What Darwin Got Wrong

I want the truth!

I don’t have anything against Darwin.  He came up with a pretty solid body of research, and hypothesized based on what he saw, and came up with a theory that has energized and invigorated the scientific community for 150 years now.  And much of it is illuminating and useful in expanding the body of knowledge of the human race.  I might even add that he was mostly right based on the information he had available at that time.  He just didn’t have anything near the information we have today.

As a result, there are cracks starting to appear in the grand paradigm he built, and it’s time to move beyond the dogmas of a bygone era and go where the evidence is leading.  We who are truly interested in finding the truth are tired of being told what we are allowed to think.  The most vocal and militant in the scientific community and academia have devised rules that are designed to shrink the world, not make it bigger or better.  They are arrogant and condescending in their rhetoric, and they spare no opportunity to put us poor, uneducated non-scientists in our place.  

You can’t handle the truth!

Many, many geniuses in the past have tried to suppress the truth.  If you’re one of them, this might be a picture of you.

But it does not have to be that way.  You say ID is not science.  Fine.  No problem.  It’s something, though, not nothing, and it is not going to go away.  Let me just list a few of the problems you guys  are going to have to deal with sooner or later.

  • Information Encoding – The coded information in DNA defies explanation from a Darwinian perspective.  It is vastly more complex than anything we have come up with so far in digital information.  Bill Gates says it’s like a computer program, but far, far more advanced.
  • Metaphysical Prejudice – Since the question of how life got started in the first place is not known, we must all start with a set of metaphysical presumptions.  We cannot know, so we have to guess.  The metaphysical prejudice Darwin had was one that allowed him to believe in no god, and still feel intellectually fulfilled.  We Christians have a similar problem in that we want an origin of life paradigm that allows us to believe in God, and we too want to feel intellectually fulfilled.  But not all on the side of ID are Christians.  The few scientists brave enough to suffer the insults and harassment want only the truth. And the evidence has been persistently and inconveniently cropping up on the side of ID.  Honest researchers acknowledge their bias.  Dishonest ones say the bias does not exist.
  • Origin of life – Darwin frankly had nothing but speculation on the origin of life, and he wasn’t at all confident that he had a workable theory.  Many Darwinists have theorized that life started spontaneously – a result of chemicals being stimulated by the right conditions in a “primordial soup”.  The famous Stanley Miller experiment, which reportedly succeeded in generating amino acids (necessary to life) has subsequently been repeated numerous times without meaningful success.  In other words, even with the help of an intelligent agent (the researchers who set and maintained the right conditions) we have been unable to show spontaneous generation of life.  The claim that it is only a matter of time before it is demonstrated is a faith statement, not science.
  • The fossil record – If we can all trace our ancestry back to a single original life form, where are the transitionary fossils?  In spite of 150 years of hard work by a lot of people, the evidence for them is extraordinarily scarce, and most of it is highly suspect.  The high-profile discovery “Lucy” is a less than compelling proof of an ape-like ancestor to man.  Worse, the evidence does not support gradual change over long periods.  Rather a large number of new species not previously thought to exist seem to appear suddenly, with no apparent predecessor.  The infamous “Cambrian Explosion” shows large numbers of new and much more complex species appearing within a very short period of time, seemingly out of nowhere.  And it was accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms, including animals, phytoplankton, and calcimicrobes.
  • Descent from a single ancestor – Here again, the evidence simply has not appeared to support this theory.  Many decades of research by many biologists have failed to show that a fruit fly can be a predecessor to a different species.  Evolutionary experiments on fruit fly generations have supported the idea of microevolution – change over time within a species – but not macroevolution, where new species are formed.  One prominent biologist has said recently that the time has come to move beyond the Doctrine of Common Descent.

There are three main facets of the Darwinian thesis:  Change over time, universal common descent, and the ‘doctrine’ of natural selection.  Of the three, only change over time was a postulation that Darwin made based on the empirical evidence.  It should be pointed out, however, that even the change over time that he observed and catalogued was change within species.  Universal common descent was a huge leap of faith he made that connected two other observations – that species seemed to appear in the fossil record without explanation, and that species tended to become more complex over time.  Darwin was trying to find evidence of his grand postulation – that evolution explained the origin of man, not God.  So what he looked for was evidence that supported his claim.  When he found none, he guessed – er, he postulated.  

And the grandest leap of faith he made was when he linked the two things – species appear suddenly, and species become increasingly complex over time.  He assumed that the two observations were somehow correlated – that there was common causation.  All that was then needed was to doodle it up into a “tree of life”, similar to this one.  That leap of faith was one of the most disastrous for the human race ever.  

That leaves the third and final facet  – natural selection.  There’s not much to say about this one, except that it was another statement of faith that Darwin made.  He was not able to see the evidence for natural selection, but he expected it to be found.  

We’re still waiting.  Guess we’ll have to just keep the faith.


