Evolution: An Objective and Skeptical Look

The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at AmazonThe page begins below.

 

About this Site-My Statement

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” Galileo Galilei

“Whether all this which they call the universe is left to the guidance of unreason and chance medley, or, on the contrary, as our fathers have declared, ordered and governed by a marvellous intelligence and wisdom.”-Socrates

The theme of this blog involves a discussion about the scientific validity of evolution. This blog has nothing to do with any kind of religious arguments, so if you are looking for that kind of discussion, this is not the place for you. Here I take a critical and objective look at evolution. The scientific argument about the validity of evolution should not be a debate about evolution versus Genesis or any religious tenets. Religion involves personal beliefs, and beliefs should not be a part of objective scientific discussion. There is no doubt that random mutations and natural selections do occur, and that they can alter the characteristics and traits of populations of living organisms. The debate should be about whether or not those random selected mutations were and are up to the task of forming new species, and of inventing and improving the initial designs of biological systems.  Or is there something else in nature far more impressive? My primary problem with evolution doesn’t involve design. Evolution’s greatest problem involves invention; the bringing into existence of complex systems that were new, useful, and not obvious, (the requirements for invention from the United States Patent Office) where they didn’t previously exist at all. Every biological system is an invention, far more so than any invention that was ever made by any man. So basically this is the theme of my blog. If this fits what you are looking for, I hope you will enjoy perusing my pages. 

To introduce myself, I am a recovered evolutionaut.  A brief “about me”: In undergraduate studies in college I majored in biological sciences. I attended dental school, and graduated in 1967. For most of the time since, I was an avid fan of Charles Darwin and evolution. Obviously, not now.  I make YouTube videos, many of which are on this site, under the pseudonym stevebee92653, on the subject of evolution. I spent over thirteen years engineering products for the dental profession. Most of that time I was also working as a full time dentist, so for quite a long time I was working over 100 hours a week. I am now retired. I own four current patents, and have several patent applications on other products. That’s me above with one of my patented designs. I am an avid tennis player and golfer, and as you can tell from this blog, I enjoy writing.  Particularly about this fascinating subject: that of our origins. I write under Stephen B. Lyndon DDS. I am not a ” Biblical, or “young earth” Creationist” in any way. I am married with two “children” and three grand-children. I thoroughly enjoy objective science, particularly astronomy and sciences dealing with the origin of species.

In 2002 I visited my son who was attending medical school in Chicago.  But a visit to the Field Museum there activated my natural skepticism. Seeds of doubt about Darwin’s ideas were planted in my mind as I looked at those beautiful fossils. I hadn’t been to a museum of natural history for over twenty years. I expected to see a huge number of new fossils and new information that would surely prove evolution far beyond the level I had seen at my last visit.  In reality there was no advancement. Nothing more interesting than there was twenty years ago. I was disappointed to say the least. My visit brought up a lot of questions about evolution sciences that weren’t there before. I wondered why those tiny arms on their magnificent T. Rex fossil didn’t evolve a lick in millions of years. Wouldn’t a T. Rex with bigger arms be a better grappler?  I began pondering if Darwin  was really right. The more I thought about what I saw, the more questions arose. I actually battled those t rex toilet paperquestions in my mind.  I tried to ignore them. I wanted to believe the current scientific model for the origin of animal species and mankind was right. But, in my mind, Darwin crashed; badly. When I returned home I began doing a great deal of research. And the more I did, the worse it got for Charles. My evolution bubble popped.  I realized that evolution was not how things formed; not even close. I began this blog to keep track of all of the interesting information I had found. As I researched and wrote, I became more and more convinced that Charles was wrong.

If you’re an evolution believer, and you are exploring this blog, I would encourage you to consider the concept that evolution may not be the answer to the incredibly beguiling Puzzle of the origin of life and its species and biological systems. I realize I can’t instantly convince you that you have to stop believing in evolution as the source.   What I would like to do is to invite you to be open the idea that evolution does exist, but that it isn’t remotely close to being powerful enough to be the originator, former, and shaper of all of living nature.  I realize it’s completely unlikely that I can change you today.  But I do I want to challenge you to explore the concept of origins a lot deeper.  I want to plant a seed in your thinking that will grow so that you will ponder and wonder and question.  I hope my writing will increase your skepticism and critical thought in all directions; in all phases of life.   Don’t be critical and skeptical in only one field, such as religious creationism.  Be skeptical of all fields, of everything you are told by supposed experts. 

If you are a religious creationist, or simply a skeptic like me who thinks that the search for the origins of living organisms is far from complete, I hope my book will help to support your skepticism.  I hope it will allow you to see that we all need to be skeptical of all teachings, no matter what our belief; no matter who it comes from.  I also hope that no matter what your stance is, this blog will be a challenge to your thinking.  My sincere wish is that at least some of my writing can dazzle you like I have been dazzled by my own research, and by so many scientific discoveries that we modern humans are so lucky to be able to study and appreciate.  No matter what your stance is, no matter what camp you are in, I encourage you to keep your mind wide open.  What you think might be real, and have been told is real, very frequently turns out to be an illusion.

Most of the argument about the subject of the origins of life and man are composed of two very large  camps:

(1) Those that think our origins are born of religious sources and reasons, and that all of living nature is the result of the existence and actions of an all powerful supernatural God.  Surrounding this argument is the notion that this supernatural being, God, rapidly, in just a few days, created the entire universe, earth, and all of the life, species, and bio-systems in it; and man. This immensely powerful being communicated with mankind through ancient books.  In this case, a supernatural power created and formed, in supernatural fashion, all of life, species, bio-systems, and man.

(2) Those that think Natural Selection and Random Mutations were the source and reason for our existence.  The formation of the universe was due to a near infinite number of Dumb Luck steps that occurred, one after the other in perfect order, strength, and configuration, which  produced a universe and planet that could support life as we know it.  Then life on that planet appeared from some completely unknown but natural source.   Next Natural Selection and Random Mutations took over and changed the first living organism, slowly, over millions of years, into the incredibly complex bio-systems  and species that exist today. In this case, a natural entity created and formed, in supernatural fashion, all of life, species, bio-systems, and man. That’s right. A “natural” entity with absolutely no intelligence whatsoever creating, inventing, designing, assembling, and sustaining the species and complex systems of nature is nothing but supernatural.

So, on the one hand, a supernatural entity, God, who, by the religious, is thought to exhibit supernatural power, rapidly produced all of unimaginable living nature.  On the other hand, a run of the mill natural entity, Natural Selection et al, through its supernatural talents, slowly produced all of unimaginable living nature.  The supernatural exists in both camps.  One admits that it does, the other does not. It’s interesting to note that the formation of all of living nature is considered supernatural by evolutionauts if the source is God, but it isn’t supernatural if the source is completely unintelligent. If it has an IQ of zero, and zero ability to construct, design, or assemble.  And in both cases, we arrived at the exact same place: all of the species and bio-systems of nature, mankind, consciousness, and intelligence. Exactly equal results either way.

You and I and every person who ever lived on the face of the earth actually observe ID every waking minute of every day. Evolutionauts completely take design  for granted because it is so common. Imagine if we were some sort of observing spirit, and we could view, for the first time ever, two humans doing what humans do: seeing, reacting, thinking, emoting, speaking, listening, building.  We would be blown away.  Our shock would be unimaginable.  But because what we observe is an everyday occurrence, there is no amazement. No WOW factor. Neither of us and no person who has ever lived has observed evolutionary invention and assembly. The religious admit to being believers, and belief is difficult to argue.  But evolutionauts, who think they are purely scientific, and not the least bit believers,  choose to ignore and not accept what we all can actually see AND experience.  They tout and believe what they and no person has ever observed or experienced; a strange conundrum that I will never understand. Why are there so many evolutionauts? Many of them so easily call people who disagree with them IDiots, retards, and morons. They have no idea how  moronic they look when they use this tactic. Groupthink will prevent them from realizing.

I would really love to see science find some sort of acceptable answer to this Puzzle, and with evolution blocking the road, it cannot. What I have found with my study is that the “science” of evolution is devoted to proving Darwin was right.  It is not in any way an objective science looking for answers. Information and testing is bent to prove the theory.  The theory cannot be modified, even though  supporters say it can be and is.  There is simply no where to go from random mutations and natural selection.

Evolution’s bedrock is “natural selection”: the biggest euphemism in science, where there should be no euphemisms. The term is far easier to swallow than the reality. Natural selection is the process whereby one organism is able to kill and consume another organism due to some genetic/mutational advantage the predator has over the prey. The advantages are formed by non-occurring good mutations. Non-occurring because mutations forming just the right healthy useful tissues in just the right amount, just the correct shape, just the correct location,  and shutting off at just the correct time, have never been demonstrated. Remember, evolution happens in incredibly tiny steps; steps so tiny, they are invisible. A secondary process is sexual selection, the choosing of a mate for the purpose of procreating. Environmental survival is also in the mix. But, by far the most pervasive foundation for evolution is the selective killing of one type of organism with no advantage by another with a genetic/mutational advantage, and the repeat of this process over eons.  Are these processes capable of inventing, designing, assembling, and improving complex bio-electromechanical devices? Evolutionauts will argue to the death that they are, without the slightest bit of evidence to show they are. Natural selection should be changed to “Selective Procreating Dying and Killing” so those who are taught this fake science will at least know what it is really about. And the term “random mutations” should be renamed “Non-occurring Miraculous Mutations”. They have never been observed and if they did occur it would be a miracle. “Natural selection” and “random mutations” sound so mystical. It is treated almost as if it is itself some sort of god form; a creator. It isn’t. The really strange part of this whole evolution scenario is that plants are just about forgotten. It’s as if this is a science for animals, not plants. Do plants selectively kill and consume each other, and in doing so advance their bio-systems and complexity? Do fruit trees enjoy being at the bottom of the food chain?

Evolution needs to show that the foundation of evolution isn’t a fantasy: that mutations can, do, did, and will form healthy, histologically correct, necessary, utilitarian tissue.  And that it  can, do, did, and will place that tissue in just the right location, in just the correct shape, in just the correct amount, and that tissue will be “selected for”by being advantageous to the individual so it can continue on to become more utilitarian and more complex.  And that these advantages, many 1/500,000 of the finished product, prevent the individual from being consumed by another species that doesn’t have that tissue. And because of that tissue mutation, that species will be able to consume other species that don’t have that tissue.  And these events have to be performed over and over again, trillions of times, perfectly, for nature to be the way it is. The size, strength, and speed of the species that have evolved the new tissue, and that of predators of that species,  must also be erased as a factor.  Tissue mutation alone must trump all other features. Of course, it’s easy to see how vision, claws,  and teeth would help protect a prey and advance the abilities of predator. But would a 1/500th liver? Would a 1/1,000 pancreas?A 3/10,000 gall bladder. How do these organs fit into the picture of protecting prey and aiding predators?

Nowhere in the natural world do we see any species gaining genetic information that was not possessed by its ancestors. Evolution is all about the natural gaining of genetic information.   Evolution has never been able to display an increase in genetic information from generation to generation, but evolutionauts carry on and pretend like they can.  Evolution needs to show that this increase commonly occurs. Many evolutionauts say genetic increases haven’t been proven or found YET.  But that means evolution should not be considered a science YET until this found and proven.

It’s interesting that the first cells appeared about 3.5 billion years ago. Humans have about 3 billion base pairs in their genome. This means that, on average, every year a new base pair should be added to the genome of every organism on the planet. With the millions of species now in existence, it should be easy to test a number of them to see if any are actually increasing the size of their genomes. If we extrapolate the numbers, humans should add about 100 base pairs in the next century. Is evolution science running experiments with organisms see if increases are actually occurring? None that I can find. Bad results would be devastating for this fake science, so of course this experiment is not being run. Why gamble?

Papers have been written and calculations made on the rate of increase of the genome of different organisms, but those articles pre-conclude that the genome increased in size due to evolution’s random mutations and natural selection.  An example:

Alexei A Sharov Genome Increase as a Clock for the Origin and Evolution of Life AffiliationsLaboratory of Genetics, 12 June 2006, National Institute on Aging (NIA/NIH), 333 Cassell Dr., Baltimore, MD 21224, USA

These papers conclude that genome’s have increased, but they don’t seek to find current increases.  Rates of increase are determined by measuring the size of bacterial genomes with those of complex modern species, then calculating and graphing the rate which these numbers would yield. Never to my knowledge have experiments been set up to determine if genomes are currently increasing, which should be the case. Evolution, if it is the source of all of nature, should be as constant as the flow of a river. It should be ongoing.  A major undertaking by evolution science should be the search for genomic increase. Experiments should be setup and ongoing.  Even if one set of scientists had to hand the experiment off to future generations of scientists, the results would eventually show up. It should almost be like mankind’s challenge to land on the moon. Of course a problem might arise: how large can genomes become.  Would mankind have millions more base pairs at some future date?   How large can genomes become?  What would species with genomes twice the size of today’s genomes look like?  The questions can become endless.

A major foundation of evolution is “peer reviewed” papers. These papers usually entail articles written by evolution biologists on subjects that no one who ever lived or lives on the face of the earth has the answer to; such as the evolution of teeth. How were teeth “invented”? How did things go from “no teeth” to “teeth”? Why did that happen at all? And how did mutations form the complex dental designs we have today as humans? How do the cells that form teeth (ameloblasts and odontoblasts, et al) “know” just where they should be so they could do their job? How did they know just exactly when to start and stop their knitting of enamel and dentin so the teeth could form just the correct anatomy? How did the upper teeth evolve to exactly match the lower teeth like perfect puzzle pieces, specially when different gene pathways formed upper teeth and lower teeth?  This is an elephant, not a monkey, on the back of evolution that cannot be ignored or removed. And, of course, it isn’t ignored by bio-evolution’s writers. One writer, of course, there had to be a first, wrote a paper on how he thought teeth evolved. “Teeth came from fish, who had simpler dentition. Then they evolved into more complex…….” Of course the stories are made up, then “peer reviewed” by other evo-biologists. More papers are written. Species are cited. “These early fish……”  Paper piles on top of paper, it is told and retold so many times, the story becomes truth.   A whole mountain of papers are built, one on top of the other. On Google, there are over 1300 references to “peer reviewed papers describing the evolution of the dentition. And, now these are cited as evidence. Papers written about the evidence actually become the evidence. So, if anyone asks, how did teeth evolve, they are referred to the piles of “peer reviewed” papers on the subject. And this house of cards is the “evidence”.  And if you speak up, you are challenging “science” and thousands of wonderful “peer reviewed” papers.

A great example of “peer reviewed papers” failing science are the ones touting man-made global warming. A huge pile of these papers were “peer reveiwed”, and accepted as real science.  Until Russian hackers, in November of 2009,  broke into a British set of computers owned by global warming scientists.  Hackers have stolen the correspondence between University staff members and made it public on the Internet. Researchers have been discussing the ways to forge data in order to correspond with the idea of global warming.

The real data surprisingly shows the decrease of Earth’s average annual temperatures. The University of East Anglia confirms the theft, but refuses to give any comments on the correspondence.One renown paper used the rings of trees in a forest in Siberia to prove without a shadow of a doubt that man-made global warming was real stuff. Then came the hackers, who found that in that Siberian forest, three “selected” trees were used to display world wide global warming, a fact not mentioned in the “peer reviewed” paper. Other scientists wrote that they would destroy any information that went against global warming if they were forced to give it out under the Freedom of Information Act in Great Britian. Good old peer reveiewed papers. Not a guarantee of real science. Sorry evolutionauts.

For evolutionauts, a very simple premise: (1) Bio-systems are designed in a far more intelligent way than any intelligent man who ever existed has the capability of designing. That fact doesn’t need testing. It is just pure fact.
(2) Nothing has ever been invented, designed, assembled, and improved by an entity with an IQ of exactly zero. No man who ever existed can show that has or can happen.
If you want to play pretend, fine. Because for you to believe evolution, you need to completely reject and ignore the the above two facts. And if you can and do, there can be no discussion with you. Your foundation is then a fantasy, and all other discussion on the subject worthless. The debate is over.

So, these major foundations of evolution are not foundations at all. The invisible mutations and the house of cards that is the “peer reviewed” papers make evolution a house ready to collapse. It may never, but it is teetering. The reason it doesn’t collapse is the strong beliefs of the bio-scientists and rabid evolutionauts that support it. THAT is the foundation for this “science”. If you read this blog with an objective eye, you won’t be able to help but find that evolution is not the answer, ucarbon atomnless you have been successfully programmed. But most of all, for me, it’s rather fun to debunk a science that is so self aggrandizing, highly promoted, and pushed into the science classrooms of unwary school kids by legal groups such as teacher’s unions and the ACLU. And, what I really enjoy the most about writing this blog is that I have found such fascination in a science, biology, that I studied as a chore when I was in school. I didn’t appreciate at all what was right in front of me. Now I love every minute of digging through books and websites and rediscovering what I took for granted years ago. If you are one of those who are absolutely certain there is no intelligent design in nature, take a look at the picture at left. It is a carbon atom, the building block for all of life on earth. Can you actually look at this picture and say you see no invention and design?  Does this atom display “apparent design” as evolutionauts call design? Or is it an example of real actual incredible invention and design. Me, I will take the second choice. Invention and design are so obvious. If you told me you see none, I could not believe you. And if the building blocks of life show such invention and design, then life and nature were invented and designed as well.

robots2.jpg

Humans, and all animal species, are incredibly engineered machines; thousands of times more complex and better engineered than any man made device on the planet. Not only do our electromechanical devices show design, but they are inventions, as there was absolutely no “prior art” models for nature to go by. We have servo-motors (muscles) that pull on rods (ligaments) that in turn move ball and socket joints (hip, mandible). We have an incredibly complex and efficient pump (heart), a pair of digital cameras that produce three dimensional images (eyes), miniature microphones (ears); and on and on. The greatest engineering group cannot come close to synthesizing the simplest of our organs. The one thing that makes us different from an incredibly engineered robot is LIFE; that we are alive. Life separates us from robots. And, life is the one thing that separates evolutionauts from being able to see intelligence in the universe. NOT religion, but intelligence; there is a big difference here. If we were functioning and not “alive”, and were constructed of plastic and metal, and an evolutionaut could observe us, he would have to admit that we are the result of an intelligence beyond imagination. The amazing thing is that evolutionauts have absolutely no idea how life formed. They are completely unable to form life in the laboratory. Yet they are absolutely certain that there was no intelligence that brought about life and the origin of species and their bio-logical-systems.

