.

(In fact a creationist, Kent Hovind at drdino.com, is offering $250K to anyone who can provide some missing evidence. If you are so sure, go for it.)

My, my. Someone has no research skills. Firstly, Ken is sitting in prison cell on multiple tax evasion charges. Second, Ken Hovind wants, to collect the money, for someone to reproduce the Big Bang. Quite obviously this is totally absurd.

So without testable evidence arrived at via the scientific meathod for the majority of the theory, the Theory of Evolution would be predominently presumed, fitting nicely in the definition of a religion by believing something unproven concerning the cause and nature of the universe.

We can test cosmic/stellar evolution no problem. We have data you would not believe, and instruments so sensitive a dust speck would ruin the lens, our spectroscopic devices can measure to within 1% accuracy. Our genomics techniques are now so refinied we can search the whole homology database within seconds to construct the phylogenic tree. (I should know I am a geneticist) We can track macroevolution very easily now that we know how duplicative divergence works, as we can read the genome so well now. As for radiometry, that has now been calibrated to the point where we can use it thousands of times per day with identical results.

Could someone please provide conclusions deduced by means of the scientific meathod that support the first six parts of the theory of evolution which would elevate its status from religion to science by definition?

Research the following: Genetic homology, ortholog/paralog/xenologous mutations, proteomics, radiometrics, spectroscopy, WMAP probing, CBR readings, oh and

read this:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5465

Since I'm sure your questions will be sufficiently handled by others, I will just commend your bravery or contentiousness for posting here. It's always fun to investigate these things together. I will add, however, that the first five parts of your 'package deal' summary of evolution have nothing whatever to do with the theory of evolution, though they are part of other suggested theories in physics/cosmology. Perhaps that is part of your confusion.

1) Cosmic Evolution - The creation of space, time and simple matter

No matter how fancily you word it, the Big Bang is still assuming everything to have arisen from absolutely nothing.  You are getting space, time and all matter in the universe, from litterally nothing.

Christianity asserts that God, outside of his creation and therefore outside of space, matter and time, is not bound by these, making the origin of the universe easily explainable for even a child.

I already knew the majority of what you explained, and it is rather complex for the lay-man. So if you want to believe that this complexity and existence arose uncaused from the chaotic and non-existent, that is your faith, your religion...Don't spread it as truth or fact beyond any reasonable doubt, please.

2) Nuclear Evolution - The creation of elements heavier than helium

 You are correct that fusion in stars creates every element up to Iron.  My question still remains. Even if supernovae can create heavier elements, my question still remains.

Christianity has a simple explanation. God created all of the naturally occuring elements in the universe. 

3) Astronomic and Planetary Evolution - The forming of planets, stars and galaxies

Yes I know about the point of light in the Orion Nebula that is getting brighter. Of course dust could have very well been clearing, too. i mean hello, it is a Nebula, and dust does absorb visible light.  If stars are dying every 25-30 years, one would expect a uniformitarianism universe to create at least as many as have died.  That is simply not the case.

4) Geological Evolution - The forming of layers and strata, and the study of the fossils therein.

Before radiometric dating (aside from its assumptions and shortcomings) in the 1800's the geologic column was conjured up. Nowhere in the world are all assumed layers present outside of textbooks. Regardless, fossils are still dating the stratus and the stratus is still dating the fossil. This is classic circular reasoning. You can read as many evolutionary text books and call as many friends as you want and they will repeat to you what they have been indoctrinated with.  Not their own experience. Provide for me one place in the entire world where the entire geologic column actually exists.

I suspect you will not be able to. But I have a theory if you're interested. About 6000 years ago the earth was created perfectly by God, and about 4400 years ago there was a world-wide flood which killed and burried everything except what was safe on a boat, creating oil, coal, fossils, and all the sedimentary rock layers observed in geology sorted by size and weight of the sediment. Haven't you ever seen one of those things that has water, white sand and black sand inside that you can flip over and watch the layers form before your eyes? Supportingly, setimentary layers are only 7% of the earth's crust, yet exists on 70% of the earths surface...a flood still holds up nicely.

5) Chemical Evolution - The creation of life from non-living material

Life has a very simple definition. Life is an organism made up of one or more cells, which can grow and develop, reproduce, respond to stimuli,
and have a metabolism.

If you have the beginning of the world with terrential rain on rocks, then you are in essence saying that all life is related to a rock. From that rock simple life somehow emerged. Today we have millions of species of living things, and some 8000 kinds of animals.  This mandates the [gradual] change of the early life into the life we see today. But looking at any phylogenic tree and we find no fossil evidence of inter-kind animals, that is the leaves are there (today's organisms) and the roots are there (presumed simple life), but nothing at each branch break.  They simply exists purely in the mind, and among the trillions of fossils in this world, not one undisputed missing link from one kind to another exists even though there should be more links than concrete fossil species. And going from one species to another in sporatic jumps is also backed up by absolutely no evidence. You also agreed in your previous post.  It is just a theory that tries desperately to make the evidence fit with the theory.  Proper science throws out a theory that is falsifiable, but the religion of evolution has still not been abandoned.

Alternately, creation has God making all plants and animals able to reproduce after their own kind since the beginning.

6) Macro-evolution - The gradual change of one kind of plant or animal into another; all organisms have a single ancestor

It takes much more faith to believe that all life came from a rock (which came from nothing) than to believe that God created the rocks and the water and living things. Again I reitterate, that of the countless fossils to which scientists have access, not one undisputed missing link exists between even one pair of different kinds of organisms. The scientific process would mandate the throwing out of the current theory and conjuring of a new one that is actually based on observation.

7) Micro-evolution - Variations within a single kind of organism

I do not know how many times evolutionists use variations within a kind to justify macro-evolution, but it is not a package deal.  Micro-evolution is observable, testable, empiracle, and normal, and macro-evolution has no evidence, that is no evidence of one kind of animal evolving into another.  The only reason it is even considered to be true is because of the initial presumption that all life came from a common ancestor. Well, it is true that there are great danes, and chihuahuas.  It is true that there are zebras and horses. They are variations of the same kind of animal. But a dog will not produce a non-dog and a horse will not produce a non-horse, as you stated to be true, yet somehow, when millions of years are thrown into the equation, all of a sudden it is not so rediculous to think that it happens, even though no fossil evidence mandates such a rapid evolutionary change (if evolution were true).

The theory that has held up to 6000 years of scruitiny is as follows:

in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The land of the earth was over a layer of water, and another layer of water was over the land which increased atmospheric pressure, and shielding the suns harmful rays creating virtually no C-14, and allowing vegitation and animals to live literally all over the earth by a green house effect...even at the poles. These conditions explain the radical findings of frozen vegitation in the antarctic, and the greater size of insects, and the ideal environment allowing animals to live much longer, including the dinosaurs which are reptiles, growing until they die, making them enormous. Then about 4400 years ago, the water under the land sprung up through the earth, and the water from above the atmosphere fell as rain, flooding the world killing and burrying all life except those found on the ark of Noah. After the loss of the hydroshpere, air pressure reduced significantly, limiting the size of insects since they breathe through their skin, and allowing the sun's harmful rays, reducing the life span of animals and people.  The disappearance of the dinosaurs are explained by their barely adequate respiratory system in the freshly wrecked earth and from hunting.