22 thoughts on “What Darwin Got Wrong

  1. Joe Nahhas

    Einstein’s Nemesis: DI Her Eclipsing Binary Stars Solution
    The problem that the 100,000 PHD Physicists could not solve

    This is the solution to the “Quarter of a century” Smithsonian-NASA Posted motion puzzle that Einstein and the 100,000 space-time physicists including 109 years of Nobel prize winner physics and physicists and 400 years of astronomy and Astrophysicists could not solve and solved here and dedicated to Drs Edward Guinan and Frank Maloney
    Of Villanova University Pennsylvania who posted this motion puzzle and started the search collections of stars with motion that can not be explained by any published physics
    For 350 years Physicists Astrophysicists and Mathematicians and all others including Newton and Kepler themselves missed the time-dependent Newton’s equation and time dependent Kepler’s equation that accounts for Quantum – relativistic effects and it explains these effects as visual effects. Here it is

    Universal- Mechanics

    All there is in the Universe is objects of mass m moving in space (x, y, z) at a location
    r = r (x, y, z). The state of any object in the Universe can be expressed as the product

    S = m r; State = mass x location

    P = d S/d t = m (d r/dt) + (dm/dt) r = Total moment

    = change of location + change of mass

    = m v + m’ r; v = velocity = d r/d t; m’ = mass change rate

    F = d P/d t = d²S/dt² = Force = m (d²r/dt²) +2(dm/d t) (d r/d t) + (d²m/dt²) r

    = m γ + 2m’v +m”r; γ = acceleration; m” = mass acceleration rate

    In polar coordinates system

    r = r r(1) ;v = r’ r(1) + r θ’ θ(1) ; γ = (r” – rθ’²)r(1) + (2r’θ’ + rθ”)θ(1)

    F = m[(r”-rθ’²)r(1) + (2r’θ’ + rθ”)θ(1)] + 2m'[r’r(1) + rθ’θ(1)] + (m”r) r(1)

    F = [d²(m r)/dt² – (m r)θ’²]r(1) + (1/mr)[d(m²r²θ’)/d t]θ(1) = [-GmM/r²]r(1)

    d² (m r)/dt² – (m r) θ’² = -GmM/r²; d (m²r²θ’)/d t = 0

    Let m =constant: M=constant

    d²r/dt² – r θ’²=-GM/r² —— I

    d(r²θ’)/d t = 0 —————–II
    r²θ’=h = constant ————– II
    r = 1/u; r’ = -u’/u² = – r²u’ = – r²θ'(d u/d θ) = -h (d u/d θ)
    d (r²θ’)/d t = 2rr’θ’ + r²θ” = 0 r” = – h d/d t (du/d θ) = – h θ'(d²u/d θ²) = – (h²/r²)(d²u/dθ²)
    [- (h²/r²) (d²u/dθ²)] – r [(h/r²)²] = -GM/r²
    2(r’/r) = – (θ”/θ’) = 2[λ + ỉ ω (t)] – h²u² (d²u/dθ²) – h²u³ = -GMu²
    d²u/dθ² + u = GM/h²
    r(θ, t) = r (θ, 0) Exp [λ + ỉ ω (t)] u(θ,0) = GM/h² + Acosθ; r (θ, 0) = 1/(GM/h² + Acosθ)
    r ( θ, 0) = h²/GM/[1 + (Ah²/Gm)cosθ]
    r(θ,0) = a(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ) ; h²/GM = a(1-ε²); ε = Ah²/GM

    r(0,t)= Exp[λ(r) + ỉ ω (r)]t; Exp = Exponential

    r = r(θ , t)=r(θ,0)r(0,t)=[a(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ)]{Exp[λ(r) + ì ω(r)]t} Nahhas’ Solution

    If λ(r) ≈ 0; then:

    r (θ, t) = [(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ)]{Exp[ỉ ω(r)t]

    θ'(r, t) = θ'[r(θ,0), 0] Exp{-2ỉ[ω(r)t]}

    h = 2π a b/T; b=a√ (1-ε²); a = mean distance value; ε = eccentricity
    h = 2πa²√ (1-ε²); r (0, 0) = a (1-ε)

    θ’ (0,0) = h/r²(0,0) = 2π[√(1-ε²)]/T(1-ε)²
    θ’ (0,t) = θ'(0,0)Exp(-2ỉwt)={2π[√(1-ε²)]/T(1-ε)²} Exp (-2iwt)

    θ'(0,t) = θ'(0,0) [cosine 2(wt) – ỉ sine 2(wt)] = θ'(0,0) [1- 2sine² (wt) – ỉ sin 2(wt)]
    θ'(0,t) = θ'(0,t)(x) + θ'(0,t)(y); θ'(0,t)(x) = θ'(0,0)[ 1- 2sine² (wt)]
    θ'(0,t)(x) – θ'(0,0) = – 2θ'(0,0)sine²(wt) = – 2θ'(0,0)(v/c)² v/c=sine wt; c=light speed