 

This is how I see the battle between religious creationism, and modern evolution: we are toddlers in the scheme of the universe. Imagine us as two year olds who are trying to figure out the engineering and assembly of a nuclear submarine. One group of toddlers thinks some great mysterious being suddenly and magically made it. The other group thinks the nuclear submarine simply evolved into existence over a long time, much more time than the two years they have been in existence. But they don’t know how the raw materials got here. They argue that some sort of mysterious selection process was responsible for putting the parts together. A huge battle rages. Toys fly. In actuality, neither group or individual toddler has anywhere near the ability to figure out any nuclear submarine was invented,designed, and assembled. They can’t even figure out the manufacture of a row boat. So what they have is a tempest in a toddler teapot. Toddlers simply lack the required cognitive skills. We as adults have the same problem trying to figure out the Puzzle. In actuality, toddlers may be much more able to figure out the nuclear submarine than we adult humans are at understanding how life, nature, and, species originated.

 

The idea that random mutations and natural selection were the sole formative forces for the assembly of all of nature is an embarrassment to nature. Modern biological sciences have traveled light years beyond that simplistic idea. Most scientists just don’t face that fact. It’s amazing how once an idea sticks, it remains stuck. And evolution is stuck like fly paper in the minds of so many very intelligent people. Evolution needs to show that the foundation of evolution isn’t a fantasy: that mutations form healthy, histologically correct, necessary, utilitarian tissue, and can place that tissue in just the right location, in just the correct shape, in just the correct amount, and that tissue will be selected by being advantageous to the individual so it can continue on, and so that the individual won’t be consumed by another species that doesn’t have that tissue. There are absolutely no positive mutations capable of forming complex electromechanical entities that can be cited by evolution. Evolution cites bacteria that can eat nylon, moths that change from white to black, and a few other dubious examples. As it stands, 100% of mutations, or near that figure form either neutral or horribly disfiguring errors. Disfiguring mutations are large and obvious, unlike any “good” ones cited by ev-illusionists. Good mutations are largely invisible, while bad ones are usually an obvious nightmare for the poor unlucky mutant. Natural selection is a force that removes those mutations out of a population, and in that way , keeps the population strong. The mutations that no evolutionaut or ev-illusionist would want are prevented from being carried on to the next generation by natural selection. But the idea that selected mutations can form and cause the design of incredibly complex electromechanical devices and bio-logical-systems is no more than wishful fantasy.


The age of the universe holds a very interesting conundrum for the formation of nature in general, and human beings specifically, as humans are the only conscious observers on earth, and the only species capable of recording and contemplating what we observe. I made a video on just this subject if you are interested:

Just a Note for Evolution Fans that May Read this Blog: The earth and solar system, by all good scientific evidence, appear to be 4.5 billion years old. Accurate biological time-lines given by biologists could and should be very accurate.  Unfortunately, many are not.  Species are placed on clade charts in completely incorrect chronological order so that it will look like evolution produced a gradual morphing of one species into the next. The dates of the appearance of the species is rarely included.  Evidence of this is in my “Evolution of Birds and Flight: It’s Impossible (part 1)” video, on this site and at YouTube. There seems to have been some minor evolution that has taken (takes) place. I have absolutely no idea how species came into existence, and I don’t promote any solution to that great and fascinating Puzzle. This blog is only interested in scientific and objective discourse. Origins of species is an incredible subject, but it is also a useless science. No cures for disease or mechanical marvels will be produced by it even though that is unblushingly claimed by evolutionauts.  In reality, few people spend much time thinking about our origins. I am one of the few who do. I find it immensely fascinating, thought provoking, and fun. I am bothered that evolution is taught in schools as if it is a lock, that pseudo-intellectual evolutionists treat those that are not believers condescendingly, that if a person is a non-believer in the TOE most evolutionists think that person must believe in Adam and Eve, and that evidence is bent to make TOE look like real science. That is why I am writing this log. I am starting with this note so that any evolutionauts that may read this blog will know where I am coming from, and if they comment, hopefully will keep this in mind.

Please don’t waste your time trying to box me in as a Biblical creationist nor religious. I am neither. It is quite obvious that if the Genesis record of creation were true, all species would appear at the same geologic level. A seven day Creation would be very apparent in all fossil digs. But that is not even close to the case. My experience with religion has been pretty much summed by this quote from Thomas Szasz: “If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you are a schizophrenic.” I am not an atheist or agnostic. I believe in an incredibly intelligent Source or Creator, but my beliefs go no further. I have no idea who, where, or what that source really is. And, that is my belief, it is philosophical, and so it is not posed as an arguable or scientific position. So don’t use this last sentence as a strategy for your argument against me if you are an evolutionaut.  I have often been asked what is the difference between a philosophical belief and  religious one.  There is a big difference. Instead of writing the differences myself, here is Wikipedia’s version, which would be identical to mine:

Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning, by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values.[1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.  The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect. Most religions have organized behaviors, including clerical hierarchies, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, congregations of laity, regular meetings or services for the purposes of veneration of a deity or for prayer, holy places (either natural or architectural), and/or scriptures. The practice of a religion may also include sermons, commemoration of the activities of a god or gods, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture.

Philosophy, again, defined by Wikipedia, and again, similar to what mine would be:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] The word “philosophy” comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means “love of wisdom”.

I am fascinated with the science of evolution, and its effect on its believers and supporters.  From my experience debating evolution, I have come to the conclusion that evolution’s improbabilities and impossibilities are so believed, and promoted with such vigor, that it is almost impossible to have a rational discourse with those that support it.  It is also obvious that the true underpinning of evolution is atheism. When evolution is being argued, the true argument is a religious one. Atheism is a religious belief just as surely as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam are religious beliefs. Atheism is a reaction to and a belief about God. It’s a reaction to the Atheism is completely dependent on evolution for its existence. Without evolution, atheism has no possible explanation for how we and all of nature got here.

If evolution can come up with real instead of imaginary evidence, I will be the first to step up and be a full supporter like I was a few years ago. As it is, most evolution evidence is greatly exacerbated by imagination. A great deal of evidence that is touted by ev-illusionists has nothing to do with evolution. Most evidence simply backs up the fact that there is a great biological and natural design connection between all living things. Evidence given by evolutionists should be carefully evaluated by objective peers to determine whether that evidence really backs up what is being promoted. Of course the trick is to find objective observers. In this science, I really don’t think I have found one.  What I do think is that nature is unbelievably intelligent. There is no scientific evidence for the source of that intelligence. One thing I know for sure: I am intelligent enough to know that there is not now nor has there ever been a living person on the planet earth, including myself Albert Einstein, and Charles Darwin, smart enough to figure out the Puzzle.

I believe that evolution can account for  possibly up to 5% of the status of nature today, while it is credited with 100%.  Actually, evolution has huge flaws, huge gaps, and tiny evidence in favor, which makes for an impossible rift among the interested like you and me, if you are reading this site.  And that 95% is not formed by evolution is my OPINION, and what I deduce from my observations of the  evidence, nothing else.  Evolution science is kind of like the state of astronomy.  90% of the universe is dark matter, and we have no idea what dark matter is, so we make explanations.  But we know it’s there, just like we know eyes and hearts are here, but how the heck did they form? I guarantee you it wasn’t from selected mutations.  On the really great side, we are so lucky to live at a time when we know so much, and have the ability to search, debate, and communicate.  Imagine describing a black hole to someone in the 1850′s.  It would be hilarious.

If you would like to further search this blog, I would recommend starting with page 20, a test for evolution.  It will give you a starting point, and a good idea of what questions and answers you will find here. Another good starting point would be page 4a and 4b. It shows ten impossibilities of evolution.  Feel free to challenge any of the test questions, or any of my impossibilities. Interestingly, to falsify evolution, all I have to do is prove that one single biological entity cannot come about through evolution.  Evolutionauts have to prove every single one did.   As there cannot be two separate theories that each built part of nature

  • ozredneck22  11/25/11, YouTube comment:
  • As Ian Juby says “Abiogenesis is easy…, first you purchase a Expedite Automated DNA/RNA Synthesizer from Applied Biosystems (Forster City, CA) for $35,295, take Isolated E.Coli genomic DNA at $50.00/oz. This is then used to synthesize the Oligonucleotides. Histidine-tagged T7 RNA polymerase is purified from E.Coli strain BL21 containing plasmid pBH161 provided by William McAllister State University of New York Or you purchase the Oligonucleotides from Integrated DNA Technologies,  So there you have it, no intelligence required, all natural processes as found in the early earth…right?  The look on evolutionists faces when you tell them it can’t happen naturally……..PRICELESS….­…… for everything else there’s MASTERCARD


<!-

914 Comments

  1. alternativeorigins said,

    I am not religious but this website makes alot of sense! Keep up the good work.

  2. Alexandre Williot said,

    By the way, the scientific maintream has taken notice of you! Read this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13675-evolution-myths-evolution-cannot-be-disproved.html

    There is a mention of an ostrich with breasts in the 6th paragraph!

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Interesting. Thanks for the heads up.

  3. Sujit Misra said,

    You are the most intelligent person on earth.
    Evolutionist are being fixed mindset to say just anything only to disprove
    god,they are pseudo-scientist.

    • Sujit Misra said,

      Sorry for saying pseudo scientist,because I realise that its not necessary to have every missing link of evolution to prove evolution.
      If we see some missing link link archeopteryx and embryological ascend from fish like embryo structure to mammal like embryo structure, its enough to prove a hypothesis to be theory.

      Another aspect is how the entire new organism can survive without all the necessary mutation happening at once in a transition organism.The basics of life lies at cellular properties which is there from the beginning of coacervate,so there no need of all the mutation happening at once showing intelligent design.

      In a transition form only some basic mutation happens which gives the organism different classification.like in archeopteryx- a reptile animal had a mutation in its arms making it big enough to be natural selected to fly and classified as bird.Later it could degenerate all its tails and modifies its mouth in the same manner of mutation first and natural selection later.

      I have seen in discovery channel about human diseases where mutation causes a man’s hands to appear like roots of trees.Say for example(only e.g. to understand not fact) if those roots have the property of soaking water and minerals from earth, then another species can be natural selected to survive and classified as plant man or something else.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Sorry, but what?

  4. AJ (@everlastinglife) said,

    The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods. Yet all six of them have ended, it being said with respect to the sixth day (as in the case of each of the preceding five days): “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Ge 1:31) However, this statement is not made regarding the seventh day, on which God proceeded to rest, indicating that it continued. (Ge 2:1-3) Also, more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God’s rest day, commenced, Paul indicated that it was still in progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7, 8, 11) and to Genesis 2:2 and urged: “Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest.” By the apostle’s time, the seventh day had been continuing for thousands of years and had not yet ended. The Thousand Year Reign of Jesus Christ, who is Scripturally identified as “Lord of the sabbath” (Mt 12:8), is evidently part of the great sabbath, God’s rest day. (Re 20:1-6) This would indicate the passing of thousands of years from the commencement of God’s rest day to its end. The week of days set forth at Genesis 1:3 to 2:3, the last of which is a sabbath, seems to parallel the week into which the Israelites divided their time, observing a sabbath on the seventh day thereof, in keeping with the divine will. (Ex 20:8-11) And, since the seventh day has been continuing for thousands of years, it may reasonably be concluded that each of the six creative periods, or days, was at least thousands of years in length.

    That a day can be longer than 24 hours is indicated by Genesis 2:4, which speaks of all the creative periods as one “day.” Also indicative of this is Peter’s inspired observation that “one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” (2Pe 3:8) Ascribing not just 24 hours but a longer period of time, thousands of years, to each of the creative days better harmonizes with the evidence found in the earth itself.

  5. Rachel Pytlak said,

    You have some wonderful information here!

    I am a Jehovah’s Witness. We do not share the mistaken view that the creative days were literally 24 hours long. As a fellow Witness said above the Bible does not state how long they were but are obviously long periods of time. Actually what the Bible REALLY says always matches proven science exactly. Of course not evolutionary science but scientific facts.

    IF there is a Great Intelligence you mentioned wouldn’t it be likely to want to communicate with such beautifully designed creations as you noted we humans are? IF the Bible is that communication isn’t it worth investigating to see if it truly is from that brilliant Creator?

    You really might appreciate this link and the others on the page.
    http://goo.gl/pZZDW

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks for the note. Do you actually think an intelligence that created the universe would choose to communicate with humans with a book written by humans? I think it would be a lot more spectacular than that. We are allies in the fact that we both think evolution is bullshit. We part company on religion, which I don’t even like to discuss. People that get something positive out of their religious beliefs should certainly keep those beliefs. I wouldn’t want to ever try to take that away from them. It just never worked for me on an objective scientific or “positive feelings” basis. Thanks for the visit.

      • Ed Walsh said,

        Awesome site steve! One extremely rare unsophisticated point in your thinking is the idea that “God chooses to communicate with humans with a book written by humans”. Personal intimate relationship with the Living creator is not to be confused with relationship with a book even though this is what hapless mainstream christianity has turned it into. God actually speaks directly with His children in various ways (almost never audible) and this book is only a miniscule fraction of all He has ever spoken, like a billionth or a trillionth. With the brilliance i see in this site, i believe He is speaking to you quite a bit as well. Additionally, that book is not the perfect “infallable” book it is touted to be by the religious, just as t of e is not what it touts itself to be. I don’t know about adam and eve specifically, but you and i would both agree that it is a much more plausable explanation for the way things are today than non occurring miraculous mutations inventing dna, a 4 chamber heart, teeth, sexual reproduction, etc. I also don’t believe that miraculous mutations created the human conscience, but that this is actually one of the ways the Living God who holds every atom together, keeps in communication with His children. Abraham and Moses of the bible had no bibles and yet they were in communication with the Living God and this is exactly how we can live today. The bible is not and has never been a viable replacement. Did you know that instantaneous healing miracles are real including many blind and deaf people being given back their sight and hearing instantanously through the prayers of those with the gift of healing? I don’t believe this was arrived upon through non occurring miraculous mutations either. Great job here, please keep up the amazing work : ).

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Thanks Ed. We sure do agree on evolution. Not so much on the religion end of things, but that’s OK. Your enemy is my enemy, which makes us allies against this absurd science. I was amazed to look at my grandson’s biology book, which has three chapters on evolution. All hogwash. They actually have pictures of fossil fish and the same modern versions that show absolutely no change in hundreds of millions of years. The writers are so dimwitted, they have no idea they are disproving their own fake science.

  6. bloggerpatrol said,

    Creationism substantiated.

  7. Justin Gibson said,

    Darwinian theory arose as a challenge to the staunch Biblical Creationists who maintain that the Earth is 6000 years old. I grew up believing this untill science and reason told me otherwise. However Darwinian theory does not account for many things. The molecules to man theory has to be rejected. These are both examples of typical western linear thinking. Philisophical and scientific reasons drove me to the Vedic scriptures. However I’m not a sectarian religionist who thinks that one book has all the answers. We can never learn everything about the Unlimited Father. Best to stay open minded, otherwise you won’t learn anything at all. Hare Krishna!

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Best to stay open minded? I’ll drink to that. Happy New Year

    • Kent Perry said,

      Creationists say what? You’ll have to show me what passage the Bible says how old the earth is because I have never seen it. The only thing I have read is about the things he explained to Adam that he made and from the time Adam was created. The Bible is not a science book and comparing it the way you are is just plane idiotic. Biology was being taught as HOW god created things to learn how they worked how he did it and man has copied his intellectual property giving him no credit what so ever. Airplanes have patents and given status for intelligence while the birds happened by accident.

      I prefer to stick to the science as well and most atheists demand it but usually I find I am able to do that and it is THEY that just can’t resist bringing it up and start making comments about imaginary sky friends and all that. I know Stevebee is NOT a Christian or Muslim or interested in any religion at all but I have witnessed him get attacked as if he is and is just denying it. I find this very curious indeed. The idea that one MUST be a creationists of some kind merely for disagreeing with evolution speaks to the kind of tunnel vision and group think behavior that is like the paranoia that keeps any real science from ever happening among there ranks. It’s all about guarding the theory not testing it at all. It has become a religion in its own right and they are its religious zealots.

  8. Jiří George Bednář said,

    Hello Steve, thanks for this website. There’s a lot of useful information on evolution theory in here.

    I’ve always been interested in the sense of my life, why we are here, philosophy, human psychology etc. and been honestly searching for the truth. Based on personal experience (“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.” (Gospel of John, 15:26)), I became christian and believe what the Bible says, although I don’t fully support neither young-earth or old-earth creationists. I just believe that people were created to God’s image. Even in the Scripture it is stated:

    “For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” (1 Corinthians, 13:9-12)

    or

    “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities- his eternal power and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” (Romans, 1:20 – 23)

  9. Thomas Eshuis said,

    RE: The address of your site is a direct contradiction to the title of the page: ‘evolution, an objective look’.