So God sent a flood to destroy the wicked earth, but why didn't he just zap all the wicked people dead? I believe that God wanted to leave something to remind humanity of that judgement day, and it is still very evident. It also serves as a reminder that a final judgement day is coming. Gods punishment of sin, is eternal separation from him (death) but He loved the world enough to send his perfect sinless Son Jesus Christ to die in your place paying your debt of sin, if you would only call on the name of the Lord and trust in him.

If you want to believe your fairytale for grownups, that is your own fault, but do not parade it as truth or fact, or even science. The scientific meathod goes further than just conjuring a hypothesis.

No matter how fancily you word it, the Big Bang is still assuming everything to have arisen from absolutely nothing. You are getting space, time and all matter in the universe, from litterally nothing.

Which, as I pointed out, does not violate quantum physics. You refused to read what I wrote on quantum entaglement and false vacuuum fluctuations? you refused to read what I wrote. Read it.

I already knew the majority of what you explained, and it is rather complex for the lay-man. So if you want to believe that this complexity and existence arose uncaused from the chaotic and non-existent, that is your faith, your religion...Don't spread it as truth or fact beyond any reasonable doubt, please.

Then perhaps, you would care to respond to my points about duplicative homolgy, mitochondrial DNA or Endogenes? YOur argument from assertion is absurd, as is your rhetoric. I am almost bored shutting you down.

The existence of paralogies of genetics across the families in the proteome, even diverged as far as seperations between the three domains themselves, and the fact that amino acid tracking reveals this to narrow as the organisms in question become more closely related (a fact which is reinforced by advanced radiometry) can only be possible via repeated duplication and divergence of genes, thusly bearing gene families which in turn branched out depending on the survival requisites of the organism and location, the lack of originality in the proteome, especially the vertebrae proteome, which can be explained entirely in terms of domain shuffling and protein string recombination can only be explained by origin from a common descent, a primordial genome who bore only the survival requisites for the simplest of life. What this genome may have looked like is mysterious, but insight into a small bacteria called Mycoplasm genitalium can give us the answer, when computationally recombined with cross-references of genes exclusive to archae, eubacteria and eukaryotes (Excluding ESP proteins of course) we arrive at an answer of roughly 200 genes dedicated to basic metabolic and structural proteins, rRNAs and mitosis control gates. Ad it is from this humble beginning that life evolved. A fact which is correlated 100% by genomic/proteomic analysis and ortholog/paralog/xenolog tracking.

Quite simply, molecular genetics tracking, ERVs and mtDNA, in addition to computational searches for paralogies across the spectrum, leads us inevitably to the conclusion that the whole swath of life arose from a single, simple, primodial cell.

Christianity asserts that God, outside of his creation and therefore outside of space, matter and time, is not bound by these, making the origin of the universe easily explainable for even a child.

That is a deus ex machina fallacy and a stolen concept fallacy. Even a child should see it. I pointed out the stolen concept fallacy here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/6279

You are correct that fusion in stars creates every element up to Iron. My question still remains. Even if supernovae can create heavier elements, my question still remains.

No it does not. Every element can be generated by nucleoysnthesis. This is fully testable and observable. We can even synthesize these elements ourselves. Every non man-made element in the periodic table can be generated by stars. Case Closed.

Yes I know about the point of light in the Orion Nebula that is getting brighter. Of course dust could have very well been clearing, too. i mean hello, it is a Nebula, and dust does absorb visible light. If stars are dying every 25-30 years, one would expect a uniformitarianism universe to create at least as many as have died. That is simply not the case.

Olbert's Paradox buddy, this is simple light physics. Spectroscopic detectors can track star birth, but as any cosmologist will tell you, star birth has long since past it's peak. The universe is too cold. When the universe was more compact and thus hotter star formation peaked roughly when our sun was born. But as dark energy pulls against gravity and matter spreads thin, star formation declines. The WMAP cosmic background radiation confirms this. Stellar birth is now very rare. But the data supporting star birth billions of years ago (when the universe had more free erengy) is dead solid. The WMAP is one of the most accurate scientific instrument in the world, it can provide data, like I said, to a 1% margin of error.

About 6000 years ago the earth was created perfectly by God,

Impossible. Our light detection measurements confirm the universe to be 13,700,000,000 years old. We can now measure this to 1% accuracy. I should know, I have seen the printouts personally. I have seen the spectrosopic devices.

nd about 4400 years ago there was a world-wide flood which killed and burried everything except what was safe on a boat, creating oil, coal, fossils, and all the sedimentary rock layers observed in geology sorted by size and weight of the sediment.

Impossible. Oil is anoxic hydrocarbon. The amount of time necessary for oil to form, even under intense pressure, is huge. No amount of water, not even hydrologic strip mining, could force reduction of organic waste at those speeds. As for sedimentary features, let me put it to you this way. Water is nowhere near strong enough to cut granite at those speeds. The amount of force and pressure which would generate the strata in that meager amount of time would simply blast straight through the crust and into the mantle, giving new meaning to phrase "strip mining". I have done the calculations personally.

If you have the beginning of the world with terrential rain on rocks, then you are in essence saying that all life is related to a rock.

It's actually the bible which says this (as dust is rock particle), but no matter. I have never seen a biochemist claim something as absurd as you make abiogenesis out to be.

Life has a very simple definition. Life is an organism made up of one or more cells, which can grow and develop, reproduce, respond to stimuli,
and have a metabolism.

Better. But reproduction of a chemical system is the only genuine requiste. This is why viruses are considered life, and they do almost none of those things. Merely a protein string wrapped in a capsid holding a strip of strand RNA. Personally, out of the various competing hypothesis, I favor RNA World, which fits best with the observations made by lab recreations. But no matter, that is hardly your concern.

But looking at any phylogenic tree and we find no fossil evidence of inter-kind animals, that is the leaves are there (today's organisms) and the roots are there (presumed simple life), but nothing at each branch break.

There is no such thing as a transitional fossil. I already pointed this out. Please, this is basic evolutionary biology, in cladogenesis, what happens is....no matter, I just realized I alredy typed it. I won't go through it again. The idea of a "transitional fossil" is a joke. THe whole process of evolution is transition in small steps, but often two close species (measured in terms of amino acid divergences in conserved protein domains) are too alike in phenotype for there to be what anyone would consider a "transitional form". As cladogenestic speciation tends to occur when two populations become geographically seperated, the stream of genetic change that causes population X to become unable to interbreed with Y (hence called speciation) is too slow for there to be major recognizable changes within less than several thousand generations.

They simply exists purely in the mind, and among the trillions of fossils in this world, not one undisputed missing link from one kind to another exists even though there should be more links than concrete fossil species.

"Rolls Eyes". I said I already covered this, and you ignored it,.

And going from one species to another in sporatic jumps is also backed up by absolutely no evidence.