    Δ θ’ = [θ'(0, t) – θ'(0, 0)] = -4π {[√ (1-ε) ²]/T (1-ε) ²} (v/c) ²} radians/second
    {(180/π=degrees) x (36526=century)

    Δ θ’ = [-720×36526/ T (days)] {[√ (1-ε) ²]/ (1-ε) ²}(v/c) = 1.04°/century

    This is the T-Rex equation that is going to demolished Einstein’s space-jail of time

    The circumference of an ellipse: 2πa (1 – ε²/4 + 3/16(ε²)²—) ≈ 2πa (1-ε²/4); R =a (1-ε²/4)
    v (m) = √ [GM²/ (m + M) a (1-ε²/4)] ≈ √ [GM/a (1-ε²/4)]; m<<M; Solar system

    v = v (center of mass); v is the sum of orbital/rotational velocities = v(cm) for DI Her
    Let m = mass of primary; M = mass of secondary

    v (m) = primary speed; v(M) = secondary speed = √[Gm²/(m+M)a(1-ε²/4)]
    v (cm) = [m v(m) + M v(M)]/(m + M) All rights reserved. joenahhas1958@yahoo.com

    1. Ira364 – Well, it’s nice to hear someone tell me I can engage in the debate! Mostly, my questions are either ignored or dismissed out of hand, with no response to the specific questions I’ve raised. I do believe parts of the Darwinist paradigm. But I do not accept it all dogmatically, blindly and without question. It’s ironic that people of faith are frequently dismissed as mindlessly accepting dogma in an unquestioning, uncompromising manner. Yet we today see Darwinist dogma increasingly numbing the minds of more and more people. What I am attempting to do her is to open closed minds. Thanks for engaging!

  2. Dave

    This is great! Another nutty website that gets it all wrong.

    For example, there’s this absurd statement:

    >Darwin frankly had nothing but speculation on the origin of life, and he wasn’t at all confident that he had a workable theory.<

    Nonsense. In fact, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life; it has to do with how life evolved.

  3. Dave

    >And the grandest leap of faith he made was when he linked the two things – species appear suddenly, and species become increasingly complex over time.<

    Another doozie! Darwin never claimed species "appear suddenly." Evolution takes place over vast amounts of time – not "suddenly." Proponents of "Punctuated Equilibrium" do not argue that species changes occurs every two weeks.

  4. Dave

    John wrote about natural selection:

    >There’s not much to say about this one, except that it was another statement of faith that Darwin made.<

    Tonight, I listened to a radio presentation by proponents of creationism. They went on at length about natural selection, convinced that it’s real and observable. (They disagreed that one species can change into another).

    So who should I believe, John? You, who claims that natural selection isn’t real, or a team of creationists, including a "creation biologist" who claim that natural selection is real?

    I’ll choose neither. Rational people will go with evolution over religions nonsense every time. Christians have a difficult time deciding what to believe – you and the people on the radio tonight being perfect examples – because all any of you have to offer are baseless assertions made with fuzzy thinking.

  5. Thanks for your comments, Dave. I’ll respond to all three here.

    First, your statement that “Darwin had nothing but speculation on the origin of life” is “nonsense”, is curious. I have studied the issue, and I stand on the statement. Darwin had no clue how life got started in the first place, and neither does anyone else – including me, and including you. Every single person has but two choices – believe something as a matter of faith, or simply ignore the question. One of the things I am trying to do with this site is to get people to think about what they believe with coherence and consistency. If Darwinism is to be accepted dogmatically, then you must either believe that life got started by “natural” means – without any intelligence guiding the process – or you must compartmentalize your beliefs about life.

    Your next contention is simply not correct. Darwin did see in the fossil record that species suddenly appeared and then either continued or disappeared. He also detected change over time from simple organisms to more complex ones. Those are observations and do not involve speculation, postulation, guessing or whatever you wish to call it. The leap of faith was in ASSUMING that the two factual observations were somehow connected. There was no empirical evidence that they were. I have no problem with postulation, etc. The mistake we have made as a society is in not recognizing or acknowledging the difference. I might add that naturalists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould came up with the “punctuated equilibrium” theory in order to provide an alternative explanation to Darwin’s assertion that species evolved through natural selection over vast periods of time. The problem they address was that the fossil record had failed to support Darwin’s original thesis.

    Finally, you assert that I claim that natural selection is not real. Well, that’s partially true. I agree with the creationists on the radio program (at least based on what you said) that species do not change into others. After a century and a half of research, we have extremely spotty and non-compelling evidence that they do. As for natural selection as a theory of HOW new species appear, you’re right. I see no evidence to support that claim. Scientists today have proven change over time WITHIN SPECIES again and again. To date, there are no “proofs” that they can make one specie “morph” into another EVEN WHEN THEY MANIPULATE THE GENETIC CODE.