    No, the look is objective. My site has facts that haven’t been disputed. The facts ARE objective.

    RE: Evolution is an observable fact.

    Not my argument. Evolution happens. It simply isn’t powerful or intelligent enough to form all of living nature and its bio-systems.

    RE: The THEORY of evolution has long since moved on beyond the basis idea that Darwin postulated.

    It has. We agree. Fable has been piled on top of fable.

    RE: “I wondered why those tiny arms on their magnificent T. Rex fossil didn’t evolve a lick in millions of years.” Statements like these show you either paid no attention during biology 101 or have long since forgotten everything you learned.

    You mean if I listened, the teacher would have told me why T. Rex didn’t evolve? Damn. I wish I would have listened.

    RE: The theory of evolution does not state that each species will continue to evolve endlessly. The T-rex arms probably did not evolve because there was no need for it, for the T-rex to be an effective hunter and survivor.

    Ah, the “didn’t need to” excuse. I love this one. Seen it so many times. This evolved because it NEEDED to, that didn’t because it DIDN’T NEED to. This is the perfect science with the perfect excuses.

    RE: “The absolute goal of this blog is to show that Darwin’s theory needs to be rejected” It has long since been updated to reflect the new knowledge available to the academic world.

    Science has gone WAY PAST evolution. Disproved it beyond any doubt. The discovery of protein synthesis alone did the job. Since that cannot have evolved.

    RE: “My goal is not to prove intelligent design, although the fact that ID was necessary to invent, design, assemble, and sustain living nature, species, and bio-systems is beyond obvious.” Obvious because? You do realise that arguments from ignorance are not evidence for anything?

    Oh my gosh. You didn’t say THAT did you? Argument from ignorance? Your training worked. You are a clone.

    RE:”Those that think Natural Selection and Random Mutations were the source and reason for our existence. The formation of the universe”
    These two are unrelated.

    This quote is SUPER out of context. I mean SUPER. You missed the rest of the second sentence. My gawd.

    RE: The big bang theory nor abiogenisis is required for evolution to a fact or the theory of evolution to be accurate.

    Sorry. You are wrong. Without the BB and abiogenesis, there is no evolution.

    RE: Species are not designed, nor created nor assembled, they evolve.

    They evolved? They had to be designed and formed (created) from complete non-existence. So they were created, just like a sculptor creates a statue. From nothing but a sterile Earth came all of living nature. A creation. Fool yourself if you like.

    RE: “You and I and every person …. Neither of us and no person who has ever lived has observed evolutionary invention and assembly.”
    I stopped reading after this. If all you have are arguments from ignorance and straw-man arguments like these, you are truly ignorant. I thought you might have actual valid arguments against the theory of evolution.
    All you have presented are fallacious arguments and false representations of evolution, the big bang theory and abiogenisis.

    You have been successfully indoctrinated. You are past the point of no return. You cannot escape. Your lingo drips of indoctrination. You all talk exactly alike. Say the same boring stuff. You are robotic clones.

    • Kent Perry said,

      Quote:”I stopped reading after this. If all you have are arguments from ignorance ”

      No, what you did was take the very same tact, I have seen you “Darwits” take, WHEN EVER questions on abiogenesis, are raised. I mouth out the words as the darwit says them. ” Evolution doesn’t address abiogenesis, blah blah blah”

      I mean it’s a conditioned response from your cult. The REAL reason, from those having the courage to discuss it, is because they get busted using natural selection as an evolutionary starting point. Rather than trouble your pretty little head with the cerebral exercise it takes to debate the issue, darwits (like you) typically sign off but not without whining and crying about the person they are disengaging and throwing out a myriad of ad-hominem insults and assuming they won like many of the other areas of science they believe to be true, is simply because “THEY SAY SO” and because you are a poopy head.

      You’re a gutless coward and simply can not defend your precious but woefully ridiculous theory of evolution and THAT is what you have demonstrated because the FACT IS, NO ONE HAS OBSERVED THE KIND OF EVOLUTION, STEVE IS TALKING ABOUT AND IN THE CONTEXT HE MAKES VERY CLEAR, EVEN TO SOMEONE LIKE YOU.

      Quote:”I thought you might have actual valid arguments against the theory of evolution.”

      He did, and YOU wussed out. It seems to be a scripted tactic used by Darwits, when ever someone has an argument against this theory of the cult science being spoon fed up every young child’s mind, you seem to get frustrated that you haven’t got a valid answer so you invalidate your opposing interlocutors argument via condemnation without investigation. Now HAD you an ANSWER, even if it was one of your cookie cutter copy pasted quotes from any number of the hateful mean spirited and rabid atheist and pseudo science websites pushing this garbage, this out dated totally inadequate theory,,

      YOU WOULD HAVE TAKEN TOO MUCH PLEASURE IN HUMILIATING STEVE WITH IT. A temptation Darwits can’t seem to pass up. I wonder sometimes if you cultist’s of your philosophy, ejaculate having yet another opportunity to use that pathetic ad-hom insult YOU idiots actually believe is a logical fallacy, called “argument from ignorance”. As if what YOU got is some alternative. PffT!

      Quote:”Species are not designed, nor created nor assembled, they evolve.”

      Yes yes I get it you simply CAN NOT accept ANYTHING taking an I.Q., to be the cause of our existence but to suggest as a foregone absolute conclusion that is so, isn’t very scientific of you, but it is Dogmatic and it is also why Science is moving at a snails pace because we aren’t doing science, what we are doing is still trying to prove evolution. As long as we keep trying to learn about a falsehood, becoming experts on the falsehood while those preaching it, refuse to consider anything but arguments that suit their false theory, what you get are NOT scientist’s but science fiction writers whose imaginations are what is marketed as “Good Science”. Those that can conceive of possible pathways evolution “might” have happened or possibly “could” have happened, imagining conditions were this way or that way etc,. became what we now know as that pathetic pile of piltdown, paleontology and faux fossils of fraud, darwits call, the “Mountain of Evidence for Evolution”

      The theory you believe in,, is patently absurd, in fact,

      it’s IMPOSSIBLE.

      Oh and by the way, NOTHING, “NEEDS” to evolve or not evolve. Evolution doesn’t KNOW what it needs so please quit invoking requirements having motives like “need”. You darwits simply can’t explain a damn thing regarding evolution without using words and phrases that suggest some form of metaphysics or intermittent moments of design engineering.

      Quote:”Evolution is an observable fact.”

      Yes, we get it a toenail evolves and we have all purchased nail clippers because of that. We have all seen someone develop a sun tan. What we haven’t seen is life start from non living matter. Or digitally coded chemical components, just spontaneously “Happen” with each year, discovering the once simple ordinary molecule called DNA, has properties ONLY intelligent guidance or creation, could ever begin to explain.

      But these jughead scientists today, just reverse engineer these things and brain storm how can we imagine this happened, and WOW, every five years, the whole theory has to be re-vamped and re-told again without ever considering all those arguments used when the old propaganda was “in style” is the justice we should all claim as most of those arguments are proven false again and all those you said things like, “I thought you were going to have a valid argument against evolution nya nyaa nyaaa”

      Five years from now., those same arguments Stevebee has presented. will demolish what you have given as a non answer or lets call it what it is shall we,,

      an excuse to hide tail

      and run

  10. Mohammad Mib Baseer said,

    Hello Steve. Thanks for having this site, it’s quite an interesting read. I was just wondering if you could help me. I’m currently having a… debate… with an evolutionist atheist, and he is absolutely convinced that he is right and I am wrong.
    Here’s the link to our debate if you have the time to read:
    http://www.lipstickalley.com/f328/he-blames-christianity-judaism-islam-africas-problems-368602/index2.html
    (His name is Pleasedont, I’m Thaumaturge)
    I thought I knew a fair bit about the theory of evolution but he’s brought up quite a few points that I wasn’t previously aware of (although I’m fairly certain either those points are contrary to what I’d learned about evolution or this means the whole theory has been altered by the academics who believe in it). I’m not asking you to take my place in this debate, I was wondering if you could enlighten me more about the theory of evolution so I can make more informed points against him as I want to ensure I am as knowledgeable as I thought.
    Yours faithfully,
    Mohammad.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks for the visit and interest. I am very busy with my projects, so I can’t get into other people’s discussions. I hope this site is organized enough to help you out.

      • Charlie Frias said,

        Mohammad, some other sites that I enjoy going to for catching up on the latest ‘gotchas’ that the evolutionist camp gets themselves into are these:

        Creation Evolution News
        http://www.crev.info
        Here you will find a group that reviews science journals on a regular basis and reports the latest research and findings with a critical eye- often removing the thin veneer of evolutionistic spin. It is chock full of searchable articles that will likely give you all of the ammunition you need- fully sourced with material arriving straight from the evolutionist proponents themselves. (They are on hiatus at the moment, but generally post daily.)

        Evolution News & Views
        http://www.evolutionnews.org
        Here you will find an ongoing commentary on the current state of affairs with regards to the evolution/creation debate. This site is wide-ranging- from reviews of the latest scientific conclusions, ethical contradictions, judicial skirmishes, philosophical discussions, etc. This is also searchable and can provide you with plenty of material.

        Institute for Creation Research
        http://www.icr.org
        Here you will find a group that regularly posts commentaries and problematic issues with the evolution paradigm. It is unabashedly Christian in nature (which I believe to be the ultimate truth anyhow), but it is searchable and provides references and will often provide you with at least some direction for finding good counter-evidence.

        ID The Future
        http://www.idthefuture.com/
        This site appears to be a more technical and in depth branch of the Evolution News & Views site, and provides plenty of audio material for listening to the current state of Intelligent Design ‘on the go’.

        I hope this helps.

      • Charlie Frias said,

        (How’s it been, Steve? Glad to see your name today as always. Your site has been a huge help for me in the past, and I am pleased to see it still helping others to see past the curtain of deceit.)

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Thanks for the visit and good note!

  11. barlar57 said,

    Like you, I am absolutely fascinated by the search for the origins of man. It is so difficult to find the truth because everything written out there begins with the assumption that evolution is a fact. You so elequently stated in this dissertation what is the truth about evolution. I thank you for that. I am a Christian, but I do not believe that the common interpretation of scripture is correct as it relates to the origins of man or the time line of man. There are actual artifacts that exist on this earth that defy this timeline. Such artifacts as the monoliths in South America. Such statements that exist in the Mahabarata about flying machines and great explosions. The existence of humanlike beings and civilizations on this earth is far older than can be imagined. I do believe that this amazing Creator is trying to reveal Himself to us through the Bible. This of course is in addition to the cosmos itself bearing witness to the fact that He Is and does exist. Just as the physical universe is amazingly complex in design, I believe His written Word is just as perfect and amazing and complex and without error. What is in error in some instances is how it is interpreted by Christians. For example, the Book of Genesis begins by stating that: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The very next sentence states that: The earth was void and formless. I personally believe that there was a vast expanse of time between those 2 sentences. A time in which great civilizations and humanlike beings inhabited the earth. I think the earth BECAME void and formless as a direct result of judgement against these civilizations. Then again in Genesis Chapter 6 it is recorded for us, that God destroyed the earth with water as a judgement against god like beings coming down and mixing their DNA with human women creating mutant beings which terrorized the inhabitants of earth. What is in question here is, how long did this go on for before God destroyed it all? It could have been eons of time. Are they the ones who built the monoliths we see in South America, or were they built by the beings that inhabited the earth between the first and second sentences of Genesis Chapter 1? Can the carbon dating of such things be trusted?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks for the note. While we disagree on religion, we do agree wholeheartedly on evolution not being the source. No matter what the originator is, evolution isn’t part of the equation. Strange that populations studies seem to agree with a much shorter time span for mankind than that which is given by evo. Did you get a chance to read: 35: “The Population Paradox” It certainly puts a different light on the age of man.

  12. phands said,

    Everything you post is wrong….utter garbage. Your biggest problem is that evolution is an established fact….observed in the wild, and incontrovertible.

    Religion, on the other hand, is garbage, supposition, superstition and tripe. And the bible is just low-grade toilet paper.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Everything? Wow. That’s a lot. Very interesting comment! Well researched and thought out.

    • ultramediacorp said,

      and phands, everything YOU post, is typical.

      It’s typical of mouthy whiny atheists whose biggest problem is they think they are the philospher kings of science, when your post is more indicative of someone who simply can’t debate so you attack someone’s religion who isn’t religious and the presumptuous fool that you are, you rip on the Bible as if this was a thread about that or as if anyone cares what you think is a fact or not.

      The FACT is, if evolution were such an incontfrovertible fact, then surely you would have something, some piece of evidence to show that fact. I will submit to you, that evolution is only a fact to those who still believe in such a thing. Public education I presume yes? Flouride in the drinking water where you are?

      Like all terminally self righteous, rude, arrogant and ignorant knowitall Darwits like yourself, I assume you are also an atheist going by your hatred of religion (probably the result of some child abuse or perhaps the guy who used to bully you out of your milk money as a child telling you he was God to you) ,

      Like you are with science, I would guess you know very little about the Bible also but that is just going by my own 20 years experience debating such children of the corn.

      or as they like to think of themselves,,

      “free thinking atheist”

      - Kent Perry

  13. Darren Holdsworth said,

    so what year was it again steve when you picked up your nobel prize ? its “obvious” that youre smarter than some of the other prize winners which leaves me to assume that your name is firmly attached to that list as a winner of a certain category of which im no more certain about than the year you actually won it !

    • Ryan Burrill said,

      Waaah waaah Darren!

      Steve talk to me please about epigenetics! It’s been a few years since I was discussing on your site and I’ve found pretty much all the answers I went looking for regarding the origin of life and learned a whole lot more as well. Epigenetics has most recently had a profound impact on me and really fits the model I see for the way the world works. Would love to hear your take on it since you pretty much have it right. The earth is super old, but it’s not blind darwinian evolution moving life along, that’s for sure. Epigenetics seems to have the answer for me, and Darwin will mostly fall to this new school of science. What do you think?

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Are you familiar with Dolly/cloning? Very interesting along those lines. They took a sheep ovum and removed the haploid DNA, and replaced it with the diploid DNA from a sheep mammary cell. The ovum should have now been coded for another mammary cell, but the damn thing grew into a full sheep. They should have gotten a giant tit. The coding for the mammary wasn’t in the DNA that was injected. A shock. Was the DNA somehow aware of what was going on externally to itself? Where was the coding? In the cytoplasm? It shows that there are sure more questions to be answered. Thanks for the comment!

      • jrmullowney said,

        Steve,
        Based on your comment about the Dolly the sheep, its obvious you are confused about some of the basic principles of genetics. Every cell in your body with the exception of gametes contains a full compliment of genetic material. That is, each cell contains the complete set of blueprints for entire organism. The reason we have different types of cells is that different genes are expressed in different environments. The environment of a skin cell is different than that of a brain cell and the differential expression of genes causes them to look and behave like skin cells and brain cells. So its really no surprise when you inject the DNA from a mammary cell into an ovum and it doesn’t become a “giant tit”.

      • Ryan Burrill said,

        I think you’re confused, that cell has already ‘decided’ to become a tit cell, but in moving it to the ovum it moves the ball back up waddington’s epigentic landscape and then it rolls back down the ‘fetal trough’. That is what Steve is saying I think, why didn’t the ball stay at the bottom of the landscape/hill and grow in to a big tit. And obviously it is environment mediated by perception. Steve, I don’t mean to speak for you, if I’ve mis-taken your message, please correct me!

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You pretty much have it. The DNA was already keyed to be a tit. Was it aware somehow of its external environment, which caused it to change its code and become an entire sheep? Fascinating stuff.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Based on your comment you don’t understand my comment. See Ryan Burrill for some help. He got it.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Yes, gee, I’m so glad you remember. It was 2007. The Nobel for Biology. Thanks for bringing that up!

  14. Khoshal Naim said,

    dude. Write a book already. I believe you can change the tide with this book. The only reason people believe the “evolutionauts is because they have the respectable scientist image on their side. Waiting for your book man.

  15. Kent Perry said,

    Yes I agree and have been waiting to see the manuscript.

    Other than that, Hi Stevebee!! Hope you and your wife are doing well and your family too. Interesting thing I did. Went back about 11 years on the net looking at some of the old debates I have had with the Darwits. Ironically, most of those same people wouldn’t use those same arguments today if my guess is right. They have all been so demolished over the years since and I suspect many of the Arguments they think they “Pwned” the Good Dentist over at ratskeptic and others will lose so bad in years to come, even they will have admit they know Jack Squat about anything.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Hey Kent. How’s it going? I just finished the book. It really came out great. ‘Least I think it did. My wife and friend/beta readers as well. Hopefully I will get a publisher. Working on that now. That part is a tough go. But I am hopeful. If I don’t get a publisher, I will self publish. You are in line for one of the first copies, as a gift. You were actually a great catalyst for the project. I’ll let you know how things go. I hope all is well with you and your family…..

  16. royalfink said,

    Steve-its me, Roy{dinner last mon.pm}
    There must b a tooth fairy-esle how did I get $, for the tooth, I left
    under my pillow??

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I think it was Elizabeth. Did you ask her?

  17. awz1 said,

    Hey Steve, I found your blog after looking at your youtube videos. It’s great to see someone destroying the arguments of evolution and I feel that you have given me and many other people a wake up call on how big a fraud the theory realy is! I look forward to reading your book!

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks for the note! So nice to find someone who can think out there. The book is done. I am now working on getting a publisher, which is a trick. Hopefully it will be out soon.