The fossil record cannot be complete. That would be impossible. Fossilization is incredibly rare simply because most organic waste is crushed under anoxic silt. Do you recall what I pointed out about hydrologic destruction of a flood of that intesity? Would you like to know what it would do to dead ossified tissue? It's little more than hard calcium, it would simply ionize and dissolve it at that pressure...why, in fact, we should have no fossils at all from a flood that intense. No strata, no nothing. It would destroy the whole lithosphere and expose the mantle.

You also agreed in your previous post. It is just a theory that tries desperately to make the evidence fit with the theory.

Ha! THe old "its just a theory" trick. Now I've got you. Are you aware of what the word theory means in science?

Proper science throws out a theory that is falsifiable, but the religion of evolution has still not been abandoned.

Evolution is easily falsifiable. All one would have to do is show that there is innovation in the genome which cannot have arisen through guided natural selection. Unfortunately, this comes to be the creationist undoing, because any geneticst, including myself, will tell you there is no original innovation in the genome that does not have a shared homology. Molecular genetics is firmly in favor of evolution, allowing us to read the genes like a book, a fact I pointed out and backed up with Endogenes and mitochondria, to which you did not respond. Do you think it is wise to challenge a geneticist on his own subject?

Alternately, creation has God making all plants and animals able to reproduce after their own kind since the beginning.

Which is falsified by observed speciative events in Drosophilia, C. Elegans, as well as thousands of members of the eubacterial domain, and parasatic blood invasive Plasmodium parasites, all of which have been observed over courses of time and genetic cataloguing, to change into other species (cladogenestic, mind you, not anagenesis, so the old species remains)

gain I reitterate, that of the countless fossils to which scientists have access, not one undisputed missing link exists between even one pair of different kinds of organisms.

You creationists and the missing links, which I already took the time to refute and to which you ignored. I believe Shermer said it best when he pointed out that when a fossil is found bisecting a gap, the creationist now claims there are two gaps...

do not know how many times evolutionists use variations within a kind to justify macro-evolution, but it is not a package deal.

You are setting up an idiot strawman, mocking real scientists like myself. My justification of evolution comes from the fact that I have seen with my own eyes thousands of thousands of genetic readouts, and the amino acid divergence tracking between them, the shared homologies in the proteome of even the most distant organisms, and the total lack of originality (point mutation divergence) in the spectral genome. This was discussed here by another scientist and a PhD biologist (and no, I do not believe the info is accurate just because he has a PhD, I beleive because I also happen to own the printout to the homology to which he is referring) :

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life/6893

and macro-evolution has no evidence,

You refuse to respond to my points about the homologous natuer of genomics. YOu are incredibly dishonest. you refuse to respond to evidence I happily gave you from Endogene readouts and MtDNA tracking. You are a liar. Stop lying.

But a dog will not produce a non-dog and a horse will not produce a non-horse, as you stated to be true,

I have never stated this to be true. Stop lying.

et somehow, when millions of years are thrown into the equation, all of a sudden it is not so rediculous to think that it happens,

No. More time merely means more genetic expansion, as amplification of the homology can exponentially increase with duplicative divergence. This is why bacteria are so much more varied than Eukaryotes, and single cells much more varied then multicellular organisms. Even a child could work it out. As multicellular life flourishes, innoviation is severely limited by the fragility of the system. This is why, say, the human being is more closely related to a potted shrub than the average bacteria is to another average bacteria simply picked at random: Here are the numbers:

Genetic Spectral Size Across Various Orders/Families of Organisms:

Eubacteria: 500,000 to 10 mil.

Fungi: 10 mil to 1 bil.

Protists: 30mil to 900bil

Plants: 100mil to 500bil

Insects: 100mil to 5bil

Mollusks: 500mil to 5 bil

Cartilegenous Fish: 2 bil to 10 bil

Bony Fish:500 mil to 3 bil

Amphibians: 700mil to 90bil

Reptiles: 1.5bil to 5bil

Birds: 700mil to 90bil

Mammals: 1.5bil to 5bil

Notice anything?

Onto homologies...

For instance, I could pick two random protein domains, even non-conserved ones, in two seperate species. Say a human and a fruit fly. And I could (which I am doing) array them along a microarray and decode the amino acid sequences in protein domains. Here are the results (each letter represents an amino acid):

HUMAN:

WYFGKKITRRESERLLLNAERPRGTFLVRESETTKGAYCLSVSDFDNAKGL

Drosophilia:

WFFENVLREADKLLLAEENPEGTFLVRPSEHNNGYSLSVKDWEDGRKYGY

Protein Domain Signature Homologies in Both:

WYFGKITRRESERLL
GTFLVRESE

Side chain grouping matches:
W+F+R+E+++LLLENPRGTFLVRSEYLSVD+++_G

THese are divergences found in an identical protein domain confirmed excatly by molecular clock tracking against the known divergence rate of the domain and the orthologous seperation of these two species. If (as you claim) these species were created within days of each other, or had no common ancestor, this divergence would not exist. This is the same domain for each animal, which I took the liberty of sequencing myself. Because I can.

I can provide some more if you want!

Orthologous Divergence of the haemoglobin chain of various vertebrae correlated by molecular tracking:

Percentage divergence in amino acids between conserved domain of haemoglobin

Human/Lamprey (divergence: 550 million years ago) 35%

Human /Shark (Divergence: 520 million years) 51%

Human/tuna fish (450 million years) 55%

Human/frog (350 million years) 56%

Human/chicken (320 million years) 70%

Human/lizard (270 million years) 77%

Bird/Crocodile (220 million years) 76%

Human/Kangaroo (170 million years) 81%

Human/Sloth/Mouse/Elephant/Rabbit/Pig/Sheep/Whale/Cat/Dog/rat

All between 150 and 50 million years, all 80-85% related in this domain

Human/orangutang (10 million years) 98%

and finally...human/chimp (7 million years) 100%

You get the point. This test (called the molecular clock) can be repeated for any gene to get the test, and we get the same result. I have seen it done literally thousands of times, by now quite bored when I read the printout. These divergences are only possible if the orthology arose from a common ancestor globin.

So you wanna falsify evolution? No problem. Give me some original genetic material, then we will talk. But if you think you can compete with the huge stack of genetic tests I have next to me, you'd be fool to think it would be an easy task, unless you think all of the world's geneticists have missed something.

I'm going to ignore your second last paragraph because you go on an irrelevant rant about your personal beliefs about theology, straying away from hard science.

in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The land of the earth was over a layer of water, and another layer of water was over the land which increased atmospheric pressure, and shielding the suns harmful rays creating virtually no C-14,

I beleive I destroyed your "theory" of the atmosphere in a thread you ripped off some paper from 1975, and you never returned to it. Presumably you can explain to geologists how this (which contradicts all known tests and measurements on atmospheric formation) is credible.

the ark of Noah

I'm dying for you to tell me how an ark could fit all 100 million estimated species in existence. I doubt it could even fit one of every plant (there are 300,000 types of plant), and definitely not two of every animal. That's clearly absurd.

air pressure reduced significantly, limiting the size of insects since they breathe through their skin,

Have you ever studied bioengineering? The size of insecsts is limited by gravity. They are exoskeletal.This is why much larger insects are found under water, which is a low-gravity environment.

reducing the life span of animals and people.