    So who should you believe? Do not believe me any more than you believe them. Open your mind to the possibility that you may not have it all figured out. Question the dogma, regardless of whether it comes from creationists or Darwinists. Make up your own mind based on your own study.

    But also understand your bias. You either believe that an all-powerful creator could be the answer to life’s basic questions (including biggies like “Why is there anything rather than just nothing?”, and “What got things started in the first place?”), or you reject that as nonsense. Either way, you have a bias that affects your view of everything. If you reject God as even a POSSIBLE explanation for some of the questions, you absolutely must not believe in ID, because it is inconsistent with that belief system. And Darwin at least presented a plausible argument for SOME of the questions.

    But before you reject belief in God out of hand, consider that more people on planet Earth believe in the existence of God than do not. Millions of smart people – smarter than me – have studied these things with a truly open mind. And more than a few brilliant people who engaged in the study started out as atheists, and ended up as Christians. They did so on the basis of clear evidence.

    I truly do appreciate your comments, and I hope you will continue to stop by from time to time, or get the RSS feeds. Thanks!

  6. Dave

    I’m not sure why my attempt to upload my thoughts in answer to your came out in a garbled form – have the words are missing, and so are the paragraph breaks. So I’m going to try again. If it doesn’t work this time, I’ll construct a Theory of Conspiracy. 🙂

    >I have studied the issue, and I stand on the statement. Darwin had no clue how life got started in the first place, Every single person has but two choices – believe something as a matter of faith, or simply ignore the questionIf Darwinism is to be accepted dogmatically, then you must either believe that life got started by “natural” meansDarwin did see in the fossil record that species suddenly appeared and then either continued or disappearedThe leap of faith was in ASSUMING that the two factual observations were somehow connected.ay Gould came up with the “punctuated equilibrium” theory in order to provide an alternative explanation to Darwin’s assertion that species evolved through natural selection over vast periods of time.To date, there are no “proofs” that [scientists] can make one specie “morph” into another EVEN WHEN THEY MANIPULATE THE GENETIC CODE.Make up your own mind based on your own study.And Darwin at least presented a plausible argument for SOME of the questions. more people on planet Earth believe in the existence of God than do not.Millions of smart people – smarter than me – have studied these things with a truly open mind.And more than a few brilliant people who engaged in the study started out as atheists, and ended up as Christians. They did so on the basis of clear evidence.They did so on the basis of clear evidence<

    Yet again, you completely misrepresent the meaning of the word "evidence."

    You are not to be trusted with your views, as you completely misunderstand and misrepresent the meaning of words in order to suit your own belief, which you base on faith. You lack a basic understanding of how humans obtain evidence and use it to obtain knowledge.

    You don’t have the strength of character to come out of the closet to admit you believe on faith in your imaginary god and the contradictions and absurdities found in your bible.

  7. ”You can’t handle the truth!”

    What can I say, project much? Common descent is extremely well supported by the DNA sequences of extant organisms.

    This is the exact same DNA analysis that is used to determine if individuals are related. Sequences are compared. The more similar they are, the more closely they are related. That type of analysis works for close ancestors, a few generations distant, it also works for ancestors a few million generations distant. It even works for ancestors a few billion generations distant. At what level does it stop working? It doesn’t.

    All organisms that have a molecule that is “like” cytochrome b561 share a large fraction of the sequence of that molecule. Most of the amino acids in a protein like cytochrome b561 are arbitrary, any amino acid will work because all they do is take up a space. They play no other function than to take up space. An Intelligent Designer could chose any arbitrary amino acid to take up that space. But the Intelligent Designer didn’t choose arbitrarily. The Intelligent Designer chose the exact precise amino acid sequence that one would lead to the conclusion of common descent.

    This is actually a much more complicated task than using similar amino acids to make similar proteins to perform similar functions. The reason it is more complicated is because those space-holding amino acids don’t have any function other than to take up space. But those space-holding amino acids are still conserved as if common descent were true. Here is a pretty simple paper that discusses this for a single protein, cytochrome b561.


    It is a pretty common protein, conserved from before the common ancestor between animals and plants. Some amino acids are exactly conserved, those are the amino acids involved in the active site. Other amino acids are less conserved. When you align the sequences, you can figure out how closely they are related. Exactly the same way that DNA testing does for determining if two people are related.

    The analysis done with this one protein in this one paper shows that these organisms are all related and by how much. Each organism has thousands of proteins that can be compared, and each of those proteins in each of those organisms tells the same story. That the organisms are related in a tree that is pretty much the same no matter which protein you look at.