  18. s13browe said,

    What do you think of this article written back in the 1800s by a woman believed to be inspired by God defending creationism? I love your rational thinking and hope you really consider this long post. Is this not a rational solution to your search for a supreme being: “Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought?”
    Since the book of nature and the book of revelation bear the impress of the same master mind, they cannot but speak in harmony. By different methods, and in different languages, they witness to the same great truths. Science is ever discovering new wonders; but she brings from her research nothing that, rightly understood, conflicts with divine revelation. The book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other. They make us acquainted with God by teaching us something of the laws through which He works. – {Ed 128.1}
    Inferences erroneously drawn from facts observed in nature have, however, led to supposed conflict between science and revelation; and in the effort to restore harmony, interpretations of Scripture have been adopted that undermine and destroy the force of the word of God. Geology has been thought to contradict the literal interpretation of the Mosaic record of the creation. Millions of years, it is claimed, were required for the evolution of the earth from chaos; and in order to accommodate the Bible to this supposed revelation of science, the days of creation are assumed to have been vast, indefinite periods, covering thousands or even millions of years. – {Ed 128.2}
    Such a conclusion is wholly uncalled for. The Bible record is in harmony with itself and with the teaching of nature. Of the first day employed in the work of creation is given the record, “The evening and the morning were the first day.” Genesis 1:5. And the same in substance is said of each of the first six days of creation week. Each of these periods Inspiration declares to have been a day consisting of evening and morning, like every other day since that time. In regard to the work of creation itself the divine testimony is, “He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” Psalm 33:9. With Him who could thus call into existence unnumbered worlds, how long a time would be required for the evolution of the earth from chaos? In order to account for His works, must we do violence to His word? – {Ed 129.1}
    It is true that remains found in the earth testify to the existence of men, animals, and plants much larger than any now known. These are regarded as proving the existence of vegetable and animal life prior to the time of the Mosaic record. But concerning these things Bible history furnishes ample explanation. Before the Flood the development of vegetable and animal life was immeasurably superior to that which has since been known. At the Flood the surface of the earth was broken up, marked changes took place, and in the re-formation of the earth’s crust were preserved many evidences of the life previously existing. The vast forests buried in the earth at the time of the Flood, and since changed to coal, form the extensive coal fields, and yield the supplies of oil that minister to our comfort and convenience today. These things, as they are brought to light, are so many witnesses mutely testifying to the truth of the word of God. – {Ed 129.2}
    Akin to the theory concerning the evolution of the earth is that which attributes to an ascending line of germs, mollusks, and quadrupeds the evolution of man, the crowning glory of the creation. – {Ed 130.1}
    When consideration is given to man’s opportunities for research; how brief his life; how limited his sphere of action; how restricted his vision; how frequent and how great the errors in his conclusions, especially as concerns the events thought to antedate Bible history; how often the supposed deductions of science are revised or cast aside; with what readiness the assumed period of the earth’s development is from time to time increased or diminished by millions of years; and how the theories advanced by different scientists conflict with one another,—considering all this, shall we, for the privilege of tracing our descent from germs and mollusks and apes, consent to cast away that statement of Holy Writ, so grand in its simplicity, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him”? Genesis 1:27. Shall we reject that genealogical record,—prouder than any treasured in the courts of kings,—“which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God”? Luke 3:38. – {Ed 130.2}
    Rightly understood, both the revelations of science and the experiences of life are in harmony with the testimony of Scripture to the constant working of God in nature. – {Ed 130.3}
    In the hymn recorded by Nehemiah, the Levites sang, “Thou, even Thou, art Lord alone; Thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and Thou preservest them all.” Nehemiah 9:6. – {Ed 130.4}
    As regards this earth, Scripture declares the work of creation to have been completed. “The works were finished from the foundation of the world.” Hebrews 4:3. – {Ed 130.5}
    But the power of God is still exercised in upholding the objects of His creation. It is not because the mechanism once set in motion continues to act by its own inherent energy that the pulse beats, and breath follows breath. Every breath, every pulsation of the heart, is an evidence of the care of Him in whom we live and move and have our being. From the smallest insect to man, every living creature is daily dependent upon His providence. – {Ed 131.1}
    “These wait all upon Thee….
    That Thou givest them they gather:
    Thou openest Thine hand, they are filled with good.
    Thou hidest Thy face, they are troubled:
    Thou takest away their breath, they die,
    And return to their dust.
    Thou sendest forth Thy Spirit, they are created:
    And Thou renewest the face of the earth.” – {Ed 131.2}
    Psalm 104:27-30.
    “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place,
    And hangeth the earth upon nothing.
    He bindeth up the waters in His thick clouds;
    And the cloud is not rent under them….
    He hath compassed the waters with bounds,
    Until the day and night come to an end.” – {Ed 131.3}
    “The pillars of heaven tremble
    And are astonished at His rebuke.
    He stilleth the sea with His power….
    By His Spirit the heavens are beauty;
    His hand hath pierced the gliding serpent.
    Lo, these are but the outskirts of His ways:
    And how small a whisper do we hear of Him!
    But the thunder of His power who can understand?” – {Ed 131.4}
    Job 26:7-10; 26:11-14, R.V., margin.
    “The Lord hath His way in the whirlwind and in the storm,
    And the clouds are the dust of His feet.”. – {Ed 131.5}
    The mighty power that works through all nature and sustains all things is not, as some men of science claim, merely an all-pervading principle, an actuating energy. God is a spirit; yet He is a personal being, for man was made in His image. As a personal being, God has revealed Himself in His Son. Jesus, the outshining of the Father’s glory, “and the express image of His person” (Hebrews 1:3), was on earth found in fashion as a man. As a personal Savior He came to the world. As a personal Savior He ascended on high. As a personal Savior He intercedes in the heavenly courts. Before the throne of God in our behalf ministers “One like the Son of man.” Daniel 7:13. – {Ed 131.6}
    The apostle Paul, writing by the Holy Spirit, declares of Christ that “all things have been created through Him, and unto Him; and He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” Colossians 1:16, 17, R.V., margin. The hand that sustains the worlds in space, the hand that holds in their orderly arrangement and tireless activity all things throughout the universe of God, is the hand that was nailed to the cross for us. – {Ed 132.1}
    The greatness of God is to us incomprehensible. “The Lord’s throne is in heaven” (Psalm 11:4); yet by His Spirit He is everywhere present. He has an intimate knowledge of, and a personal interest in, all the works of His hand. – {Ed 132.2}
    “Who is like unto the Lord our God, who dwelleth on high,
    Who humbleth Himself to behold the things that
    are in heaven, and in the earth!” – {Ed 132.3}
    “Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit?
    Or whither shall I flee from Thy presence?
    If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there:
    If I make my bed in the grave (see Psalm 139:8, R.V.;
    Job 26:6, R.V., margin), behold, Thou art there.
    “If I take the wings of the morning,
    And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
    Even there shall Thy hand lead me,
    And Thy right hand shall hold me.” – {Ed 132.4}
    Psalm 113:5, 6; 139:7-10.
    “Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising,
    Thou understandest my thought afar off.
    Thou searchest out my path and my lying down,
    And art acquainted with all my ways….
    Thou hast beset me behind and before,
    And laid Thine hand upon me.
    Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
    It is high, I cannot attain unto it.” – {Ed 133.1}
    Psalm 139:2-6, R.V.
    It was the Maker of all things who ordained the wonderful adaptation of means to end, of supply to need. It was He who in the material world provided that every desire implanted should be met. It was He who created the human soul, with its capacity for knowing and for loving. And He is not in Himself such as to leave the demands of the soul unsatisfied. No intangible principle, no impersonal essence or mere abstraction, can satisfy the needs and longings of human beings in this life of struggle with sin and sorrow and pain. It is not enough to believe in law and force, in things that have no pity, and never hear the cry for help. We need to know of an almighty arm that will hold us up, of an infinite Friend that pities us. We need to clasp a hand that is warm, to trust in a heart full of tenderness. And even so God has in His word revealed Himself. – {Ed 133.2}
    He who studies most deeply into the mysteries of nature will realize most fully his own ignorance and weakness. He will realize that there are depths and heights which he cannot reach, secrets which he cannot penetrate, vast fields of truth lying before him unentered. He will be ready to say, with Newton, “I seem to myself to have been like a child on the seashore finding pebbles and shells, while the great ocean of truth lay undiscovered before me.” – {Ed 133.3}
    The deepest students of science are constrained to recognize in nature the working of infinite power. But to man’s unaided reason, nature’s teaching cannot but be contradictory and disappointing. Only in the light of revelation can it be read aright. “Through faith we understand.” Hebrews 11:3. – {Ed 134.1}
    “In the beginning God.” Genesis 1:1. Here alone can the mind in its eager questioning, fleeing as the dove to the ark, find rest. Above, beneath, beyond, abides Infinite Love, working out all things to accomplish “the good pleasure of His goodness.” 2 Thessalonians 1:11. – {Ed 134.2}
    “The invisible things of Him since the creation of the world are … perceived through the things that are made, even His everlasting power and divinity.” Romans 1:20, R.V. But their testimony can be understood only through the aid of the divine Teacher. “What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” 1 Corinthians 2:11. – {Ed 134.3}
    “When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.” John 16:13. Only by the aid of that Spirit who in the beginning “was brooding upon the face of the waters;” of that Word by whom “all things were made;” of that “true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” can the testimony of science be rightly interpreted. Only by their guidance can its deepest truths be discerned. – {Ed 134.4}
    Only under the direction of the Omniscient One shall we, in the study of His works, be enabled to think His thoughts after Him. – {Ed 134.5}

    • s13browe said,

      Wow sorry for the long post it came out bigger than i imagined. I personally hold the young earth literal 6 day creation belief. You have great proof through science that evolution could not be correct. It is just as crazy to say that the earth was not created in 6 literal days from a theological standpoint. A person would have so much explaining or imagining to do to say this from the bible. Steve- I understand and respect your personal choice to not believe the bible. But for any Christians out there, it is impossible for a person to believe the bible and believe anything but a literal 6 day creation, A person would have to be overlooking obvious theological proof. So for Christians either 6 literal days or throw the bible out completely it would be better to not misrepresent Gods word. I don’t want to start a theological debate on this blog. I don’t think this is what Steve is wanting so if you have problems with this please look into it yourself. It cannot be take any other way without problems similar to what the evolutionists are facing here. :)

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Thanks for the effort.I am really interested in going purely by the scientific record, which shows the sudden appearance of species at very different times. They either stuck or went extinct. It doesn’t fit the Bible, nor does it fit evolution. You might want to check my vid “The Age of the Universe: A Paradox” on YouTube. Some food for thought as far as your beliefs go.

      • s13browe said,

        I watched those video’s. When i go into the woods where nobody has ever been and see a tree that has fallen, it did not exist at all until i found it? On top of that it never fell because nobody was around to hear it fall? It was just created on the ground by my brain? I really may be too dumb to understand this reasoning i am only an auto mechanic. It still interests me anyways. The old scientific dating of things in the earth or universe do not contradict the young earth view from my understanding. You have to see that in the bible God created Adam as a man. You could test Adam the day he was created and could say he was maybe 30 years old. But he was created that way that same day. Does that make sense. Things in the universe were spoken into existence by Gods power as mature objects. So if it takes light say millions of years to travel to earth; God created it already on its way to earth in mid action just like Adams blood cells where traveling through his veins at the second he was created. So if you were to believe the Bible account none of this science would contradict it. I’m not trying to make you believe this to be the truth but want to know myself if this bible account were true would it be an accurate possibility given the science you know? Sorry if this is wasting your time i have learned a lot from this site already thanks for that..

      • stevebee92653 said,

        The tree would not exist without a conscious observer. What you need to understand is that everything that exists does so in our perception, not in reality.Light is not real. It’s what you perceive in a completely dark area of your brain. The sound of the tree exists in a completely quiet area of you brain as well, if you observed the fall. I made a second vid on the subject that may explain it a bit better for you. It’s just how things work. It’s pure physiology, nothing else. It’s not metaphysics or any spiritual nonsense. Everything you see and hear, and touch and smell and taste is pure illusion. Pure perception. A completely ingenious system, ingenious beyond belief. Not something that animals killing other animals and mistakes in the genetic code could conjure.
        As far as your question about the first man, I go with what the fossil record shows. Species suddenly appearing, then remaining to become modern species, or going extinct. Or vanishing if you will. I keep things on a purely objective and scientific vein, and am not interested in religion. But there is no doubt in my mind that there is an immense intelligence in nature. It’s just not scientifically findable for mankind. Yet. But the results and evidence of the intelligence are overwhelming. DNA and the genetic code are all that are needed to kill of the notion of evolution.

  19. myobf said,

    G’Day Steve good work on your site! Very thought provoking! On your tree and forrest position …does that mean that if Helen Keller (or someone with none of the physical senses) bumped into a tree injuring herself or walked under a falling tree and was killed that that would just be perception or physiology doing that to her/them because they were not conscious observers under the strictest definition? Just curious ;-)) Again thank you for all your time and effort in putting this stuff together. Cheers Rob

    • stevebee92653 said,

      G’day myobf. Assuming Helen was the only CO in the universe, you would have to tell me what Helen perceived. If she died, the tree goes. So does the universe.

      • myobf said,

        Got it! Another brain teaser for you and anyone. Does the Universe end? If so, what’s on the other side of it? If not, then one can assume that it had no beginning either. If no beginning and no end (hard for mere mortals to comprehend) then it is eternal. We see and experience time only because we age and die. The universe cannot be dated and does not die, therefore is not governed by time. From our mortal perspective we cannot therefore comprehend the eternities. Imagine that …a CO that cannot fathom the far reaches and beginnings of their own existence. Two things I do know are that the universe is made up of order and chaos. Since chaos has not overrun order that leaves me to assume that order is governed, controlled and ruled …by whom? Simple …Eternal Beings or Eternal CO’S ;-))

        “Man has learned from his futile attempts to fathom the primary causes of the phenomena of nature that his powers of comprehension are limited and even he will admit that to deny an effect because of his inability to elucidate its cause would be to forfeit his claims as an observing and reasoning being”. Author James E Talmage

      • stevebee92653 said,

        I like the quote. Of course the universe will end when conscious observation ends. So it cannot be infinite. Of course if the universe was infinitely old, it couldn’t age, as infinity+1,000,000=infinity.

      • myobf said,

        Only if the CO’s are eternal …then so is the universe …it would be never ending ;-) We just need to figure out our relationship to them?

  20. Mohammad Naim said,

    Steve , you need to find a way to get this out there, too many people believe the lie of evolution. This blog you have written is beyond amazing. The thoughts that flow from your mind on this page are genius. You are one of a kind. People like you give me hope.There are other creationists out there but they are heavily outnumbered. and the rest of the morons think that because you believe in creation, you must be religious. I dont even like that word creationism. Mutations and natural selection isnt the answer. They just can realize this. As a young person, i get really depressed when i see older people spouting the bs of evolution so passionately. Makes me loose hope in the brain power of humans. Unfortunately many people dont sit down and ponder on such things the way people like me and you do. They just swallow whatever the science teacher shoves down their throat. It makes me any when i see these poor little fucks in the classroom being brainswashed. Anyway best of luck to you on your journey. You are da man STEVE

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks for the great comment. Evolution is the greatest hoax in scientific history and if we don’t speak up, it will remain being shoved down the brains of young students. I have a book coming out in a couple of months, so hopefully I can reach more people. The book will be noted on this site as soon as it’s done.

  21. Imad Marie said,

    Great blog, thanks for the valuable information,

    But what about human evolution? Are there not fossils that demonstrate human evolution from earlier ancestors? Evolution that happened to both appearance and intelligence.

    In my view, natural selection is a myth, and evolution is the miracle of the “Intelligent Designer”,

    Looking forward to reading your book :)

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Anyone can take pictures of fossils, and glue their pictures on a board, and say one lead to another. That’s not science, but doing that fools a lot of people. It’s also a distraction from evolution’s real problems: The invention of biological systems. RM and NS cannot do that, so the argument from evo-illusionists is always “change”, which has nothing to do with originating complex systems. Evolution can’t even make a simple tube (blood vessel, duct). Try to figure slow steps in making a tube, and you, me, and any evolution believer will be instantly stuck. There’s not even a good fable that anyone can come up with.

  22. albarrs said,

    This debate over walking upright is more a diversion from the real discussion rather than germaine to Modern Humans and other bipedal hominids. Consider this… There is and never was any DNA connection between Modern Humans and ancient bipedal hominids claimed to be our ancestors. All evolutionary discussion and claims are simply based on nothing more than speculation…guesses, not evidence and not facts. The only DNA collected so far of any ancient bipedal hominid has been Neanderthal DNA and it has not matched Modern Human DNA. True some self-serving evolutionists try to claim that “it is close”, but this isn’t horseshoes, it’s life and the true history of life. ALL DNA is close because it is the building blocks of every living thing…animals and plants. Neanderthal was the end population perhaps of all the ancient bipedal hominids discovered fossil fragments, but no DNA has been found of any of them except Neanderthal and they, although they lived as contemporaries of Modern Humans until some 30,000 years ago is more proof that Neanderthal and that species’ ancestors are just that ancestors of animals that walked on two feet, just like birds and some bipedal dinosaurs, which doesn’t make them Humans and certainly not Modern Human cousins. Now, that leaves the discussion of who Modern Humans are, where did they, we, come from, when did they appear on earth and how did they end up on earth in the first place when only Modern Humans needed hybridized animals and plants to survive on earth, since they could never successfully eat the same animals and plants ancient bipedal hominids and all other animals, birds and fish on earth eat. Hybridization take hundreds and even thousands of years to produce end products needed to survive. Modern Humans didn’t have thousands of years to do scientific research and development to create foods their stomachs could tolerate and thrive on. So, where did hybridization come from? Let’s debate hybridization…

    • stevebee92653 said,

      That is a great thought. There are so many human food sources that cannot survive without human farming. Were early humans intelligent enough to make your ‘hybrids”? Where did they come from? That alone makes an incredible puzzle. Does one ever walk along in nature and see wild lettuce plants?