That is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Ever. Lifespan is limited by telomerase division in chromatid arms. Genetic error builds up. UV can only affect the genes in skin cells. The real killer comes from within, as the mitotic control gates shorten. This is really simply biogeneretology. Care to remind what the Melanoma death rate among the population is? (you dont need to, I already know it)

If you want to believe your fairytale for grownups, that is your own fault, but do not parade it as truth or fact, or even science. The scientific meathod goes further than just conjuring a hypothesis.

Do you think it is wise to tell a scientist what he ought and ought not to think about science? Also, I am waiting on your response to my thread about Endogenes and mtDNA.

You can read as many evolutionary text books and call as many friends as you want and they will repeat to you what they have been indoctrinated with. Not their own experience.

I came back and checked over and found this. Listen here, fucker. Because you are way out of line here. My colleagues have more knowledge of the scientific disciplines than you could ever hope to. As to me, my experience comes not from a textbook, only my basic knowledge comes from textbooks, which of course, was corroborated by personal experimentations, but everything I am referring comes not from a textbook but rather from experimentations and genetic sequencings. From thousands of read printouts, scans, tracks, SEM photographs, and microarray chemical readouts. If you think you have a one-up on the scientific community, by all means present it. But you will be swiftly crushed I assure you. It's not even a challenge anymore.

1) Cosmic Evolution - The creation of space, time and simple matter

I really do understand your position from a quantum physics perspective, deludged. But whether one has the misconception of atoms being little balls, or atoms being comprised of smaller particles which are actually packets of energy, the claim is still absurd: All of the energy in the universe came from absolutely nothing.  The best definition of nothing is Plato's; what rocks dream about. Yes folks, empty space with time is still something. Nothing means literally the absence of everything. Now I understand as well that Newtonian Laws do not adequately explain the behavior of the quantum world, but to abandon the laws of thermodynamics at the beginning of the universe is to abandon science, by observing, hypothesizing, experimenting, logically concluding.  This is in part my argument that the Big Bang being uncaused, yet apparently caused, is not science, but something believed on faith...a religion.

I would like to make a side note about a false vacuum and your inadequate illustration with the river dam. Who made the dam? ie, who applied the energy to construct the false vacuum?

Then perhaps, you would care to respond to my points about duplicative homolgy, mitochondrial DNA or Endogenes? YOur argument from assertion is absurd, as is your rhetoric. I am almost bored shutting you down. 

I would first like to inform you that the term "duplicative homology" is found nowhere on the entire internet. I think you meant "Genetic Homology." At any rate you use the similarities to assume that everything came from a common ancestor. These matters are not complex, instead they are really quite simple sir; the worlds geneticists have blinded themselves to the plausible possibility that all living things had a common designer.

Besides, you could choose any of several meathods to show comparison besides DNA. For example, the atmosphere's water content relates very well to the water content of a watermelon (though they are hardly related), just as for breast milk, humans are closest to a jackass. 

Not to mention that all of your evidence is based on a geologic column that doesn't exists and, jointly, radiometric dating which makes three unobservable assumptions.

Also a deus ex machina fallacy is only a fallacy if the unproveable, unfalsifiable existence of God is assumed to not be an option. Science still exists in the presence of a God, and with automatic assumptions excluding him, you are not using science...that is philosophy.

2) Nuclear Evolution - The creation of elements heavier than helium

I figured you would answer like you did, so let me spell it out for you.  I can produce corn in a field my entire life, but unless I have it shipped to the grocery store, that corn is not going to end up on your dinner plate; it doesn't matter if the elements can be made, it matters how it got from the firey balls called stars all the way to earth, and stuck underground.

3) Astronomic and Planetary Evolution - The forming of planets, stars and galaxies

You said any cosmologist would say, star birth has long since past it's peak.  I agree. It's peak was about 6000 years ago, and not a single star has formed since then, according to my theory.

4) Geological Evolution - The forming of layers and strata, and the study of the fossils therein.

You are correct that a flood of that calaber would reek quite a bit of havoc.  Seven months according to Genesis, the flood ripped up the earth.  I would theorize it was during this time that it cracked the earth's surface creaing plate techtonics.  At any rate, this vast amount of rushing water would cerainly have a lot of debris and sediment in it which would have to go somewhere as the waters receeded.  So do you know what that cool little thing is called where you can see receeding waters form layers? You should really get one.

5) Chemical Evolution - The creation of life from non-living material

Yes God made man from the dust (rock) of the ground....very good.  Abiogenesis says man cam from rock in the absence of a creator. You see early life forms are believed to have come from the great soup, which was created after millions of years of terrential rain on rocks. So is it crude to abridge a humanistic approach to abiogenesis as coming from a rock? Certainly.  But is it accurate? Certainly.  So why believe such a crude theory? 

6) Macro-evolution - The gradual change of one kind of plant or animal into another; all organisms have a single ancestor

I actually smiled reading your response concerning this matter.  I don't know if you are reading what you are writing or not, but you are supporting my position.

You said that changes are too gradual to notice in the fossil record from one generation to another. I would like to point out nevertheless that changes toward becoming a different kind are assumed to have been made.  Next you say it would take thousands of generations to see the changes in the fossils.  Ok, is tens of millions of years sufficient? That sould be about hundreds of thousands of generations right? You do know that there are fossils in the fossil record which date to at least that old right?  So I ask again...where are the transitional organisms?

I understand that variation and natural selection are cornerstones to Darwinian evolution. You say that a kind will not produce anything but its same kind, ie, no genetic gain of information. so if natural selection selects from a kind's genepool, and no new information is introduced into the genepool, then no matter how much time, natural selection cannot produce something new.  Perhaps mutations is the answer? Well not really since all observed mutations are neutral, detremental, or fatal. See it seems to me that the theory says that if you keep adding zero to zero, then you will eventually get something besides zero. it is true that mathematically 0*inf is not necessarily zero, but then again 20 Billion years=/=inf.

Drosophilia, C. Elegans, a worm, always produces another worm.  It will never turn into anything besides a worm.  The worm is its kind. And do not confuse a kind and a species.  There are many species of dog, but they are all dogs.  That proves nothing except micro-evolution.  Again i say, i don't know how often evolutionists use micro-evolution to somehow prove macro-evolution.  This is what you have just done.

no matter how many readouts, print outs, or push outs you have, if it is all based on a flawed assumption you will produce only a more complex flawed assumption.

I really wish that you and some of your PhD buddies would get together and give that Kent Hovind guy a call and prove any aspect of evolution other that micro-evolution.  You will make yourself rich. In fact you should make it public, so as to make a public statement once and for all, wouldn't that be something? You could hold a debate at a neutral location where each side of the arguments has equal time, and you can proove to the world how intelligent evolution is and how dumb his theory of creation is. In fact I have his address and number here and he would love to hear from you:

Dr. Kent E. Hovind

c/o 29 Cummings Road

Pensacola, FL 32503

877-479-3466

[email protected]

www.drdino.com

If fact the call is toll free, won't cost you a thing, and you can usually catch him at the office on Thursdays and Fridays.