    When there is a substitution of a different amino acid, that substitution is carried through to all the branches beyond that substitution. The only reason an Intelligent Designer would do such a thing is to provide the appearance of common descent. This is a difficult problem for the Intelligent designer. None of the extant life forms are or can be independent. If an Intelligent Designer created them, that Intelligent designer deliberately and specifically and simultaneously chose the exact sequence of every DNA molecule in every single organism so that an analysis of those molecules woult give the appearance of common descent.

    Not every bit of DNA from every organism has been sequenced so far, but so far every single bit of DNA that has been sequenced supports the idea of common descent. If someone found an organism that did not fit into common descent that would be front page news in every science journal in the world and it would be a guaranteed Ticket to Stockholm for who ever discovered it.

    1. I want to say, first of all, that I appreciate the calm, instructive tone you took. As a non-scientist, I admit I did not fully appreciate much of your comment, but it seems that you attribute the similarity of DNA design to common descent. Although that seems possible, you have not addressed whether those same design features could have been attributed to a common designer, rather than a common ancestor – or whether they descended from a common ancestor which itself was created by a single designer. Could they? And what reason would natural selection have in selecting an amino acid that has no function other than to take up space? Is this the same (here my scientific ignorance is a challenge) as the so-called “junk-DNA? I read about it in an article by Jonathan Wells, who said that some DNA formerly thought of as junk, is now thought to be quite necessary and far from just taking up space. He referred to “centrioles”, which resemble little turbines. I also wondered how species could contain substantially identical DNA, but might have certain pairs “switched on” or not. I wondered, what does the switching? And why would an intelligent designer deliberately mislead those trying to understand the species being tested?

      I have more, but it’s late. I look forward to your reply.

  8. Your blind assertion that people who accept evolution as the most reasonable scientific explanation it because of “faith” simply shows your complete lack of understanding of science and complete ignorance of the data and reasoning that scientists have used to come up with evolutionary mechanisms. It is pure projection, where you attribute the method you use (blind faith while in complete ignorance) instead of the method that scientists actually use (hypothesis, reason and comparison with data as found in reality).

    An analogy that is useful is that of manuscript phylogeny. When manuscripts were copied by hand, errors would be introduced by the scribes. Those errors would then show up in copies of those copies. By gathering all the extant copies of that manuscript and comparing them, the ancestry of each copy can be inferred by the patterns of differences shared (and not shared) by the extant copies.


    This is a pretty close analogy to the technique used in biology, cladistics or phylogenetic analysis.


    This is the same technique that is used to compare languages and determine their ancestral histories.


    A useful analogy would be to think of all living things as manuscripts in a gigantic library where the “text” is the DNA code. By comparing those codes, we can try and infer relationships between the different manuscripts. Which are copies, which are unique, which are copies of what other copies.

    The amount of information that is in a genome is much greater than that in any book. The human genome has ~20,000 genes and ~25 times more non-coding DNA. All of that DNA can be used for these comparisons. I will only focus on the genes because they are conceptually easier.

    A gene codes for a protein which is a string of amino acids in a sequence. The number of amino acids varies, from a few hundred to a few thousand. For this example I will assume a value of 500 amino acids. Of those 500, less than 10% are essential, that is are part of the active site of the protein and are absolutely required for function (1 of 20 AA). They may bind to metals or bind to other amino acids to maintain the proper shape of the protein, or regulate electron transfer or something else. Of the other 90%, most are arbitrary and essentially any one of the 20 amino acids will work as well as any other. For some there is some requirement for generic properties of charge, hydrophobicity or pH dependence of charge. To make the calculations I am about to do easier I will choose some approximate values, estimate 50% can be anything (any one of 20 AA) and 40% can be 5 of 20. So for our hypothetical average 500 AA protein we require 50 AA to be exact, 200 to be 5 of 20 and 250 can be anything (20 of 20).

    So to generate a particular protein that has the same function there are many ways of putting that protein together. For the arbitrary protein irrespective of function the number is 20^500 = 3.3 x 10^650 (20 different amino acids chosen independently 500 times) . For the protein with a specific function the number is (approximately) (20/5)^200*(20^250) = 4.7 x 10^445. There are about 200 orders of magnitude fewer possible ways of putting a protein with a specific function together, but there are still a lot of different ways that an Intelligent Designer could choose.

    When we look at these proteins, what do we see? What we see is that the non-functional AA are not arbitrary, they are exactly the AA that correspond to what would be expected if the organisms were descendents of a common ancestor.

    If you look at all primates, all proteins look as if they descended from a common ancestor. Instead of each protein in each species looking independent, they all look as if they descended from a single common ancestor and are grouped in a branching tree. There are over 400 different species of primates. Not all of them have had their DNA sequenced, but each and every DNA sequence that is available fits exactly into the pattern one would expect from common descent.

    If we look specifically at humans and chimps, since both genomes have been sequenced we can compare them pretty accurately. In this paper they do exactly that. In figure 1, for 13,731 gene pairs, the largest number has only a single substitution. This is slightly different than the amino acid sequences I have been talking about. These are nucleotide sequences. It takes a 3 nucleotide combination to code for a specific amino acid, and there are some synonymous 3 nucleotide combinations. These have zero effect on the composition or function of the protein coded for, but are easily picked up via DNA sequencing.