  23. Patrick Evans said,

    How is the book coming? Huge fan of your work! Thanks for continuing the fight against the flat earth scientists!

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks for the ask! The book is in final editing with the publisher, so it should be pretty soon…30 days or so. Isn’t it interesting that the ones who always rag on the flat earth idea ARE the flat earthers? Great comparison.

  24. Patrick Evans said,

    Thanks! I was very lucky to find your site as I have believed in the ideas you have studied. Your information has solidified my opinions so I am very grateful. I hope that some of the mainstream folks actually look at some of your data.

  25. AbraKadabra said,

    I came across this post on a forum and it seems to highlight another problem with the theory of evolution.

    I’d like to hear your views on the second paragraph of the post, perhaps you can write another article on your website if you think it poses a problem to the theory of evolution. I also have a question, is it possible for every sex cell / gamete to have the same mutation?

    Looking forward to reading your book.

    “Behind all the glorious evolution propaganda lies a major issue, where do the genes originally come from. Most evolution people will spout off about Darwin, all Darwin basiclly said was those with the better genes survive, and carry those genes on hence evolving. However where do these genes actually start that causes this differentiation?

    The only answer science has been able to come up with is mutations in the dna of sex cells. The average human is estimated to only have 4 sex cells in their lifetime that contain mutated dna. Of this amount, there is an 80 percent likelihood the trait will be in the section of the dna thats considered junk, or doesnt have any effects on offspring. Of the remaining 20 percent usefull dna, there is a higher chance the mutation will be negative as opposed to positive. So some of those freak diseases you hear of where like only 3 people in human history are known to have, yea that might be one of these freak negative mutations. So, based on what Ive seen a human would be lucky if they had one sex cell with a positive dna variation in their lifetime. Mind you this single sex cell of the billions you produce would have to be the one that actually creates a child. Even if by some miracle this happens, that child would also have to pass the trait on which perhaps may only have 10-30 percent chance of doing so depending on what the trait is (dominant/recessive). Now perhaps, over many many years this freak system I described above actually is responsible. Then what?

    Well, if its true, then that means everything around you from your eye, to the tree outside, to fish in the seas is because of ERRORS. Mutations are errors, they are changes in the dna code that arent supposed to happen. When you produce sex cells the dna is a randomized combination of the genes of your parents. Therefore a child is essentially a randomized combination of their 4 grandparents. But, mutations are genetic traits that arent found in the family, the dna is assembled incorrectly leading to a trait that none of the grandparents have.

    Now perhaps there is some far chance that this entire life on earth is nothing more then one huge pile of errors over billions of years. But athiests need to ask themselves, doesnt such an ackward system need alittle faith? Yet another reason im agnostic leaning on the higher power side.”

    • albarrs said,

      To AbraKadabra;
      Darwin didn’t “just say” that the stronger survive; he said that species transforms into a wholly new species, but we know that two different species cannot procreate. And there has never been found in fossil form or live form any transitional species! Glad you are leaning on the higher power side too. How can mutations occur Simultaneity, since they only occur thousands of years apart and a living creature may never experience one personally, to create a male, a female, an egg, sperm which when combined at one moment in history produces a similar living life form? That can’t occur accidentally as you implied, it must take some higher much more intelligent power to create the conditions, place, life support system and then the new life form. We don’t know who the creator or “God” is, but mutations, which are almost always not positive, created all life form on Earth, or everywhere else for that matter. Vegetables are created from seed…eggs…animals are created from eggs…seed. Optimistic modern humans have “faith” because we don’t have the high level of intelligence about the Universe, Solar System, Earth and life forms needed to understand and believe how living life is created…maybe one day we will, but we are doing better. We are much more intelligent today about life than we were as a species say 100 years ago, keeping in mind that the Universe, Solar System, Earth and Earth life forms have been around for a very long time developing hopefully higher levels of technical knowledge and skill. DNA is nothing more than a code that makes up living beings, very much akin to computer binary codes…
      ###

      • Kent Perry said,

        That’s another word, like the word “God” or hehe worse “JESUS” (oh they just hate that one) the darwits of atheism have made a no no to admit. They reach for some of the most ridiculous alternative words to describe what they MUST do to believe in such an outrageous set of beliefs they claim is “The Fact of Evolution”. As you hear Doctor Eugenie Scott so often say, Quote:” Oh there is no argument that evolution happened”. This is the same science community now using the same tactics of obfuscation and semantics to argue man made global warming is a fact. Meanwhile, they are trying to embed their philosophy into the medical sciences and Doctors are getting pretty angry about it because it simply is NOT necessary. Biology does not need evolution. But so often we will hear them deride us as having no appreciation of science whatsoever, bringing up all the modern conveniences REAL science has come up with including the computer I am using to send this message etc etc blah blah blah blow it out your ass atheist. As if nothing would ever be invented without first believing we evolved in what regression suggests we all share a common ancestor with a rock pulverized into stardust (magic dust) .

        I have to quote you here however when you said:

        “DNA is nothing more than a code that makes up living beings, very much akin to computer binary codes”

        Nothing more?? You DO realize that “code” you are talking about is “Digital” yes? Not analog but digital. Explain THAT one without having to rely on words and descriptions that denote a metaphysical cause and origin or programmer. The hardware being a blank DVD for example weighs the same as one containing the library of congress.

        The one containing the data the computer can then read and transfer to the illustrations (ideas ) or even manufactured using a 3D printer is what separates evolutionists and ID or creationists. One can not ignore the that code not only couldn’t have happened by accident but because it is digital, PROVES, a logical mind or personality of some kind CREATED IT. There is no escaping that fact.and any attempt to do so, is motivated by those who simply refuse to acknowledge their may exist out there,, something MUCH MUCH bigger than anything science braves to discover. A story so HUGE,it would turn everything they have been taught,on its head and yet they say their is no physical evidence of such a being.

        Well, if God created the atom and all physical matter in the universe, what physical matter, would they have,as evidence to compare it to? They wouldn’t have any. In fact, they wouldn’t even know what physical matter NOT made by God, even looks like, much-less what it doesn’t. But here we have DNA looking at them quite literally Right in the eye.as it has created the eye and everything else required to live and breath and think.etc,.

        Yet they say it is just a simple molecule. Yeah sure it is.

        A molecule that has a God

        written all over it. .

  26. Imad Marie said,

    Hi,
    Why was the kindle version removed from Amazon?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Sorry. Since it was just introduced last week, it may take Amazon a while to put it on permanently. I do have some edits that will be completed next week, so maybe they are waiting for those? I will try to find out and get back to you.

  27. mamasemamasamamakusa said,

    Hi steve ;-)

    A regular here. I enjoy your blog like no other. I came across a site that [supposedly] debunks every anti-evo argument.

    http://www.forumforpages.com/facebook/atheist-republic/beating-the-dead-horse-debunked-disproved-discredited-arguments-against-evolution-that-creationists-repeat/4211133042/0

    I love how they skip over complexities required for their plausibilities. A man can walk through walls if Peer Review approves it (’cause it obviously happened over MY).

    All the way from S. Africa

    Phinithi

    • Kent Perry said,

      I read the list and it is typical of the Genus ‘Darwit” to give so called creationist replies, we never make. MOST of their snide, snarky juvey toned, cookie cutter copy pasted quotes.come from websites affirming their silly belief. Talk origins is the most popular and the one most in need of updating since almost everything on it is old and much of the theory has been totally revamped (AGAIN)

      EXAMPLE: In the following quote,he employs the typical slight of hand we have all seen so much and so often used, that it makes me yawn every-time they resort to this tactic. It’s called “equivocation”.

      Quote:”A-Evolutionary processes, in the form of populations changing their genetic composition from generation to generation, have been observed in different scientific contexts, including the evolution of fruit flies, mice, and bacteria in the laboratory, and of tilapia in the field. Nylon-eating bacteria are a strain of Flavobacterium that is capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture (These substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935)”
      //end quote

      .
      The first thing he does is sets up a straw-man by telling the reader that CREATIONIST say evolution has never been observed. Then he follows that by stretching the “ever so elastic” meaning of evolution, to fit over examples that are tantamount to the evolution observed when getting a sun tan and saying, see,,this thing acquired a taste for nylon so evolution is true. Then he lists FRUIT FLIES! After all these years of radiating these fruit flies and all they have ever evolved into is some of the most pathetically deformed mutant flies you have ever seen, Some with legs growing out of their eyes, wings underneath their body instead of on top. They have all been flies that died of course. BUT THEY DID CHANGE! SO EVOLUTION HAPPENED! Yeah their genetic composition was changed alright but NOTHING NEW, NOVEL OR BENEFICIAL Much less any fixed morphological changes have ever been observed, which is of course the exact KIND or TYPE or version of evolution, creationists are talking about.so this so called answer should be in a skeptics list of answers evolutionists offer when they don’t have the answer.. In fact EVERY SINGLE example of macro type evolution talk origins illustrates as same, has been debunked as nothing more than adaptation and variation.

      They think it AMAZING bacteria find a way to eat nylon but knowing what we know now about the way bacteria re-engineers its own digestive processes so that it CAN do things like that, it is no surprise to us when it does. I mean seriously think about what bacteria does, what its job is as the planets garbage eaters. They say they KNOW it has evolved because NYLON is “MAN MADE” as if that is some thread stunner. But you see, NYLON wasn’t always around, so it had to “evolve” in order to utilize it as a food source. Mmmm really,, what about the stuff nylon is made from? You know,, stuff like CORN? Yeah, I suppose this is why we can’t eat popcorn because it is “Man Made”. I mean the average critical thinker can see right through this baloney,

      Talk about beating a dead horse! The guy actually attempts to claim the archaeopteryx as an example of change over time.

      First of all, NO FOSSIL can prove such a change happened, NONE. All a fossil proves is they found a dead animal many times it is extinct. BUT this particular one WAS proven a hoax not just once BUT three times and because they found one they couldn’t figure out who put the feather indents into the fossil as was found out with the others,, doesn’t mean the thing had feathers, All it means is they couldn’t PROVE this was a hoax but going by the many others coming out of china, the odds are pretty good it was a manufactured faux fossil. At any rate, it is not reliable anymore and this moron that wrote that paper, loses again.

      When ever we ask the question how life evolved, the Darwits evade the question like the plague and reprimand us for not understanding evolution and that “IT” doesn’t address questions of “a-bio-genesis” !
      Evolution only explains how life forms evolved after life began. .

      Yeah,, seriously,,we see the circular reasoning in that one right from the start these idiots invoke evolution using natural selection as an evolutionary starting point. Sorry,, that dog won’t hunt.

      As if WE give a rats ass what evolutionists can’t answer anymore.

      They have no answers for any of our questions much less those they have constructed an entirely separate philosophy of science just to defer that question as it exposes the theory to the very scrutiny which has debunked it in the past and another reason for creating this new branch of science called a-bio-genesis.

      I was very involved in the debates back when the movement to merge the meaning of macro and micro evolution was going on. There was a lot of objection to this and many other meanings of words in the science vernacular that these so called scientists have made so vague and so elastic, they can call anything a new species but take the word “KIND” and they completely lose any and all recollection of what that word means in the context of the animal kingdom. It’s quite humorous to see them quoted using the word so many times in the past but as soon as someone like Ray Comfort uses it in a video to debunk evolution,, they become unhinged as to what it means,, this, this word, Kinds!,, What is that ?? Kinds is no scientific word??.

      I actually busted one them saying, “What kind of word is “kind””?

      Darwits,,, hehe never ceasing to find ways to look so stupid and evolution,, is STUPID

  28. Kent Perry said,

    Steve,, I was reading the many emails you and I had shared mulling over the idea for you writing a book, an idea I believed would offer everyone a template as to how to approach these people and their religion of evolution
    The kind of questions to ask and to always be trying to debunk what science calls a fact because it is never a fact, ESPECIALLY regarding the philosophy of evolution, which changes so often and always they are changes NOT to give us more clear answers that give us a sharper image of the facts already discovered but to cover their own asses of so many of the hoax’s and frauds and lies that have become the staple stigma for biologists paleontologists and geologists who would have been better served, telling the neo atheists to SHUT UP and quit assuming you are all scientists merely by virtue of your atheism.

    You were surprised that I knew your wife would be so encouraging if you asked her what she thought. I know she is very proud of her Husband and I am so happy and proud of you too. I know darwits will be reading it attacking all the wrong things and missing the entire point or as they do so often these days, telling us we are “asking the wrong question”. That one slays me lol.

    May I help promote the Book Steve?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I remember the night we discussed my writing a book. My wife was sitting at her computer, and you both were encouraging the book. So I wrote. I thought I would write 75 pages, and that would be it. I wrote on Microsoft Word. I wanted under 300 pages, and I wound up with just that on Word. I was amazed at how much I could write. Then I found out that one page of Word = two pages of a 6″x9″ book! I wrote 600 pages! So I spent six months cutting the 600 down to 285, where it is now. I have enough for a second book if I get the notion, and sell enough of Evo-illusion.
      Anyway, I really like my book, which sounds strange. But I like my own read, which I think is a pretty good sign. The publisher was supposed to send me an actual book so I could go over it before they placed it on Amazon and Barnes and Noble. They goofed, and put it on before I got the sample copy. I had about sixty changes I wanted to have done, so it’s online but still needs correcting. Not much, really. Most readers wouldn’t see any of the needed corrections, but the new version will be better. I would like to send you a signed copy when I do finally get the finished product, which should be an a week or ten days or so. And, sure! I would love your help in promoting That would be great! I haven’t given promotion much thought yet. I want the book to be a perfect as it can be first.
      Before you decide to promote I’m sure you will want to give it a read. I have confidence you will like what you see. I sure hope so, at any rate.
      I’ll get back to you when I get the final version. Thanks for the write! And good hearing from you.
      Steve

  29. John Torday said,

    Steve, I note that you cited our paper Torday JS, Rehan VK. Deconvoluting lung evolution using functional/comparative
    genomics. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2004 Jul;31(1):8-12., in which we acknowledged that we are a long way from understanding the process by which the lung evolved. The point of the paper was to demonstrate that cell biology is absent from the evolution literature, and can be exploited to trace the evolution of the lung back to its origins using ontogeny and phylogeny as guideposts. We may never know our origins, but we must continue to strive in that effort if we are to move away from fear and uncertainty towards knowledge and power over our fate. Evolution is existential, and is the mechanism by which we have been granted the Free Will of inquiry. If only folks like you would work towards the continued gaining knowledge and fostering inquiry we would all be the better for it. We went through the Luddite phase of human history, riding on the momentum of The Enlightenment. Must we re-learn that lesson? I guess so. jst

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Hi John. Thanks for commenting on my blog. I feel honored that you would take the time. Reality is that there is no possible or even imaginary pathway to the evolution of ANY biological system of any kind. Evolution can’t even account for the formation of a simple blood vessel or pulmonary alveoli. All papers (like yours) on the subject of the evolution of any biological system are replete with anatomy, biochemistry, physiology; but not one can explain any evolutionary pathway whatsoever. If you can’t explain the pathway to a lung micro-sac, how can you ever explain a lung? And the blood vessels that inundate the lung? You say you are modern science, and obviously think I am calling for a reversal to the dark days of ignorance. These ARE actually the dark days of ignorance. We humans have no idea what the source of any biological system is, so our lifeboat is evolution. Science is stuck in this lifeboat. Good science should say that mankind just isn’t even in the ballpark here. We should continue a search certainly. Evolution has ceased that search. All writings (like yours) and and all research are geared to PROVE evolution, not to SEARCH the truth or TEST evolution. Your paper’s conclusion is actually scientifically very correct, except for the part where you assign evolution as the creator of the lung. We humans have no idea how lungs came to be. We both know that to be fact. When you can explain the formation of the lung, (and vision, and hearing, and consciousness/intelligence, and bird flight…)THEN make the theory. Until then, humans have no theory. They have a fable.

      • John Torday said,

        Hi Steve, I fully agree with you that traditional Darwinist mutation and selection cannot explain evolution. However, the approach I have advocated in Evolutionary Biology, Cell-Cell Communication and Complex Disease (Wiley, 2012; Amazon.com) provides a portal for understanding the evolution of complex physiology starting with unicellular organisms. Bear in mind that there is no (underlined) cell biology in all of evolution theory, so how could the current state of that discipline possibly be relevant to all the other cell-based biologic disciplines. The ‘fossil record’ is buried in the cell signaling mechanisms responsible for multicellular organisms, but of course they are not evident in the physical fossils. That’s why the molecular clocks invariably point to much earlier stages in phylogeny than the boney fossils do, for example. I am trying to pave the way to a working model of evolution. John

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Hi John
        I wish you luck in your research. Sincerely. I really wish evolution were the answer, as it’s so simple and basic. It was a great answer for me for many years. I was a staunch supporter and fan. Of course you know I have a preconceived notion about the outcome of your research. From my studies, thoughts, and observations, evolution isn’t even in the mix as a source for the origin of biological systems and species. The biggest problem is not “design” as is touted and argued by evolution science. It’s invention: the bringing into existence of incredibly complex entities (like auditory systems, brains, consciousness, and cardiopulmonary systems) AND comparatively simplistic entities (like eukaryotic cells, bird nests, and tubes) on an absolutely sterile planet. Improvement in design is dwarfed by origination of design.
        I would like to read your book, but why so expensive? Mine is 265 pages, and sells on Amazon for $15.
        I would like to forward you one as my gift if you think you would give it a read. It is very different than my blog, and has a lot of new thoughts and material. Evo-illusion has chapters that deal with the origin of cells, the first multicellular organisms, and why they are evidence that evolution cannot be the source.
        It’s not religious in the least, nor am I. So it isn’t the creationist material that every evolution supporter expects. I would like to get an intelligent critique, and I think I could expect one from you; if you think you might have the time, and interest.
        Thanks for the reply
        Steve

      • John Torday said,

        Steve, the price of my book was determined by the publisher. Please send me your book and I will read and comment. I will send you mine by email as an attachment. What’s your email address? John

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Great. I will look forward to reading yours. And your critique of mine. My email address is stevetblume@gmail.com. I just updated my book, so I will get copies in about a week. I should be able to get your address off your website?