I am attacking the very heart of your entire worldview, and you have obviously taken it very personally.  I do apologize for upseting you but I do not apologize for what i have written. You would make a great addition to the creationist side if you get converted before judgement day.  The answer is Jesus and the Bible...

Robert Jastrow: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Jesus loves you.

Kent Hovind? Actually many scientists have taken up his challenges but he's too dishonest.

 And where is Kent Hovind right now?  

All of the energy in the universe came from absolutely nothing. The best definition of nothing is Plato's; what rocks dream about.

No, the best definition of nothing is what quantum physicists mean by the term, a singularity where the four forces of the universe are unified, therefore meaning that nothing is coherently defined, as no mathematical relationships exist. As such, this is very unstable, and as Victor J Stenger (PhD Physicist) pointed out, it will spiral asymptotically towards a true vacuum, aka "something".

Nothing means literally the absence of everything.

Not in quantum physics. Did you read what I wrote about multiverse?

Now I understand as well that Newtonian Laws do not adequately explain the behavior of the quantum world, but to abandon the laws of thermodynamics at the beginning of the universe is to abandon science

The law of thermodynamics always apply, so long as the four forces are disjointed. If not, they break down, like I pointed out as is the case of the singularity, to which we can measure so accurately, as in one Planck Second after the event.

his is in part my argument that the Big Bang being uncaused,

Never said that. Stop lying. The singularity collapse was caused by the instability of the arrangement, to which the gravity spiralled asymptotically towards an asymptote. It was indeed caused. THe reason? "Nothing" is highly unstable. This is what Stenger pointed out multiple times, and he knows a damn sight more physics than you. Stop lying.

I would like to make a side note about a false vacuum and your inadequate illustration with the river dam. Who made the dam? ie, who applied the energy to construct the false vacuum?

The dam does not actually exist, it represents the false vacuum that keeps the stability of "nothing". The energy applied to it merely represents the singularity becoming more unstable (which it should do spontaneously). Ex nihilo, something coming from nothing, is the reason why in quantum physics, there is no law stopping us from creating our own universe (it would require compression technology in particle physics not yet availabe) or opening a wormhole (much harder, requires a negative energy vacuum).

I would first like to inform you that the term "duplicative homology" is found nowhere on the entire internet.

It's rare. We use to refer to whole chunks of genetic material that are interrelated. Genetic homology is more common, and is the only evolutionary relationship that is truly ubiquitous.

At any rate you use the similarities to assume that everything came from a common ancestor.

As I already told you half a dozen times, there is no other explanation.

the worlds geneticists have blinded themselves to the plausible possibility that all living things had a common designer.

Oh please, you think you know more about our own subject than we? If life had a common designer of near-simaltaneosu creation, the divergences in Identical domains and molecular clock tracking (of which, as you see I provided two examples), these divergences should not exist, they can only be explained by millions of years of seperation, and thusly, evolution. I already pointed this out, and you did not respond. Stop lying. All the information necessary to debunk what you have written thusly is to be found on my previous response.

Besides, you could choose any of several meathods to show comparison besides DNA. For example, the atmosphere's water content relates very well to the water content of a watermelon (though they are hardly related), just as for breast milk, humans are closest to a jackass.

That's it? Thats your response to 16,000 homology catalogues, Endogenous Retroviral insertions, and Mitochondrial DNA transfers? Sir, this relationship is extremely obvious, and it is not one, it is tens of thousands of homologies, which clearly diverge as seperation widens and close as it narrows, as indicated by time length seperation. This test will come up on any protein domain I pick. It clearly indictates that life began a primordial genome, and as the genome duplicated, parts diverged and it expanded thusly. Genetic duplication error and polyploids are set in stone fact, and no geneticist would say otherwise. I can even watch gene duplication myself, using a microarray, although I hardly think it is worth the trouble.

Using decoders, microarrays, and homology databases, geneticists have now catalogued evolutionary relationships between vast swaths of life, and the effects of these changes. Molecular genetics is 100% in favor of evolution and as I ALREADY POINTED OUT, would be impossible if creationism was true. You did not respond. YOu are a hypocrite. And you dodged repeatedly around my points about ERVs and mtDNA.

Not to mention that all of your evidence is based on a geologic column that doesn't exists and, jointly, radiometric dating which makes three unobservable assumptions.

Radiometry is now one of the most accurate tools in science. I know what these "unobservable assumptions are" but let me tell you, nuclei instablity is governed by quantum probability. Not even the most violent changes in the Earth could affect radioactive decay, no floods or otherwise. The decay rate of nuclear material firmly establishes the age of the nuclear material. I have seen radiometrics used countless times. We get the same results over and over again.

Also a deus ex machina fallacy is only a fallacy if the unproveable, unfalsifiable existence of God is assumed to not be an option. Science still exists in the presence of a God, and with automatic assumptions excluding him, you are not using science...that is philosophy.

You did not read my link, clearly. DEM fallacy is one which merely employs a solution which asks the same questions as it proposed to answer, thusly then it answered no questions. Same as the stolen concept fallacy. Did you read my link? You should.

I figured you would answer like you did, so let me spell it out for you. I can produce corn in a field my entire life, but unless I have it shipped to the grocery store, that corn is not going to end up on your dinner plate; it doesn't matter if the elements can be made, it matters how it got from the firey balls called stars all the way to earth, and stuck underground.

HA. HA. HA. When a supernovae explodes, it releases vast amounts of chemical elements across the galaxy, much of this is used to make new stars, which form from rotating gas disks, thusly pulling planets together from the supernovae debris together to form a planet. Our planet is made almost entirely out of Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Iron, easily made by supernovae or even standard nucleosynthesis. Planets are made from the scattered debris of supernovae. Even a child should be versed in this.

You are correct that a flood of that calaber would reek quite a bit of havoc. Seven months according to Genesis, the flood ripped up the earth. I would theorize it was during this time that it cracked the earth's surface creaing plate techtonics. At any rate, this vast amount of rushing water would cerainly have a lot of debris and sediment in it which would have to go somewhere as the waters receeded.

You ignored what I said. There would be no fossils first of all (which I already pointed out). But that would erode right through the lithosphere and into the mantel. "Plate tectonics" my ass, the Earth would no longer have any plates to rub against each other.

Abiogenesis says man cam from rock in the absence of a creator.

That is absurd. If we take it back to its logical extreme, we are all made out of stellar material. At any rate, the primordial chemistry to form proto-life does not come from rocks, and I said no biochemist would endorse such absurdity. It comes from water, the permanent dipole which has left a permanent stamp on our biology. The water is rich in biochemicals which are normally found in nature like amino acids and nucleotides, the polymerization of which is the foundation of ancient life. No rocks.