    If those 13,731 gene pairs were independent, then to achieve the same function in each protein coded for by each gene, the Intelligent Designer had (as shown above) 4.7 x 10^445 different choices for each different protein. For 13,731 genes that is (4.7 x 10^445)^13,731 different possible choices or about 3.8 x 10^6,119,523. The number of differences observed is small, ~((5000)*(4200^2)*(3000^3)*(2000^4)*(1500^5)*(1000^6)*(800*7)*(500^8)) or about 2.4 x 10^106.

    So why did your Intelligent Designer choose to use sequences in humans and chimps that look exactly as if they occurred due to common descent when there are at least 10^6,119,000 other sequences that could have been used instead?

    When other organisms are included, the constraints become even more severe. The Intelligent Designer isn’t just concerned with humans and chimps, but with every other organism, many millions of them. Each of them has their own genome, each of those genomes (so far as we have determined) exactly matches what one would expect from common descent. So far the genomes for only a few hundred different species have been looked at in detail. Every single one of them is completely consistent with common descent and is not compatible with arbitrary selection. (10^6,119,000)^200 is over 10^1,200,000,000. That is a big number.

    If there is an Intelligent Designer, He/She/It went to a great deal of difficulty to try and trick us into thinking there was common descent. Much more effort into trying to trick us than in generating the organisms in the first place.

    It seems to me that is what you and your fellow IDiots should be trying to figure out, why would the Intelligent Designer work so hard to trick us into thinking there is common descent? Why did He/She/It cause there be such a disparity between what is called “revealed truth” (as written in various religious texts) and what is the actual physical reality? It would have been much easier to create each organism independently and to have that independent creation obvious from an examination of the organism genome.

    If we go back to the library analogy where each organism can be looked at as a “book”, with the genome being the “text” as Writ by the Hand of the Intelligent Designer. If we consider that religious texts are in that library too, but we know that all religious texts have been written by humans, copied by humans and that the copying has introduced errors (which we can plainly find via comparisons of different copies). Which “books” should we consider to be more reliable? “Books” Writ by the Hand of the Intelligent Designer? Or books written and copied by humans?

    1. Nicer tone. Not outright hostile, simply condescending. Better.

      I appreciate the science lesson. And I think your point about manuscript phylogeny is valid. But that does not invalidate all of scripture. In fact, discoveries such as the dead sea scrolls have validated much of what had been accepted. And the fact that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John gave different accounts of Jesus’ life does little to invalidate the accounts themselves, but it does much to validate his having lived and said and done many amazing things. The bigger issue is whether we approach the understanding of comprehensive truth most effectively when we make a rule that we can only look at things from a materialistic perspective.

      I can’t prove that you think. Yet I accept it on faith that you do. And there are mysteries such as the origin of life itself that we will never find the answers to, simply because we were not there. You characterize my faith as blind, yet I tell you it is reasonable, not blind. And I can see that you take many things on faith, even though you deny that you do.

      Jesus used a good analogy when he accused the Pharisees of being “blind guides” He told them they strained out a gnat but swallowed a camel. Similarly, you seem fixated on proving common descent and yet blithely ignore the “Far More Interesting Question” I wrote about – which is what is the origin of life itself. My worldview is consistent with belief that an all powerful, self existent creator not only designed DNA, but made it to be similar looking to men. Atheistic scientists have been trying for several generations to prove that life could have started without some intelligence guiding it along. Yet, in spite of the initial excitement over Stanley Miller’s experiment, subsequent efforts have fallen so miserably short of the goal, that almost no one is seriously pursuing that any more. You also ignore the question of how the DNA double-helix, which Bill Gates called ‘computer-like”, yet said that was far, far more complex than any software we’ve ever created, could have come into existence in any other way than by design.

      You asked So why did your Intelligent Designer choose to use sequences in humans and chimps that look exactly as if they occurred due to common descent when there are at least 10^6,119,000 other sequences that could have been used instead?” I ask why would an intelligent designer who came up with something as complex, as functional, as elegant as the design for life – why would He not simply use an un-countable number of variations on that design?

      You ask why there would be such disparity between revealed truth and …reality. I say to you that the gap is much more narrow than you think, and it is getting narrower all the time.

      I also want to summarize the four questions I posed in my first reply to you:

      Could the DNA features you say point to a common ancestor actually point to a common designer instead?
      Or could they be traced to common ancestors that themselves were designed?
      Are the centrioles Jonathan Wells studied the “junk DNA” mainstream scientists mostly ignored for the last 30 years?
      What mechanism switches the DNA pairs on or off?

      I ask those questions because I genuinely want to learn the answers.