  30. Shaun Johnston said,

    Steve, I’m delighted to find your site. Yet, though I’ve read a lot, I still don’t know if what you object to is evolution, or just the mechanism genetic mutation and natural selection (my position). I can’t find out from your site, maybe I didn’t look long enough.

    I’m an active anti-darwinist–just posted a brief Darwin impersonation. Link at evolvedself.com. I’d like to know if you enjoy it , and communicate if you do. Well, even if you don’t.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I love your stuff. We are very close in our thinking and philosophy. You are an atheist who did some independent thinking and observation. You have realized, like I did, that evolution is pure hoax. I am sure you think, as I do that evolution can’t account for even the simplest of biological systems. Not even a tube (blood vessel, duct).
      I was an avid evolution fan for many years…ever since college. I made a trip to the Field museum in Chicago in 2002 where I saw there was absolutely no evolution in the fossil record. I walked away severely disappointed. I was expecting to see an immense amount of new fossils that surely proved Darwin to be right. There wasn’t any. I went home and started researching the subject on pro-evo websites. The more I looked, the more disappointed I was. The more fakery I saw. So that started my blog, which I used to keep track of my findings. Of course videos followed, and the book.
      I am amazed that you are Brit, and still were able to think on your own. Group psychology plays such an overwhelming part of this fake science, and it’s very hard to fend off. Group thought usually trumps individual thinking.
      As far as my religious beliefs, I don’t like labels. There is really too much information to stuff yourself into the small box composed of a single term. Like atheist or agnostic. If forced, I tell people I am a non-religious non-atheist. I cannot call myself an atheist, because I am thoroughly convinced that there is an overwhelming intelligence in the universe that is way beyond humanity’s ability to comprehend. Whatever that intelligence is, it sure doesn’t deal with our daily lives, nor “care” whether or not we bow down and worship every Sunday. I like the notion that if you talk to god you are praying, but if god talks to you you’re a schizophrenic.
      I really enjoyed your one act play/trailer. You are a true thespian. VERY well done, and VERY original. Great idea. Some of your stuff is right out of my book. I describe how cells first came to be on this Earth. Common sense and thinking using the “laws of biology” will produce a pretty good picture about what might and might not have occurred when life began. Actually the “could not have happened” is the easy subject. How it DID happen is beyond our abilities right now.
      Again, thanks for the visit. I hope you stay in touch. It’s so nice to see a real thinker out there.
      Regards
      Steve

      • shaun2000 said,

        Yes, I think we have followed a very similar path. I trained in biochemistry, was a convinced darwinist until my 50s, when I began writing books about evolution (including two novels) and found darwinism breaking under the strain.

        You don’t provide labels for yourself, so I’ll come up with some. From your finding order in the material universe as well as in nature I label you a pantheist. There we part: I am a vitalist–I identify intelligence only in the products of evolution. You rail against evolution, but I can think of only two terms fitting the observation that species of living creatures first appear where the species most like them already exist–creation, and evolution. I think you’re not a creationist, so I label you an evolutionist, I assume you say you’re not because you disagree with how other evolutionists claim evolution works. There we would be as one–I am an evolutionist too. You are uncertain whether to regard the intelligence you see in nature as supernatural, there again we part. I am convinced that the intelligence I see in nature is no more supernatural than my own. I am a convinced atheist.

        “I describe how cells first came to be on this Earth.” I missed that on your site. Do you think they came from outside the Earth? That would be another difference between us, I think evolution began here. Or do you have a theory how the first cells evolved?

        “Common sense and thinking using the ‘laws of biology’ will produce a pretty good picture about what might and might not have occurred when life began.” What are the laws of biology? Can I see them listed on your site?

        “Actually the ‘could not have happened’ is the easy subject. How it DID happen is beyond our abilities right now.” Sometimes I can tell who you disagree with, here I’m not sure. Who’s opinion are you disagreeing with?

        Interesting you mention, “…not a tube.” Someone did suggest how tubes could develop into branching systems etc with very simply specifications? http://www.takeondarwin.com/index.php/outsider-evolution/86–stuart-pivar?catid=21%3Aevolution-outsiders-modern.

        Here’s where I am. I’ve given up trying to address evolutionists, they’re entirely uninterested in challenges from the outside, totally defended against anything that could conceivably be the thin end of a wedge for creationism, and that’s everything except materialism and darwinism itself. Instead I’m trying to engage the attention of non-scientists. There, I’ve found that no one who’s not a darwinist is interested in arguments against darwinism unless you can offer them an alternative. And other non-darwinists, like you and me, are not much interested in each other’s ideas–and I have a lot of experience here, I’ve found myself very resistant to the opinions of other anti-darwinists. How about you? You can expect to find me as interested in your views as you are in mine. Let’s face it, our focus is going to be primarily on converting others to our views, not sharing our views with each other. There’s not enough of us to make a mission out of.

        Anyway, I came up with an alternative to darwinism, so if people say, so what’s the alternative, I can give an answer. But it’s not a very good answer, I call it an “as if” theory. Nature works “as if” my theory is true, though according to physics my theory can’t work. I present it as a stand-in for the real theory, yet to be discovered. I have Galileo come up with this theory in my play.

        Currently I’m hypothesizing an alternative by referring to natural selection as a metaphor, the extension to nature by Darwin of the human process of trial and error. Then I explain how it broke down after his death. Then, when it was reactivated by making genetic mutation a source of variation, that doesn’t make the metaphor work either. By referring to dawinism as a metaphor, I think I can make more points with non-scientists. They’re not happy arguing about science, but metaphors they understand. I’m trying to work that up into an article I’ll offer Philosophy Now magazine.

        For me the issues are, what does one want to achieve? Do I want to change the minds of scientists? Not primarily. I want to convince regular people that evolution is much too wonderful for darwinism to be its mechanism, we’ve much more to expect from understanding evolution than darwinism can deliver. So I should address them, and in their language. Then, what is my message? Is it, darwinism is flawed, as science? My message is not that, it’s, one should guard against darwinism because it’s not only bad science, it’s corrosive of culture, it’s a modern barbarism, and we should regulate it from the outside, just as we did over eugenics. We didn’t have to argue about science to get evolutionists to stop promoting eugenics, we just said, “Stop it.” And they did. If I can persuade enough people that darwinism is evil, maybe they’ll just insist it be dropped, at least from the school curriculum.

        I’m interested in how you’d answer these questions: What do you want to achieve? What message would best express that purpose and be best designed to achieve it? Who would you address that message to? What’s the best means of delivering it to that audience?

        Well, are we within spitting distance of each other?

        Cheers, Shaun Johnston

      • John Torday said,

        Shaun, just thought I would chime in with the geeky scientist perspective fwiw. I stumbled into evolution theory about 15 years ago when I started to look at the evolutionary developmental biology, or EvoDevo literature. As a working molecular embryologist interested in the development of physiologic principles, I assumed that the evolutionists were doing the kinds of experiments that we do, i.e. pulling genes out or putting them in to mice to see if they are functionally relevant, only to discover that the evolutionists are totally uninterested in genetic modification other than as random point mutations, in combination with natural selection.
        Turns out that the game changer in modern biology, the advent of cell biology, is totally absent from the evolution literature. That’s a huge problem in finding common ground between evolutionary biology and all the other biologic disciplines, and explains the disconnect. It is a reflection of the archaic, non-hypothesis testing nature of evolutionary biology. As a result, I have written 15 peer-reviewed papers and a book, entitled Evolutionary Biology, Cell-Cell Communication and Complex Disease (Wiley Publishing, 2012) that demonstrate how cellular/molecular mechanisms of development and phylogeny can be organized in a way that explains the evolution of the vertebrate visceral organs, going all the way back to their homologous origins in the cell membrane of unicellular organisms.

        It is critically important that we devise testable hypotheses to prove or disprove evolution as a process. It is because of the lack of such scientific rigor that creationism and Intelligent Design have any credence whatsoever, in my opinion- one good Just So Story is as good as another. However, if reasonable people are provided with scientifically sound evidence, they will at least consider the possibilities. We need such data because we are using the wrong paradigm in contemporary biology and medicine, resulting in the failure of the Human Genome’s promise to cure diseases such as heart attack, stroke, diabetes and obesity. By continuing to use the same old same old pathophysiologic model of health and disease, all the genes in the world won’t solve the puzzles of such diseases.

      • shaun2000 said,

        Steve, my long post seems mean-spirited now. I’m sorry if it seemed so. I have ordered your book.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Shaun
        This is my reply to your “mean spirited” comment. I didn’t take it that way at all. If you want to see mean spirited, take a glance at http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/why-stevebee-is-wrong-t14136.html
        Just a few comments on yours:
        Taking biochemistry as you did must have made you realize that evolution’s slow microsteps could not have initiated and assembled the Krebs cycle, Calvin cycle, photosynthesis, protein synthesis… There simply is no possible evolutionary explanation for these and really all of biochemistry. Chirality alone eliminates evolution as the “source”.
        RE:I label you a pantheist.
        That is pretty close. Einstein and me. :-D
        RE: I can think of only two terms fitting the observation that species of living creatures first appear where the species most like them already exist–creation, and evolution.
        The only difference between “creationism” and “evolution” is the speed. Evolution is credited with the same miracles as is a religious god. One did it in hundreds of millions of years, which is absurd, and the other in a week, which is absurd. There is no evidence for either notion. The fossil record shows species appearing suddenly but at different times with no precursors, then either vanishing or still existing in the modern world.
        RE: …the intelligence I see in nature is no more supernatural than my own.
        Actually it’s vastly superior to “your own”, and mine, and every human who ever lived. Do you actually think an entity with your or my or any human’s intelligence level could have come up with protein synthesis, consciousness, the human brain, auditory system, cardiopulmonary system…. from “nothing” on a sterile Earth? “Supernatural” is an absurd term with no real meaning. Whatever the intelligence is, it’s vastly superior to anything we know of, but it is also certainly part of the universe, aka nature.
        RE: Or do you have a theory how the first cells evolved?
        They didn’t show up from outside the Earth because there would still be a source puzzle. How did they arise on another planet? And of course living cells couldn’t survive the voyage. No, I have no theory. The one proposed by evolution/abiogenesis is an absurdity. Why not just admit they have no idea.
        RE: What are the laws of biology? Can I see them listed on your site?
        There are no formal laws. I say “laws of biology” in quotes because there are certain fixed parameters that all cells must follow. They must divide, or they will die in days or months. They must find nutrition, and a way to metabolize that nutrition. They can live only a very short time. A year is very long lifespan for cells. They require certain environments in which to live. They can travel very limited distances, and only under certain limited circumstances. Those are the “laws” I speak of.
        RE: Someone did suggest how tubes could develop into branching systems etc with very simple specifications.
        “Did suggest” is enough to kill the person’s suggestion. There is no possible series of events imaginable that could form even a single tube or sac.
        RE: I present it as a stand-in for the real theory, yet to be discovered.
        We certainly agree here. “Yet to be discovered” is where humanity is right now.
        RE: What do you want to achieve? What message would best express that purpose and be best designed to achieve it? Who would you address that message to?
        My goal: Evolution not being taught in children’s science classrooms as if it’s the scientific answer to the source of all species and biological systems. My grandson is in the 7th grade. His biology book has two chapters on how evolution made “us”. If adults want to believe selected random mutations made everything in living nature it’s fine with me. But indoctrinating children to believe is no different than Muslims or Christians forcing their religious beliefs on children in a science classroom. In reality, the only way to change school curriculum is to convince the teachers and adults that interplay with children/students. What should be taught is what we know. The stasis in the fossil record, humanities’ lack of any idea about how biological systems formed, how life came to be, how cells first formed, how intelligence and consciousness formed… Let students come to their own conclusions. Most will see that we don’t have any answers at this point, which is good science.
        RE: Well, are we within spitting distance of each other?
        I think so. No matter what, you are an intelligent and reasoned person to discuss this stuff with, which is rare among evolution believers. As you know.

        Cheers, Steve

      • evolve5 said,

        Steve, yes, I think we are in considerable agreement.

        Thank you for your comment below my video. Such mentions help a lot, as you know. As do book purchases on Amazon. I made a purchase to help raise your ranking a notch.

        You didn’t feel my response was mean-spirited? Well, it was. I was maddened by how difficult it was to find out from your site what you thought, and what you were doing about it. Advice from a visitor: Imagine someone coming to your site, say a ballet dancer wanting an explanation for how fast her wounds healed, or me wanting to know how your ideas differed from mine, and experience your own site as we do, from the top of the page, then the menu at right. You write at tremendous length about how outraged you are, without distinguishing major points from minor, then face us with dozens more pages inscruably titled, the only offer of information about your views being exercises we have to take in order to arrive at them ourselves. Does that give you some idea why I was exasperated? How I wished for a single page of bullet points! This is what I think. This is what I want to have happen. This is what you should do about it. OK, got that off my chest.

        I agree with you–what’s critical is getting darwinism out of the school science curriculum. Problem–how to achieve that? Who do we have to persuade? Through what channels do we have to work? And what’s the message? I’d like to discuss how to do that with you.

        Was it you Susan Rosen of Miriam’s Well told me to look up? I looked up “Bloom” and found nothing, of course. In Brooklyn, she said? I’m only a couple of hours away. Care to meet? Chat in person might heklp us find more common cause than I feel like exploring in these public posts on your home page.

        For myself, briefly, my plan is to start a campaign among the public to supress teaching darwinism, just as public anger stopped eugenics. To persuade–Parents and educators. Channels–magazine articles and performances of my play. Message–the damage darwinism is doing to self-image and self-esteem. And, by the way, it’s bad science. Note that didn’t have to be proved to stop eugenics. The public just said, eugenics is not OK, stop. And it stopped. change won’t come from inside the scientific professions, I’ve concluded. I can see it come only through public pressure.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Actually you make a very good point. A few bullet points at the start of my blog will sure be helpful, and it is something I will do. When you open my blog in the next day or so you will see the change inspired by you. :-D The blog is way too much information to look through to determine what my point of view actually is. So thanks for the good constructive criticism.
        Also thanks for the purchase! I do really appreciate it. And I hope you enjoy the read.
        We are such tiny drops in a brewing storm. What muddles real scientific discussion is evolution’s battle with religion. The argument should be whether evolution/Darwin is valid or not. It shouldn’t be a debate and choice between Adam and Eve and australopithecines.
        I hope I can promote my book and do some kind of public speaking with lots of interplay and discussion. I really don’t know where or how as of yet. But that thought is on my mind. I just finished my book, so I really don’t know what my next step really is yet. I wish I could talk at schools, but I am sure I would be considered a heretic, and not even be able to get a foot in the door. I hope that changes. Your acting talents give you a great venue. Very thought provoking and entertaining as well. Again thanks for the great comment and critique.
        Steve

  31. shaun2000 said,

    John, sounds like there should be a revolution in biology.

    I hope we can keep our terms straight. You say you can trace evolution. But then you say we need to prove or disprove evolution as a process — don’t you here mean darwinism? Surely there’s no doubt living creatures evolved, in the sense they lead one to another in direct descent,by whatever mechanism.

    I have my reasons for opposing darwinisism, and they are partly for its baleful effects on our sense of self. What are the reasons for someone like you, a practicing microbiologist with methods that work? Do you think your field suffers for want of a believable overarching theory? Do you experience evolutionists as some sort of sinister brotherhood, a Brahmin class lording over you untouchables?

    My main familiarity with what you say is Shapiro’s Evolution in the 21st Century. He both criticizes darwinism and makes very provocative points. For example, he supposes the same processes are responsible for change in biological systems at the millisecond level and the billions of years. Wonderful! Now, what are those processes?

    “However, if reasonable people are provided with scientifically sound evidence, they will at least consider the possibilities. We need such data because we are using the wrong paradigm in contemporary biology and medicine,” Fascinating. What is the wrong paradigm? Do you mean mutation and natural selection, or something broader, perhaps the idea of evolution involving genes singly.?

    I’m curious. How do you account for the symmetrical and proportional development of a whale, over distances of up to 100 feet? In my young day I was told development was managed by chemical gradients inducing each other. Obviously they couldn’t survive the stirring going on in a whale swimming continuously for a year or so. What does maintain order in even such huge bodies? Could that operate to maintain order in flocks of birds of similar size? Well, of course not, physics prohibits it. But… How far can one speculate?

    I’d love to hear more from you, and speculate how we could find common cause.

    • John Torday said,

      Dear Shaun, I would like to respond by [bracketed replies] if that’s OK.

      I hope we can keep our terms straight. You say you can trace evolution. But then you say we need to prove or disprove evolution as a process — don’t you here mean darwinism? Surely there’s no doubt living creatures evolved, in the sense they lead one to another in direct descent,by whatever mechanism.