This (protein assemblage) too, is not chance. One falsely would assume that favorable formations of protein assemblage whereby the natural quaternery state would arise is affixed the same probability as a useless denatured amino acid string. That is ridiculous, and has been debunked by the Miller-Urey experiment. Insofar as the nucleic acids and proteins of cellular mechanisms are primary life (ie they are capable of self-assembly), they undergo their own natural selection. This was demonstrated as far back as 1936 when Alexander Oparin showed that in an anoxic atmosphere, organic molecular structures of the basic primary state would combine to construct elaborate complex macromolecular giants which themselves were capable of reassembly. This is hardly unsuprising, protein strings undergo natural selection to confrom to the most stable state (all biological polypeptides have only one stable conformation).

And then in 1961, Joan Oro, A spanish biochemist, cracked the adenine conjecture when he showed that the prebiotic nucleotide can assemble from hydrogen cyanide. Upon examination of comet traces, he concluded that comet fragments could have easily brought organic molecules to Earth. This in effect would merge Abiogenesis with panspermia except without the space aliens nonsense. His research paved the way for several more experiments, where the prebiotic synthesis of the other bases, thymine, guanine and cytosine, were demonstrated.

 Certainly. So why believe such a crude theory?

IT IS NOT ACCURATE. It is absurd. Rocks contain minerals, calcium, iron, etc. Life comes from primordial biochemicals in the water, polymerized amino acids and nucleotides. Not rocks. Honestly, that is the most ridiculous thing ever.

I actually smiled reading your response concerning this matter. I don't know if you are reading what you are writing or not, but you are supporting my position.

You care to respond to my genetics tests, my observations about the homologous nature of the genome, the fact that such relationships should not exist if creationism is assumed (because of the time necessary for the divergence/duplication)?

I would like to point out nevertheless that changes toward becoming a different kind are assumed to have been made.

That is because we can easily track them by comparing it against known genetic homology and measuring the rate of divergence. The existence of the homologs and the gene families associated can only be explained by evolution. The spectrum of genomes across life is very clearly in favor of evolution. THere is no other explanation. You refused to respond to this. Stop being a hypocrite.

ext you say it would take thousands of generations to see the changes in the fossils. Ok, is tens of millions of years sufficient?

Sure, but like I pointed out about six times, there is no such thing as a transitional fossil.

you do know that there are fossils in the fossil record which date to at least that old right?

I already explained carefully that there is no such thing as a transitional fossil. The "transition stage" between two species is too similiar in phenotype to be noticed a great deal. Technically, all of us are transitional forms in one stage or another, but as the phenotype difference between two closely related species is too small to make a huge difference, it is classed as one or the other, before at one arm of the phylogenic tree, another branch splits off and a new line of speciation develops, but the relationship between two closely related species is close enough to be very simliar phenotypically.

Think of it like this. You observe footprints in the snow, and, refusing to believe someone walked there, you demand to see footprints in between the footprints. And as Shermer pointd out, whever a fossil bisects a gap, the creationist (I mean cretinist, my mistake) now says there are twice as many gaps.

I understand that variation and natural selection are cornerstones to Darwinian evolution. You say that a kind will not produce anything but its same kind, ie, no genetic gain of information.

I knew you were going to be foolish enough to bring up information theory. I have already answered it about six times, but no matter, I am in no hurry.

New information is gained by a mutatory mechanism that satisfies two requisites at once. The size of the genome in terms of bases grows, and the diversity of the genome grows. A special mutation known as duplicate error, where a spliceosome makes a mistake, and during mitosis a duplication ends up with the progenitor cell retaining an extra part of the genome. This new part is redundant, and thus free to mutate based on random frequency. This mechanism is critical to evolution, and produces two genetic flows without which evolution would not be possible. These are paralogs and orthologs. Across the vast diversity of life, the majority of genes share a near-identical similarity to another, with a very similiar job. These are grouped together in large gene families. All the gene families have a lineage that stretches back four billion years.

On this subject, in an article not displayed here, this is what I wrote:

DNA genomes are extremely redundant. 91% of the human genome is redundant, if you are interested. So changing one copy will add new information. Because most of the time the polymerization works out fine. Imagine it like a library. There is only one copy of each book. You remove one book and replace it with a different, new book. Are you adding information? No. You are changing information. This is the crux of the creationist argument. But imagine you have twelve copies of each book. You replace one copy of one book with a different, new book. Now you are adding new information because the pre-existing information is still there in the form of 11 other books.

Evolution is dependent on homologous sets of genes called orthologs and paralogs. Genes in multiple organisms that obviously descended from the same common ancestor (anyone who bothers should check the amino acid tracking branching tree of hemoglobin evolution as an example) are called orthologs, while genes which occurred as the result of mutation descended from a single gene (thereby producing two or more new genes) are called paralogs. Both of these are called homologs.

Well not really since all observed mutations are neutral, detremental, or fatal.

You are making me laugh so hard. Indeed they are. Point mutations, which presumably are what you have deluded yourself into thinking is what geneticists mean by mutations, are almost always bad. But evolution is not about point mutations. It is about duplicative mutations, followed by recombinative mutations, or shuffling mutations. For instance, A protein is not subdivided merely by it’s amino acid. It is grouped into large subunits called polypeptides, regional stretches of protein subunit roughly 100 amino acids long. In this way we can see that massive proteins (>1000 amino acids) are not only defined by their individual, but ultimately, the order of different units created by smaller strings of amino acids within the complex. The protein transforms into it’s secondary structure by folding at the kinks between the subunits. The shape, therefore, of a protein is directly determined by it’s chemical sequence. The folding becomes further intricate during progression to tertiary structure when the folds between individual units take shape. Finally, the protein reaches it’s quaternary structure or it’s native state, with the intricate system of folds.

there is almost nothing original in the vertebrae genome. It is the result of multiple whole-global duplications throughout evolution. Even in humans, the proteome contains only 7% vertebrae-specific proteins. The only place we really seem to have any originality is in domain shuffling (Im pretty sure that the human tyrpsin can bind to at least 18 domains, while in drosophilia it's only 5). As I said about protein structure, much of the innovation merely comes from rearrangement of subunits, which is beneficial in terms of the shuffling mutation quite often.

See it seems to me that the theory says that if you keep adding zero to zero, then you will eventually get something besides zero. it is true that mathematically 0*inf is not necessarily zero, but then again 20 Billion years=/=inf.

But we are adding something, as I pointed out seven times now.

Drosophilia, C. Elegans, a worm, always produces another worm. It will never turn into anything besides a worm. The worm is its kind.

Not true. Perhaps you were confused when I shot down your previous comment? The analogy I use is glucose oxidation, which is a stepwise process of electron transfer, not one of which involves adding oxygen (as that would set it on fire). Same thing here really, genetic divergence is slow, so if we have a simple (not anagenesis) example of population X and population Y of an organism, and population Y is geograhically seperated from X, and thusly pursues a different path of divergence, which is to say that what constitutes a genetic advantage changes. As homologies proliferate, as often does, Y becomes more genetically seperate from X (and X from Y as it diverges too). The divergence widens and phenotype becomes different, but it is still a worm, in terms of genetics. However, a speciative split comes when the divergence widens enough that they can no longer interbreed. This is not a noticeable event, because gene flow is a continuum process, but at a point in time, the divergence will widen enough that should X and Y meet again, they cannot exchange genetic material anymore. And that basic description is backed up by the fact that every stage can be tracked by genetic homology searches.