      In closing, let me say that I swear to you with all my heart that I do seek the truth. And I believe that my Christian worldview is more comprehensively compatible with reality than any other. Yet there are a few things that could completely invalidate my worldview paradigm. If it could be shown that humans could create life from inorganic materials only, that would be a serious challenge to me. If it could be proven that Jesus did not die on the cross and rise from the dead 3 days later (as he predicted he would on many occasions) then I would put aside Christianity for good. Short of one or the other, I think I’m on pretty solid ground.

      Are there any questions you’d like me to answer?

  9. No, you don’t want to know the truth. You are falsely swearing. What you want to find is what you want to believe to be true, not what is actually true.

    No, the Dead Sea Scrolls are simply another copy of what men have written. An old copy, but a copy none the less. So what? Why you believe what men have written over what is “written” in the genomes of organisms is about your blindness and your willingness to believe the words of men, over what is actually real. You are choosing to be lead by the blind, and you and they are ending up in the ditch.

    You reject common descent even though the evidence for it is gigantic. It is a scientific hypothesis that has more evidence in favor of it than just about any other. You can’t refute the evidence, so you ignore it and change the subject.

    DNA is complex, so what? Lots of things are complex. Random noise is extremely complex. Random noise is so complex it can’t be simplified and transmitted in a coded form. So what? Some scientists didn’t study non-gene coding DNA. So what? It was a minority that thought it was completely useless. Everyone who knew anything about it knew that we didn’t know what it did. Genes were easy to figure out. The non-coding DNA is a lot more difficult, most of it is still of unknown function. So what?

    Reality says there was common descent. Your “revealed truth” says there wasn’t. Many other people have “revealed truths” which are compatible with common descent. Their “revealed truth” might be correct because it is compatible with reality. Yours can’t be correct because it is incompatible with reality.

    You say the gap is getting smaller, but unless you are changing your “revealed truths”, that is a lie. Religious people are good at lying to themselves and habitually lie to others. They don’t know the limits of their knowledge, they don’t know when they are spouting nonsense and for the most part they don’t care. They won’t let themselves see what is real or what is true. They necessarily constrict themselves to what is written in their book by self-proclaimed religious people who had not a whit of training or experience in science.

    The reality of descent as written in the genomes of extant animals is incompatible with the creation myth in Genesis. You want to believe what men told you, what men told each other for generations before writing it down. You have no evidence that what those men told each other was correct, no evidence that it was written down correctly and much evidence that it wasn’t. Your belief that what was written was “revealed truth” is wishful thinking on your part. The blind leading the blind. The blind self-proclaimed religious experts leading the blind self-proclaimed religious followers.

    There are many creation myths. All with exactly the same amount of evidence as your creation myth, that would be none. All you have is what self-proclaimed religious individuals have said. That is all the Muslims have, that is all the Mormons have, that is all the Davidians had, that is all the followers of Jim Jones had, that is all the Raeleans have, that is all the Scientologists have. What makes your “revealed truths” by self-proclaimed religious individuals correct and all the others wrong? Smith (said he) had the magic seeing stones and the golden tablets. The Koran was written down by first person witnesses of what Mohammad said. L. Ron Hubbard was alive just a few decades ago. He actually wrote the words that his followers use today (except for those that have been edited).

    You don’t want to know the answers. If you wanted to know the answers, you would study science and not try and engage random people on the internet to a debate about something you don’t understand the first things about. You are worse than completely ignorant; you believe stuff about evolution that is wrong. You are starting out with negative knowledge, with disinformation (aka lies) that you have been fed by self-proclaimed religious people.

    If your default is to believe something for which there is no evidence and until that belief is “proven” to be false you will stick to that belief, you don’t have the temperament to be a scientist. To a scientist, all hypotheses are tentative and subject to revision. Your belief is never subject to revision. Unless you can change that, you will never be a scientist and never be able to understand how scientists think.

    Sorry to be so harsh, but you really have not a clue as to how scientists actually think and how they came to the understandings that they have.

    To answer your 4 questions.

    1. No, unless the Intelligent Designer deliberately chose to be deceptive and used DNA sequences to precisely mimic the DNA sequences that would occur due to actual common descent.

    2. The last common ancestor lived ~3 billion years ago, and there is no evidence that it was “designed”. The sudden appearance of a “designed” last common ancestor would look different than what is actually observed both geologically and in the traces that remain in the genomes of extant organisms.

    3. No, Centrioles are not DNA structures.


    4. Your question doesn’t make any sense. DNA comprises a strand of complimentary base pairs.

  10. You said you would answer a question. If life is so complicated that it needed an Intelligent Designer to come into existence, presumably the Intelligent Designer is more complicated still and needs an even more complicated Uber Intelligent Designer to come into existence. So where is this Uber Intelligent Designer that created the Intelligent Designer?