      [No doubt Evolution occurred. But w/o experimental evidence, it's Just So Stories. There must be science behind the alternative to creationism and Darwinism if we are to make progress. Moreover, by determining how and why Evolution has occured, that power can be harnessed for multiple purposes....I think of it like what Jared Diamond taught us in his book Collapse, why some societies have flourished while others have failed. We must learn from our (biologic) past if we are to survive, thrive and succeed as a species.]]

      I have my reasons for opposing darwinisism, and they are partly for its baleful effects on our sense of self. What are the reasons for someone like you, a practicing microbiologist [molecular physiologist/developmental biologist] with methods that work? Do you think your field suffers for want of a believable overarching theory? [Absolutely. W/O a central theory of biology, we continue telling anecdotal stories and depending on serendipity to make strides in science and medicine.] Do you experience evolutionists as some sort of sinister brotherhood, a Brahmin class lording over you untouchables? [Sort of. They're content with random mutation and selection as the explanation for Evolution, which is ridiculous in my humble opinion. By the way, there is no (really) cell biology in all of evolution theory, so of course there's no interrelationship between it and all the other biologic disciplines, which are based on cell theory.]

      My main familiarity with what you say is Shapiro’s Evolution in the 21st Century. He both criticizes darwinism and makes very provocative points. For example, he supposes the same processes are responsible for change in biological systems at the millisecond level and the billions of years. Wonderful! Now, what are those processes?

      [Starting with the eukaryotic cell, which evolved from bacteria, cell-cell cooperatively, homeostasis, etc, is the process.]

      “However, if reasonable people are provided with scientifically sound evidence, they will at least consider the possibilities. We need such data because we are using the wrong paradigm in contemporary biology and medicine,” Fascinating. What is the wrong paradigm? [Pathophysiology, which is a health/disease dichotomy....the same old same old].Do you mean mutation and natural selection,[ that too] or something broader, perhaps the idea of evolution involving genes singly.?[The notion that traits are based on single genes is silly, yet that's the natural extension of Darwinist evolution....that's gotta change.]

      I’m curious. How do you account for the symmetrical and proportional development of a whale, over distances of up to 100 feet? In my young day I was told development was managed by chemical gradients inducing each other. Obviously they couldn’t survive the stirring going on in a whale swimming continuously for a year or so. What does maintain order in even such huge bodies? Could that operate to maintain order in flocks of birds of similar size? Well, of course not, physics prohibits it. But… How far can one speculate?[Once homeostasis enters into the equation, complex physiology can be understood in an evolutionary context, from cells to social systems.]

      I’d love to hear more from you, and speculate how we could find common cause.

      [Hope this was helpful. If you have more questions, fire away.]

      • evolve5 said,

        I gathered your objections to the modern synthesis as the primary mechanism of evolution:

        Need for a better overarching theory. “W/O a central theory of biology, we continue telling anecdotal stories and depending on serendipity to make strides in science and medicine.”

        Evolutionists “are content with random mutation and selection as the explanation for Evolution, which is ridiculous in my humble opinion.”

        “The notion that traits are based on single genes is silly, yet that’s the natural extension of Darwinist evolution….that’s gotta change.”

        What processes are responsible for change in biological systems at the millisecond level and the billions of years? “Starting with the eukaryotic cell, which evolved from bacteria, cell-cell cooperatively, homeostasis, etc.

        I’m astonished that professional biologists can have such a litany and not have effected the downfall of so flawed a theory as darwinism (I use that term for the modern synthesis and its extensions, OK?). You make my litary of complaints sound amateurish. I am abashed to know there are people like you complaining about darwinism inside the profession. Obviously there’so need for outsiders like me to raise technical objections when you’re stating such trenchant opinions from your secure position inside.

        “We must learn from our (biologic) past if we are to survive, thrive and succeed as a species” Here your concerns are similar to mine, and my role of working among non-scientists may be helpful. You reinforce me in that strategy. I plan to perform a 90-minute play I’ve written to humanities students in my local colleges to raise these kinds of concerns among non-scientists with a concern for culture.

        So your post has helped me considerably.

        Is there any concerted movement to suppress darwinism inside the biology profession? Does it go by some particular term? Are there alternatives in development? I assume evo/devo is crucial but it gets called on to support darwinism, in my limited experience. Can you direct me to an article about this? have you published anything about it I could read?

        About use of the term “evolution.” My concern is, others could be confused if I think the same as you but I say I believe in evolution, in the sense of living species being found to appear where the species most like them already appear, which surely is not a just-so story, but you say you don’t believe in evolution because for you it’s associated with a just-so story (I assume you mean darwinism). Am I missing how the term evolution is used among professionals? Ah, from your further words I think you want to shed the term for its association with darwinism. Then, please, do tell me which term you prefer?

  32. evolve5 said,

    WordPress has made me both shaun2000 and evolve5. Both are shaun2000.

  33. John Torday said,

    Shaun, if you go to PubMed (entrez pubmed) you’ll find the 15 papers that I have published on the cellular/molecular approach to evolution. It shows the value of a cellular perspective, which is totally absent from the evolution literature (really, because of the history of evolution theory). I have also published a book, entitled Evolutionary Biology, Cell-Cell Communication and Complex Disease (Wiley, 2012; Amazon.com), with a sequel to be published in late 2014. Mind you, I am a heretic, because I don’t ascribe to Ernst Meyer’s ‘proximate and distal’ aspects of evolution, for example. Frankly I think that all of the evolution literature are epiphenomena resulting from descriptive biology. Once you delve into the mechanisms of embryology as they apply to phylogeny and take that time machine back to unicellular organisms, everything begins to line up, just like a prism does for light, unlike the kaleidoscopic associations we read in the evolution literature. Once we understand the mechanism of evolution we will look back on physiology as we now see it in the same way that Astronomers look back on Astrology, as laughable, and I am not being facetious here.

    Don’t hesitate to contact me if you want more Q&A….John

    • evolve5 said,

      John, I don’t have access to pubMed and I don’t have an account for buying textbooks. However, I do manage a site where I review books, and re-publish other people’s articles, with permission. I have two articles by Stanley Salthe, professor emeritus at Brooklyn College, and “The secret power of the single cell” by Brian J. Ford, as well as my reports on books by Gertude Himmelfarb, Gordon Rattray Taylor, and John Maynard Smith. I have written and published lengthy reviews of around two dozen books, including “Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation” and Robert Shapiro’s book (my review comes up halfway down page two in searches for his book). According to Google I don’t get much traffic but my server statistics credit Brian Ford’s article with 1791 visits, and my review of Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos with over 3000 visits in just over a year. An article of mine challenging an official NAS book on evolution for schoolteachers has clocked up nearly 6000 visits. I invite you to send me a review copy of your book, or an article, eithor one already published or one composed specifically for the theme of my site, http://www.takeondarwin.com. I don’t want to say more about my site here on Steve’s home page. Please email me direct if you’d like to follow up on this, at )-shaun at evolvedself and com-(.

      “all of the evolution literature are epiphenomena resulting from descriptive biology.” This I feel I understand and appreciate.

      “Once you delve into the mechanisms of embryology as they apply to phylogeny and take that time machine back to unicellular organisms, everything begins to line up.” This I understand as, discoveries about cell biology will lead to an unintuitive over-arching quantum-theory-like theory that you anticipate will account for all of biology,

      But how will cell-cell interactions account for long-distance effects, such as the ends of the flippers of a whale growing at the same rate. Those flippers must stay exactly as long as each other, to prevent the whale from swimming in circles, yet their length is not fixed, in other environments those flippers could presumably be longer or shorter. So how is growth coordinated across 40 feet from the tip of one flipper to the tip of the other, in a vigorously swimming creature? I expect there to be a second element besides direct cell-cell interaction or even local chemical diffusion from one cell to another, involving action at a distance. I’d appreciate your opinion about this.

      “I am a heretic” What do you plan to do about this?

  34. 1tawnystranger said,

    i’ve not looked into this topic for a while but one thing i’ve noticed now is how evolutionary theory is being applied to every scientific field, as if just saying the word over and over again makes it more true. also, the definition of evolution has been altered; now it’s almost too vague to be falsifiable! ordinary “microevolutionary” adaptations that happen within an individual organism or individuals of the same species (eg. skin colour change in humans, genetic recombination during reproduction) are held up as proofs of “macroevolution”! but that’s probably the point.
    (interestingly, there doesn’t seem to be much talk about vestigial organs or junk DNA anymore.)
    i have heard of this concept of rapid evolution in the Italian wall lizard. apparently it grew a cecum it never had before, but i’m wondering how it’s known they didn’t have one before when it is a normal part of many if not all reptiles’ anatomy.
    what do you make of all this?

    • evolve5 said,

      I experience the language of dawinism acting as a whirlpool so that if you use any of it you get drawn into using all of it. Those who do so then automatically apply it in all their thinking, and interpret all observations in terms of it. I think it’s that simple. Darwinism is now big in economics. It’s like social darwinism all over again, except this time it’s not so much about survival of the fittest, it’s about the promotion of physicalism–we’re motivated purely by deterministic physical processes. This is very attractive to some people, I believed it myself in my thirties. I see physicalists as addicted to the physicalist delirium, beyond reach of logic or reason. To me, as far as retaining sense in the world, it’s us against them. It’s like the body snatchers. Society’s in great danger. And no one wants to hear.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      What is amazing about all “evidence” in favor of evolution is that it’s always in a location or of a size that cannot be observed or tested by any normal human. The wall lizard’s cecal valve on a remote island. Bacteria that eat nylon that can be observed and tested only by scientists with very specialized equipment. “We” can’t ever see it but “they” can. Evos always talk about how evolution goes so slowly that no person can see it in action. Then they cite the wall lizard that did an incredible amount of evolution in a few short years. I really doubt some scientists took inventory of all lizard innards decades before the cecal valve was discovered. And if it did show up it was most probably already in the genome. It certainly didn’t come to be in a few years because of evolution. I make of this that there is huge effort to fool a lot of people. And they are doing it very successfully.

  35. evolve5 said,

    Steve, a great new introduction. Nice work. Makes a huge difference.

    Could we work together to help each other develop message and find venues? I’d welcome a fellow navigator on the voyage. Not that our message need be the same, but I find it hard to keep focus, and do the hard stuff, like finding venues, we don’t need to agree on everything to do that.

    I agree with all of your new statement. But let me pose a question that marketeers ask: what benefit do you offer? I’ve given up on scientists welcoming what either you or I have to offer, we’re merely two more of the crackpots they’re very used to ignoring. But non-scientists, parents say or teachers, who have little or no interest in evolution, what problem do they have that we can help them with? If they’re not aware of there being a problem, how can we phrase it so they’d value solutions to it?

    I like your question: Is there something else in nature far more impressive than current theory allows? But I think this could need more focus. What would be the benefit of finding that something? Is it better to call attention to an opportunity we aren’t yet aware of, or to a problem that’s not being met and is getting worse? Is there a crisis they need to know about? Can we help them avert this crisis?

    Does this kind of thinking help? If it doesn’t I’ll drop it.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I hate to say it, but I truly think the origin of species and biological systems is nothing more than the most fascinating Puzzle that has or ever will exist. But my thought is that there is no benefit to humanity whatsoever that involves the solution to the Puzzle of our/life’s origins. No scientific or life improvements will occur if we find a valid answer. Evolution is not a tool for the improvement of anything. Genetics, biochem, physiology, pharmacology are. But solving whatever the source for all of living nature is can only be a fascinating solution to a beguiling Puzzle. Food for the geeks. I find very little difference in my friends that think God did the job in six days, and those that think RM and NS did the job in millions of years. It’s just not something that people give much thought to, with the exception of the very inquisitive like you and me. Evos want people to believe that scientific wonders have been formed with evolution, but that’s nothing but fantasy. In reality, origins is an interesting but pretty non-utilitarian science. Actually astronomy, as fascinating as it is, is pretty much the same. What can mankind do with the knowledge that there are black holes out there? And stars in the process of dying and forming? And extrasolar planets? Basically nothing but stand back and be amazed; which is all we can do with the solution to this Puzzle that we would love to have solved. We want to be amazed; dazzled. I sure do. Trying to figure it out is a natural high. It’s exciting. The discussion, and battle is as well.
      As far as working together in some fashion, sure that would be great. I think we are pretty much on the same page. Geography is a problem, obviously. Maybe some kind of traveling show, with your one man theatrics, which I really think is great…an imaginary discussion between historic figures is pure original and interesting. I will sell books in the back :-D and lead a discussion. Well, that sounds silly. But maybe we can come up with some idea…

      • shaun2000 said,

        This is bitter news. I’ve not found any common ground among the non-academic anti darwinists I’ve come across over almost 20 years . That, more than anything else, makes me doubt my conclusions. How can we all doubt the same theory but arrive at no common conclusion? If some of us have derived the wrong conclusion from realizing darwinism is faulty, maybe all of us are wrong, me included. How likely is it that my judgment is sound? By any ordinary standards, not likely.

  36. evolve5 said,

    Here’s something more specific: I’d enjoy being available for bouncing article ideas off.

  37. John Torday said,

    I hope you guys don’t mind if I bud in, but in the spirit of facilitation, the Evolution Puzzle is not merely human vanity. There are fundamental reasons why knowing our biologic origins is vital to the survival of Humankind. Let me start by trying to defuse the emotional aspect of Evolution by stating that it is the objective ‘history’ of the organism- short-term developmental history and long-term phylogenetic history. Once we are able to trace our history back to our origins as unicellular organisms we will have working knowledge of Physiology from its first principles, not the after the fact Richard Scary ‘here’s how it works’ rationalizations. That’s like the difference between Astrology and Astronomy, or Alchemy and Chemistry. Importantly, by reducing Evolution to scientific principles rather than descriptive Just So Stories will allow us to do hypothesis testing experiments to prove or disprove various aspects of the Evolution principle. For example, I have chosen to focus on the water-to-land transition both because it seems like the most relevant stage in vertebrate evolution for understanding how and why genes changed to allow that to happen. There were two specific genetic duplications that occurred at that time that are directly related to the evolution of the skeleton, skin and lung. By focusing on that process over the course of vertebrate history from fish to amphibians, reptiles, birds and Man, we can understand how such physiologic processes have changed so that we can live on land, and how altering such adaptations causes disease- true predictive and preventive Medicine. Imagine the things that we could do with the trillions of dollars we now spend unnecessarily on health care one we figure out the true causes of human disease. That would be far superior to Man as the waster of resources, human and natural, due to lack of understanding of our place in the Universe. It would be akin to the change in our mindset once we realized that the Earth is not the center of the Solar System- that was in large part the catalyst for the Age of Enlightenment. As a species, we cannot afford to wait another 500 years to transition from Copernicus to Galileo. Seeing Evolution through the prism of the cell is going to solve the riddle of how and why we have evolved; contrast that with the kaleidoscopic, after the fact reasoning we now employ to utilize the gift of the Human Genome.

    And by way of shameless self promotion, if you have interest, I write a blog (John Torday.blogspot) where I expand on these concepts.

    • evolve5 said,

      “Many hold that the epitome of evolution is the emergence of consciousness and mind. I have been thinking about how unicellular organisms have given rise to ‘self’ for many years.”

      John, glad to see this reference to the self at the top of your most recent post. My publishing imprint is “Evolved Self Publishing.”

      For you it’s the cell microbiology common to all life by which you measure the capability of evolution. I measure it by the nature of some of its most recently-generated products where we may assume its capabilities appear most fully developed–mammals like us. Specifically, by their experience of conscious volition while dreaming, which other mammals seem to share with us and, in us, the extension of that experience to waking life that we refer to as having mind.

      I therefore take experience of conscious volition to be a channel of exploration into evolution separate from nature study of other species and microbiological analysis of their cells. That’s my crankiness.

      I will enjoy sampling your blog. I also blog, at takeondarwin.com.

      • John Torday said,

        Dear Shaun, just for the record, I am a molecular physiologist, not a microbiologist. And form what we know about the evolution of our eukaryotic ancestors from bacteria (prokaryotes), the major catalyst for the formation of a true nucleus (that’s what eu-karyote means) was the advent of cholesterol in the cell mambranes of all eukaryotes, and its total absence from prokaryotes. The cholesterol-containing cell membrane facilitated the three characteristics of vertebrate evolution- metabolism, locomotion and respiration, basically by making the cell membrane able to conform to the external environment. The cell membrane of eukaryotes is the origin of all of the visceral organs- skin, lung, kidney, brain. Up until recently there was a bottleneck in the evolution of the brain from unicellular organisms because it was thought that invertebrates (animals w/o backbones) didn’t have a central nervous system (i.e. ‘brain). But it is now known that worms and such have their ‘brains’ in their skin, or skin-brain. The skin is a vastly underappreciated structure that goes all the way back to the ‘skin’ of our unicellular ancestors. For example, there are skin diseases that are associated with all of the neurodegenerative diseases. The skin diseases are all due to abnormalities in fat metabolism, and the brain evolved through the utilization of fat to myeliize nerve tracts, insulating neurons from one another to create the analog of ‘broad band’. I too think that humans have determined their own evolution at a critical juncture between us and other primates. In the book I have published, for example, I hypothesize that the advent of agriculture caused an increase in body fat due to the ready supply of food, in contrast to hunter-gatherers, who are dependent on many variables in their environment, i.e. sporadic sources of food. The fat cells produce a hormone, leptin, that stimulates the development and evolution of the brain. So what I am suggesting is that our consciousness goes all the way back to single-celled organisms, that do sense their environment, all the way up to and including Man. Contrary to Descartes, maybe there is no mind-body dichotomy….maybe we think with all of our visceral organs, the brain just being the evolved concentration of such activities. With all due respect, dreaming may be an epiphenomenon that allows us to process things that have happened during our day by running the data operating system overnight, i.e. sleeping on it. Hope all this makes sense….my goal is to encourage folks like you with a passion for Evolution to understand how it may work well beyond just mutation and selection because it’s important to us as a species…w/o such understanding I think we could kill ourselves off. John

      • John Torday said,

        The paper is under review. I’ll let you know when it is published. John

  38. evolve5 said,

    I beg for assistance. I have just posted a 5-page article in Word as a docx file that I crave a judgment on. It’s at http://www.evolvedself.com/metaphor/DarwinismMetaphors.docx. Do I make a clear and rational case? Have I made any grave errors? Feedback would be very much appreciated.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Excellent article. You are an excellent writer, very deep thinker, and obviously a very intelligent person. This quote is spot on:
      To Darwin’s great dismay, his mentor Sedgwick was not impressed. Darwin had practiced science upside down, Sedgwick said: instead of sifting facts about nature into increasing levels of generality until he arrived at what the mechanism must be, he had come up with his mechanism first and then cherry-picked data to support it. In other words, having settled on a set of metaphors first he’d then manipulated all the information available to him to make it appear convincing.