And that is what I meant when I said a worm will never produce a non worm. No stage of that speciative flow involved a worm producing a non worm, but it (speciative split) still occured.

i don't know how often evolutionists use micro-evolution to somehow prove macro-evolution. This is what you have just done.

I did no such thing. You are a liar. I told you, in terms of the flow of genetic information, there is no difference. Evolution is a continuum.

no matter how many readouts, print outs, or push outs you have, if it is all based on a flawed assumption you will produce only a more complex flawed assumption.

You refuse to answer my arguments about the homologous nature of the genome. You are dishonest and a hypocrite. I expect a response about endogenes and mitochondria, which was one of the first links I gave you

really wish that you and some of your PhD buddies would get together and give that Kent Hovind guy a call and prove any aspect of evolution other that micro-evolution.

You see, I now have proof that you read nothing I wrote. I mentioned that Ken Hovind is stting in prison on multiple tax evasion charges, and I reminded you taht his challenge is to recreate the Big Bang. That is absurd. Ken Hovind is a scam artist. You want his real adress?

Atlanta Federal Penetentary, High Security Federal Prison, Atlanta, McDonough Boulevard.

You will make yourself rich.

Why? Does he have 250K stuffed under his matress in his prison cell?

I am attacking the very heart of your entire worldview, and you have obviously taken it very personally.

I am taking it personally as I am appalled at your ignorance, and feel deeply disturbed by it. You are attacking my worldview in the same way that a puppy attacks a tank. I'm going to laugh myself into coronary seizure soon, so I'll be quick.

I do apologize for upseting you but I do not apologize for what i have written. You would make a great addition to the creationist side if you get converted before judgement day. The answer is Jesus and the Bible...

You really think that an educated molecular biologist with any self-respect would become a creationist? I originally thought you wrote this as a joke, but now I see you are being quite sincere.

Jesus loves you.

Do you think it is necessary to bring Christianity into a discussion about science? Religion has no say-so on the matter.

So I'll be waiting on an answer to the ERV and mtDNA thing, which was the first link I gave you, here it is in case you have forgotten:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5465

a real answer to the homologous nature of the genome, not one riddled with false analogy fallacies,

an explanation as to how these divergences can take place in identical protein domains without invoking evolution in light of the information i presented about the timescales associated with divergence as corrobotated by a molecular clock test (the result of one of which I gave you personally

A response to the fact that I pointed out, which is that the WMAP, one of the most accurate instruments in the world, can measure the age of the universe with a 1% error margin by using CBR measurments (the printouts of which I have seen) clearly contradicts your theory of the age of the Earth. CBR (Cosmic Background Radiation) probes are set in stone. The data we have now is so authoritative and so accurate (because we have developed ultra-accurate spectroscopy filters) that you would be very foolish indeed to challenge it. The universe is clearly 13.7 billion yeras old (with a 1% margin of error on the precise figure). I trust you have seen the famous photo of the embryonic universe with the CBR fluctuations?

an explanation of how we have fossils when a flood of that magnitude will erode straight through ossified tissue, and explanation of sediments as it will simply dissolve at that pressure level,

a response to the Deus ex machina fallacy, the link I posted with it, here it is in case you have forgotten:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/6279

a response to my challenge to falsify evolution by finding original genetic material (Just give me the name of the gene and I'll search it in the database), and if it is totally unrecognizable, with no homology or sig sequence in conserved protein domans, as I would prefer an exon to an intron, then I will concede.

Good luck

I think the best part of this whole amusing debate is that almost none of what I wrote is new. It is my own writing of course, but it is writing which I have used many times in template form, simply because no creationist has ever given an original argument. Now, if you can provide an argument that I have never seen nor refuted, I will be more impressed. and again, good luck.

I wonder when he will be back?

You rock. 

Up until this point everything you've said is accurate enough. Unfortunately, now it all goes downhill. And fast.

No. Atheism is the lack of belief of a god. It has no set of beliefs. Agnosticism is nothing more than an admission of lack of knowledge. It doesn't even necessarily deal with a god. It could deal with aliens. Or a meteor on it's way to destroy our species.

Pure bullshit. Evolution is biological. Nothing more, nothing less. 5 of the 7 examples you list are theist creations, a sixth is abiogenesis, and have nothing to do with evolution or atheism.

Theist creation. Not evolution.

Theist creation. Not evolution.

Theist creation. Not evolution.

Theist creation. Not evolution.

Abiogenesis, not evolution. Learn your terminology.

Theist creation.

Actual evolution. The only point that is.

In your dreams. Even if it were true however, your theist friends are responsible for the existance of all but 1 of them. That one isn't evolution at all, but abiogenesis. A completely different topic.

The only one that is actual evolution is backed up by facts in multiple scientific fields. You are delusional, and not even arguing against the topic you pretend to argue against.

Proof your god doesn't exist.

Prove it.

Pure lie. We're watching them form right now. Oh wait, did you think a star would form from nothing in the span of a year or two? Well obviously you don't know how stars form in the first place.

Lie.

Debatable. Even if true, it doesn't mean it won't, or didn't happen. On the flip side, creation has never been observed in existance by any means, natural or otherwise.

Which would be proof that evolution doesn't happen. Of course it hasn't been seen. Thanks for providing more evidence against creation.

You don't know what you're talking about. Go back to elementry school and pay attention this time.

Pure fiction.

Because evolution is a fact, not a religion.

You can't find evidence to prove what you assert evolution is, because that's not evolution. Learn reality, try again.

I am terribly sorry that I have not returned in as long as I haven't; I was studying for a kind of huge exam. i am encouraged that you were so interested in my reply that you waited only 2 hours and 9 minutes before impatiently questioning if I return. I further apologize to report that this response will certainly be a serious let down for you.

This discussion was originally about evolution as a religion, and my assertion that I have found no evidence (unperverted by evolutionary theory and the assumptions attached to it) which supports the humanist idea of evolution or disproves any aspect of the Genesis account.

I understand that this statement makes some of you steam up with frustration or even anger, but it is chrystal clear to me that both sides have the exact same irrefutable evidence available from a wide range of science fields, yet two opposite conclusions are drawn simply because each tries to explain the undeniable evidence into his worldview.

*Edit-(The difference between my world view and the humanist's is that mine, found in the most published book in the world, is essentially unchanging, whereas evolution's theorists seem to always be coming up with new and wilder theories everytime insurmountable evidence contradicts the previous. It changes with the hot issue of the day, but falls hopelessly short of collectively accounting for all evidence, past and present.)

This ultimately says that no matter how much evidence I show you or you show me, we are both innundated with assuredness that each of our views is correct and no amount of convincing will change it. To you this action on my part to agree to disagree appears as a victory. But when you dismiss what I say with something like "that's rediculous, here's how it would have really happened," I am simply dumbfounded and flabbergasted; especially since you (and no living person today) were not there to have observed it yourself. How can one legitamately counter the rebuttal "nuh uh..." I would rather drink bleach than play this by your rules.