    In my thinking about it, I have only been able to come up with one explanation, there was an Uber Intelligent Designer, there must have been to create the Intelligent Designer. The Uber Intelligent Designer must have been an Uber Perfect Entity. The most Wondrously Perfect Entity that ever existed. It doesn’t exist any more because the Intelligent Designer destroyed It. The Most Wondrously Perfect Thing that ever existed and the Intelligent Designer destroyed it. What a shame.

    1. The God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is self existent and eternal. He us uncaused, and in Him all things exist and have their reason for being. Without Him there is no reason for anything to exist at all. Stephen Hawking asked the question “Why does the universe go to the bother of existing?”

      Now, what I believe about God’s self-existence is unverifiable. But neither is it possible to disprove it. It is more rational to believe it than to disbelieve it, however, because belief is consistent with a worldview that is truly comprehensive. Science tells us today that the evidence points to a universe that began, not an eternal one. If it began, it had to be caused, unless you are comfortable with the notion that it started itself. (That would truly be hard to defend.)

  11. No, it is rational to appreciate that one can only be ignorant about things for which there is no evidence. It is irrational to make stuff up. It is irrational to believe the stuff that others have made up.

    Your world view is not comprehensive and is not consistent with reality as it is observed today. Your idea that your world view is comprehensive is a delusion. Sorry to be harsh, but that is the reality. Many others share your delusion, and you and they are all working very hard lying to each other to try and convince each other that it is not a delusion, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a delusion.

    I am comfortable with the notion that there are things that I do not know. I don’t need to make stuff up to fill in those gaps. That I am comfortable without pretending that I know everything is not a weakness, it is a strength. Your idea that you can’t have any “gaps” in your knowledge, and that every gap must be filled with goddidit is a weakness, a profound weakness. Filling gaps with wrong ideas doesn’t make the big picture more correct, it makes it more wrong.

    I know how to evaluate claims that people make. I look at data (that would be reality as it is observed) and apply logic. My “comfort” is not an issue for me in trying to understand reality.

    The Mormons say their God is the same as the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. You should add the God of Mormons to your list. Since you can’t prove their God isn’t the same, it would be irrational for you to disagree with them. You do want to be rational about that don’t you?

  12. Pingback: NeuroLogica Blog » Creationists are so unimaginative

    1. I almost appreciate the tone here. It’s not quite as openly hostile as some of the commenters – and there is some actual information. I once again defer to your superior scientific knowledge.

      Here’s the thing, though. You don’t know (and here I am referring to you and your devotees) everything either. And by being rude, condescending, dismissive, and accusatory, they stay clear of learning some things I and my “ilk” might know that they don’t.

      I still have some questions.

      To what do you attribute the appearance of life?
      To what do you attribute the appearance of the universe?
      To what do you attribute the intricately ordered complexity – the elegance of DNA?
      To what do you attribute the fact that anything exists, or as Stephen Hawking put it, “Why does the universe go to the bother of existing?”

      There are so many other questions that cannot be answered by testing. Philosophy and religion exist because we want answers to questions for which science alone is impotent.

      The bottom line is that man will always find himself unable to possess all knowledge of all things, so he will always need to take some things on faith. And before you jump on that, I am not talking about blind faith, but reasonable faith. It’s the kind of faith for which there is corroborating evidence, but no conclusive proof. Sure, the weight of the evidence is a factor, but is it a good idea to simply ignore the questions above because they are not relevant to your chosen field?

      Blaise Pascal, the scientist and mathematician posed the famous “wager” – ‘Even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should “wager” as though God exists, because so living has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.’

      I’m an idiot – or ID-iot, if you prefer. You may be right. If you are, we will both die, and it will not matter to either of us who was right. But if I am right, I will have gained paradise, and you will be screaming at God that He’s not fair – that you should have another chance. In the meantime, I take comfort in the fact that there are many highly credentialed scientists who can argue with you toe to toe from a Christian perspective. I listed just a few of them in my post entitled “Only Believe”.

      There’s much more to be said, but I’ll stop there for now. Thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts.

  13. Comment

    I’d just like to mention that I am neither a scientist nor religious. I can sympathize with both writers here because they are challenging themselves to think about the world in greater depth. John, you have to realize that when you talk to someone who will analyze your points rationally, they are considering what you say to be a theory that can be attacked rationally. I honestly don’t think that this will make you feel closer to your God. If God is above rational criticism – that is – he defies all that is rational by his existance, then by opening him up for debate, you are subjecting him to unnecessary attack. For every argument you make, an equally good argument will be made against your position. For every argument you make in favor of your God, the very same argument could apply to other similar gods. I think you could better spend your time accepting and loving those who think differently and devoting yourself to the life that your Jesus wanted you to live. He didn’t say a word about science, but according to the scripture, he did live a good, pure life as you could do. I wish you all the best. 🙂

  14. Pingback: Consistent Dissonance « Bloom Where You’re Planted

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s