Back to the point, no matter how close to the beginning you believe you can "observe" without actually having observed the beginning, and no matter how many printouts you have reviewed, never having seen an animal being created, it would be nothing other than foolish for you to assert something other than, "Aside from what I think I have proven, there still exists at its ultimate foundation a significant amount of applied faith which turns so called science into a religion." The only difference between this and other religions is that evolution is U.S. government funded, and labeled a concrete science. I had opened my mind to the evolutionary theory and found it packed with unaccountable holes. You might be thinking that this is due to my ignorance, but you are enitled to your opinion whatever it is.  But you sir, have you too ever opened up enough to question the foundational things that you base you entire belief system on?

Adolf Hitler said "If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough, the people will believe it." and "People are more likely to believe a big lie than a small one."

I often hear it repeated that no one has observed 'the beginning.' You know what that proves? If anything, it proves that we ought to be agnostic about what happened at 'the beginning.' The conclusion you want is an argument from ignorance: since science cannot tell us what happened at the beginning, my religion has a legitimate claim to what happened then. Sorry. Doesn't work.

But really, the fact that no one observed 'the beginning' matters not at all for making a scientific reconstruction of the events. Your objection is as naive as the murderer on trial who protests that since no one saw the alleged murder that there cannot be any reason to think that he committed the crime. Sorry. Doesn't work.

Shall we play again?

*looks at deludegod's posts*

It appears you have now.

Err... no they don't. There isn't any Creationist 'evidence' that hasn't been debunked whereas there is a huge amount of evidence for evolutionary biology that has been found to be true by repeated and replicabel experimentation as well as theory.

For example, we have never seen an example of spontaneous creation, however we have numerous recorded examples of the occurence of evolution.

So, sorry. You're wrong.

And your unchanging book is full of errors, contradictions and downright lies. Science on the other hand is a constantly evolving process - when a theory is proved to be incorrect we do not hold onto discredited and factually incorrect dogma, we replace it with the more correct theory. Of course this may in turn be replaced but that's a good thing - it means we understand more and more about the subject in question.

The ironic thing is that the very fact that people hold onto the idea that the bible hasn't been changed - although it has: the canon for the Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are different - despite investigation antecedent to its creation showing its errors is why it cannot be taken seriously as a credible source.

True, however your evidence has been shown to be false by a process of peer review. In other words, you have no credible evidence to present.

Nor was anyone present to witness Creation. What's the point you're trying to make here?

Or instead you could write a lengthy polemic instead of rebutting the questons. Which you have.

Utter rubbish. We have observed speciation for a start. You say you have opened your mind? I doubt it as you cling to a myth that is so full of holes it could be used as a tea strainer.

Actualy it was Joseph Goebbels and I think he got the idea from Paul the Evangelist.

So you're a troll. Everything you said has been completely refuted, but you ignore reality and pretend it doesn't exist.

I understand that this statement makes some of you steam up with frustration or even anger,

That's because you are deliberately winding us up. I have crossed swords with far more prominent creationists than you, and I assure you that they (while extremely dishonest) did not act even remotely as you have.

 but it is chrystal clear to me that both sides have the exact same irrefutable evidence available from a wide range of science fields, yet two opposite conclusions are drawn simply because each tries to explain the undeniable evidence into his worldview.

What evidence? I've been going over this discussion and it seems pretty one sided to me. I've been giving all the evidence. Tests, links to treatises from respectable scientists, my own links, my own expertise, refuting your claims. You haven't given a scrap, a shred, a morsel, nothing, to support your claims, you merely attack mine, and thus far, I would say that all of your "science" has been torn apart by properly qualified people. This is precisely the kind of statement deliberately designed to piss people off. 

  The difference between my world view and the humanist's is that mine, found in the most published book in the world, is essentially unchanging, whereas evolution's theorists seem to always be coming up with new and wilder theories everytime insurmountable evidence contradicts the previous. It changes with the hot issue of the day, but falls hopelessly short of collectively accounting for all evidence, past and present.)

You make a lot of assertions, but again I point out that the only one who has given evidence is me. You have ignored it, set up strawman, mocked my colleagues, refused to answer links, made gross errors in scientific accuracy, ignored direct challenges etc. Typical creationist. 

 This ultimately says that no matter how much evidence I show you or you show me, we are both innundated with assuredness that each of our views is correct and no amount of convincing will change it.

You have not shown any evidence. I have refuted all your claims and await your response to them. You are merely trying to weasel out of arguing against me because you know that I can shoot you down without going into a great deal of trouble. And you have not responded to any challenges I made, rather reasonable ones.

 To you this action on my part to agree to disagree appears as a victory.

 No, it is a cowardly cop-out on your part that you were unfortunate enough to get into an argument with someone who could blow you claims to pieces in minutes (as I have a large stock of saved arguments from my previous duels with creationists).

But when you dismiss what I say with something like "that's rediculous, here's how it would have really happened," I am simply dumbfounded and flabbergasted; especially since you (and no living person today) were not there to have observed it yourself. How can one legitamately counter the rebuttal "nuh uh..." I would rather drink bleach than play this by your rules.

"Were you there"? You sound like Ken Ham. Because the observations we make today from the genome and the spectrum of biology all fit with evolution. I have shown this eight times now, and you have not countered it. 

 Back to the point, no matter how close to the beginning you believe you can "observe" without actually having observed the beginning, and no matter how many printouts you have reviewed, never having seen an animal being created, it would be nothing other than foolish for you to assert something other than, "Aside from what I think I have proven, there still exists at its ultimate foundation a significant amount of applied faith which turns so called science into a religion."

 This is an assertion on your part with no backing. I have provided enough evidence to show the reasonableness of the scientific theories behind evolutionary theory, as I happen to know that over 400,000 peer reviewed scientific journal articles are published in evolutionary biology annually. You are again, making a cop-out. If you please, we will return to science. 

The only difference between this and other religions is that evolution is U.S. government funded, and labeled a concrete science. I had opened my mind to the evolutionary theory and found it packed with unaccountable holes.

Your hypocrisy is unbelievable. This is precisly the type of statement that will piss me off. I have taken the time to rip your claims of "holes" to pieces, and you, because you are being a coward, refuse to respond.

ou might be thinking that this is due to my ignorance, but you are enitled to your opinion whatever it is.  But you sir, have you too ever opened up enough to question the foundational things that you base you entire belief system on?

 That is my job. Your pathetic appeals are a clear indication that you have conceded to the fact that you cannot defeat me in matters of science, thusly you have turned to whining (in essence, you are whining), there is no other word for it.

 Adolf Hitler said "If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough, the people will believe it." and "People are more likely to believe a big lie than a small one."

Godwin's Law. You Lose, buddy. Game over. 

mavaddat, I wish you would use this view to scrutinize the humanist worldview.

Just because it is a simple explanation doesn't mean it is the correct one.  I personally would rather do the work to look for the truth then accept something just because its the simple explanation.