      Darwin et al formed the theory first, instead of objectively observing the evidence, then coming up with the theory. Then old and new evidence was and is bent to fit what so many hope and wish to be valid theory.

      Purely physical processes in a purely physical world could not generate creatures that are, as we experience ourselves to be, conscious and creative.

      Again, right on. Which is why I think there is something far more impressive than RM and NS that is the source of life and us. I don’t know what you want to do with the paper, but good stuff.

      • evolve5 said,

        Steve, thank you for reading and commenting on my article. It’s very difficult to have one’s writing read by anyone knowledgeable, I’ve found. Your favorable opinion gives me confidence. I’m sure you’ve experienced how easy it is for someone else to see flaws in one’s arguments. Your response assures me I’m not letting through major errors obvious to everyone. That’s so important to learn.

        I’m a crackpot. I don’t mind that, but one is very exposed when presenting one’s crackpot views in public, particularly in a field like anti-darwinism where crackpots abound, and professional evolutionists won’t read one’s material for errors, for fear of contamination–well, really, for them it’s usually a waste of time.

        So than you, again. Much appreciated.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You aren’t a crackpot, unless intelligent and very interesting people are all crackpots. You are an original. And I can tell you are having great fun with this stuff, as I am. Evolution and our origins stimulates a great deal of thought, and mental experimentation. It’s so frustrating to be able to go only so far with it, but I guess if the Puzzle was actually solved, the fun would be gone. Hell, then what would we do? :-D

      • evolve5 said,

        Thank you for your reassuring words. But it does take nerve to persist in attacking a notion everyone else believes.

        Let me give you an example. Genetic mutation involves damage to genes. Damage to genes, left unrepaired, is going to impair a species’ performance, and as that damage accumulates generation by generation it will eventually lead to extinction. A species that repairs all damage to its genes will do better than one that doesn’t. And sure enough a very efficient gene-mutation repair process has evolved.

        That seems obvious. But suppose someone points out that it’s theoretically possible for damage to very occasionally result in an improvement, and that occasional improvements like that will offset all the harm the rest of the damage has caused, and that’s what drives evolution. You might see that as ridiculous. But that’s exactly the basis of the modern synthesis. It’s what all evolutionists believe. It’s given as the mechanism of evolution in the National Academy of Science 80-page book for teachers, arrived at by a committee of 14 eminent experts.

        Would you address them, each one, and say, you think they’re wrong, you, a mere layman, not an expert like them, you’ve found an error in the modern synthesis? Well, I did. I posted my argument on my takeondarwin.com website, and wrote snail mail to each member of the committee asking them for a rebuttal I could post on the site. And they never replied. One did, to say he’d just got back from abroad and he’d reply later, but they must have got to him and he never did.

        So you pluck up your courage and risk making a fool of yourself because you may be missing the whole point, and they simply ignore you. I issued a press release a year later, soliciting response, but never heard. And although that page has clocked up 6000 visits, no one else has replied either. It’s at http://www.takeondarwin.com/index.php/evolution-consciousness-self/112-nas-evolution-account-flawed?catid=4%3Aarticles

        Am I missing the whole point? Am I revealing a colossal ignorance? I can’t find out. No expert will review my argument, and point out where I’m wrong, if I am wrong. So I go on exposing myself, more and more provocatively, knowing someone someday may take the trouble to show me where I’m wrong. And I’ll look very silly.

        What I’m criticizing in the modern synthesis is not some minor condition, or implication, but the absolute core of how it’s supposed to work. How could it appear true to everyone else, and wrong to me? Who’s more likely to be right? Obviously, them. So It’s very important to me to see myself as a crackpot, so I keep a sense of balance. At any moment I could be shown where I’m wrong, and need to recover.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” Galileo Galilei
        I love this quote, from hundreds of years ago. Why do these 14 people not question? Why are they all in lock step? “Lucky you” get an answer from me: group psychology is far stronger than objective thinking. FAR STRONGER Your ego has been damaged by groupthought. You cannot let that happen. When you see that to be the case, that the science of biology has been severely damaged by groupthink, which is far stronger than individualthink, your ego will be restored. I promise. You should feel superior to these poor souls who have been fooled over and over. In this field, you are superior. So get yourself a ton of confidence. Don’t let their ignoring you and put downs bother you at all. If you looked at rationalskepticism.org, Why Stevebee is Wrong, you can see how much fun I have had with these brainwashed fools. There it was 30 against lil’ ole me. Not fair for them! You can get a glimpse on this blog at page 23, N, J, H, page 38, page 46, and 46a. I love the attacks, really.It’s just part of the fun.

      • evolve5 said,

        Steve, thanks for your encouragement, but I am not as confident I’m right as you are. So many anti-darwinists are wrong, why should I assume I’m right?

        Corresponding with John about an article of his I saw a need to say of evolution what needs to be accounted for. This starts, for me, historically, with the observation that species first appear in the fossil record where the species most like them already live, suggesting that species generate each other. The process by which that happens is what is to be accounted for.

        Then there’s the observation that all of life uses the same code for genes and proteins, suggesting that the process began only once, That allows it to be an extremely unlikely process, that maybe occurs on average only once in a billion years. This means it may bear very little relation to any other processes we know of. We shouldn’t rely on our familiarity with those processes to limit what may be possible for evolution.

        In some niches one creature can survive for hundreds of millions of years in the presence of other lines of species that evolve rapidly. That means to me that evolution is not driven primarily by competition between species, else more “primitive” creatures couldn’t survive alongside more-recently evolved creatures. The “point” of creatures seems not to be that they function optimally, they seem to earn a place just by being. On the other hand, of course, almost all species do go extinct, so this is not a clear indicator.

        The “intelligence” of creatures, in the sense that we talk of the “intelligence” in a computer, seems to increase exponentially once begun. The increase in brain intelligence in primates seems to have increased exponentially in the line of evolution in primates leading up to us, for example. This suggests evolution is a process that “learns” over time. This should be measurable, for now it is just an impression.

        Evolution can produce creatures with consciousness and free will, whatever that is.

        The products of evolution freely eat each other, they also generate more progeny than are needed for their mere replacement. All those progeny seem to want to avoid being eaten, yet they must be eaten for their kind to continue. I don’t see the implications of this, but I sense some meaning. One obvious meaning is that life is not “for” individual creatures. Who else could it be “for”? Is this a question we can consider? Who else benefits?

        Does this amount to anything?

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You mean so many religious creationists are wrong. I think you are dividing the battle between religion and Darwin. That is nothing but a false choice. The discussion needs to be whether or not evolution is valid.
        The foundation of your writing hinges on DNA and the genetic code being evolvable. It isn’t. Evolving a code in microsteps cannot have occurred. A single codon, or a single amino acid in a single codon is worthless. Which alone kills evolution as its source.
        Species first appear with fully formed biological systems and organs. This again is a killer for Darwin. Of the millions of specie/fossils, why are there none with evolving systems? If you walked the Earth 500 MYA, do you actually think you would see species with half evolved livers, or hearts, or blood vessel systems?
        The fact that 99% of all species went extinct means that any fossil that was credited with forming/evolving into another species by evo-illusionists in reality had a 99% chance that it didn’t. 99% odds say that it went extinct before it could branch into species B.
        I commend you for questioning evolution. The difference between us is that you still think evolution is the source, but are not sure about its MO. I am sure evolution is not the source, and I have no idea what is. I think it’s something far more impressive than evolution. Does it all have to with the consciousness of mankind? Is the whole thing a common illusion of our consciousness and perception? That may sound absurd, but there is no model that fits the evidence that I can see. Damn. I wish there were.

      • evolve5 said,

        “You mean so many religious creationists are wrong. I think you are dividing the battle between religion and Darwin. That is nothing but a false choice. The discussion needs to be whether or not evolution is valid.”

        I’ve been in contact with a lot of non-creationist anti-darwinists over the past 20 years, and I’ve seen no common ground between any two of them. I think evolution acts as an opportunity for brainy youngest children to act out their rebelliousness. Each one finds his or her own meaning in the rebellion. Creationists, that’s a different story, that’s about submission to an unrelated orthodoxy.

        Is there an incipient movement to which I am contributing, that I should seek to enlarge? Seeing no agreement among us all I have concluded, no. If one of us succeeded in banishing darwinism, there would be no cohort ready to fill the gap. We would each be for the other as uncongenial as we now find darwinists. We have no great truth in common that we fight for. All we have in common is, we’re against darwinism.

        So I have accepted that my mission is personal. And that I am seen by the world at large as one of a great number of crackpots, from which it is very hard to distinguish oneself, to be taken seriously. But that is what I want, because I have a mission, which is to turn the discovery that we evolved into a better origin story for us humans.

        As a simple test of whether I have common cause with other anti-darwinists I am taking my list of what an account of the creation of life should account for over to my takeondarwin site, where I’ll keep adding to it. In your case, you claim not to believe in evolution–that’s hard to parse, but I think checking off such a list would detail our agreements and differences. For example, I do see genes as the means the driver of evolution uses to express its will in living species.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Re: For example, I do see genes as the means the driver of evolution uses to express its will in living species.
        If genes are the foundation for your belief in evolution, what brought those genes into existence? Since the protein-making machinery of cells is itself made up of proteins, that means that the machine made its own building blocks, and designed itself. You are immediately stuck. And of course what brought the code into existence? Can a code be assembled by an entity with an IQ of zero in slow steps? I want to know what made that code, and the machinery to utilize it. Evolution breeds quitting too quickly. Even if you think evolution was a huge driving force, what made the equipment that evolution uses? Again, I want to know. Don’t you?

      • evolve5 said,

        My list of what I think any theory of evolution should account for, here http://www.takeondarwin.com/index.php/resources/193-list-of-what-needs-to-be-accounted-for?catid=10%3Atechnique Lists like this may be a simple way for us to recognize what we agree and disagree about.

  39. John Torday said,

    Steve, regarding a way of understanding the evolutionary process, there is no (emphasis) cell biology in all of the evolution literature other than what I have published. If you start from single-celled organisms, the entire blueprint for multicellular organisms is held within them. As proof of principle, that is why we go from zygote to zygote. And as for your comment about not seeing ‘half evolved livers, or hearts or blood vessels’, you do, at the molecular level; the genetic basis for all of those structures lies within the phylogenetic background for the ancestral lineage; why else would there be a progression for the heart from the worm to amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds? The cell membrane of the unicellular organism is the homolog of all of the multicellular vital organs-skin, lung, kidney, heart, brain. And even if that’s not exactly right, at least in the pursuit of this model of evolution we will learn more and more about what the ultimate truth for how and why we exist is. It is far than sitting in ignorance in an intellectual vacuum. I found your blog because you had cited one of my peer-reviewed scientific concepts for cellular evolution, in which you cherry-picked my intellectually-honest comment that we don’t know how the lung evolved, yet the paper offered a novel way of thinking in a forward direction about how that could be accomplished that was testable and refutable.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      John
      When I wrote my book, I thoroughly researched what evolution has to say about the origin of cells, and the evolution of multicellular organisms from single celled species. As you say, there was and is virtually an immense hole in evolutionary theory. Evolution can’t even attempt to explain the bridge from single celled species to the smallest multiples: 1,000+ celled species. There aren’t any examples in the fossil record, and none that exist today to show how that evolution occurred. Your “progression” is cherry picked.
      If you choose to cite progressions, you must show progressions for all biological systems, which you cannot. The progression for the evolution of a simple sac (bladder, bird lung sac, gall bladder) and ducts and blood vessels kill your notion about demonstrable progression. No human can even come up with a fable that describes the evolution of sacs and tubes. The cardiopulmonary systems that you cite are made up of immense numbers of tubes and sacs. If you choose to cite hearts, show me how the closed systems involved, the tubes in those hearts, and the sacs in the lungs that feed them oxygen, and the “sacs” (chambers) in the hearts, came to be by slow progression.
      Were did the “entire blueprint” you cite come from? Do you have even imaginary steps for the formation of the coding and “blueprint” for any biological system?

      Not acceptable: The cell membrane of the unicellular organism is the homolog of all of the multicellular vital organs-skin, lung, kidney, heart, brain.
      You are proffering dogma. This is purely made up stuff.

      Re: It is far (better) than sitting in ignorance in an intellectual vacuum.

      This is pure strawman. You are suggesting that I prefer “sitting in ignorance in an intellectual vacuum”, which is insulting, and not well thought out by you John. The intellectual vacuum is presented by evolution. As long as it is accepted as valid science, and as long as scientists spend all of their efforts trying to prove this faulty theory, instead of going with what the evidence shows, science is in a vacuum. It will be for hundreds of year, thanks to Darwin.
      The conclusion of your paper is the exact same as the conclusion of virtually every single paper that I researched. Evolution peer reviewed papers that supposedly explain the evolution of biological systems always discuss anatomy, histology, physiology… not one single one, including yours, has any idea how even the simplest of biological systems evolved or formed. Not one. I have many other examples on the page where your paper is quoted. They are all the same. I could add hundreds of more examples.
      Evolution cannot design anything. But even more daunting for evolution scientists is the explanation of how evolution invented. Designs yield improvements on inventions. Inventions produced by nature are incredible electromagnetic and bio-mechanical systems that even the best geniuses who ever lived could not think up if they somehow could view the Earth as a sterile planet free of any devices of any kind. The greatest geniuses couldn’t even come up with the concept of life. Nor can they define it. Which means humanity is still out in the cold as far as solving the Puzzle of origins.

  40. John Torday said,

    Steve, do you question the validity of development starting from a single fertilized egg? Unless you do, you must acknowledge that our Physiology emanates from a single cell, and the consensus is that multicellular organisms emanated from single cells phylogenetically as well. My guess is that if you had been present when Prometheus discovered fire, you would have blown the flame out in the name of ignorance.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      John, you are getting insulting, which is what virtually all evolutionauts do when they don’t have rational and plausible answers. In your mind you are smart and superior; you have all the answers. You have been empowered by evolution. Evolution gave you the power to demean a person (like me) with questions. Anyone who even attempts to discuss why evolution may not be the solution to the Puzzle is ignorant. I really expected more from you, but you are doing no more than any routine run of the mill evolution zealot that comments on my YouTube videos. I hope you reload on some of these comments.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      By the way John, do you know the difference between cellular differentiation and evolution? I certainly hope so, at your level of education. Your question intimates that you are a bit confused about these two processes.

      • jrmullowney said,

        What an absurd comment! If you don’t understand what John means, then the joke is on you, Steve. Perhaps this will help. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You and John are in the 19th century with this comment. Do a bit of research before you make a bigger fool of yourself here.

  41. sailordale said,

    Aloha Stevebee,
    I found your blog a few years ago, and I was fascinated to find such an intelligent, open minded view on evolution. I know you do not do any religion, that’s cool, no problems from me on that. I, however am a Bible believing 6 day young Earth Creationist. But I really like reading your work, and your videos on You Tube. It is not surprising to see some of the comments you get from the “Darwits” on here! Whenever I am in a dialogue with an evolutionist, some of the stuff that they spew as “scientific facts” are amazingly funny, and it really makes me want to question their intelligence level.I will be the first one to admit- I am no rocket scientist! I am a High School graduate, then went onto do a career in the US Navy.
    But for any college educated or graduate, supposedly intelligent person to say things like there is no designer- that all the sophisticated design of a single cell or a molecule of DNA is just a random chance happening, it really makes me wonder…To listen to the supposed intelligent evolutionists like Bill Nye, or Steven Hawking, or Dawkins talk, I just have to scratch my head and say “Do you REALLY believe that propaganda you are spewing???
    I say that evolution is but a science fiction fairy tale! The Darwits have lied about so much so often, I wonder if they would know the truth if it bit them.
    Then they always use the “peer reviewed evidence” line to validate their points. There really is NO real, scientific evidence for evolution that has not been totally debunked. Then they keep on changing the story to another new BS “evidence”
    Did you see any of that debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham? Bill kept on saying that if you don’t believe in evolution, you are “hurting the cause of science” And that the evolutionary scientist “loves new discoveries” & they are always open to new ideas……….(As long as they fit in with their evolutionary model) Any time someone brings up a new idea that does NOT support their BS evolutionary model, it gets suppressed, discredited, or worse!!!!!
    Anyway, I love your blog, and thanks for all the good reasons to prove evolution does not / can not work, and is scientifically impossible and highly laughable! Please keep up the good work, and Thank you for believing in an intelligent Creator of whatever kind. Of course the real goal /desire of us Christians is to get you to know that the Intelligent Creator IS a God that loves you very much, the God of the Bible! BUT we Christians should NEVER force you to come to that choice, but that you would realise that on your own one day. If you ever have any questions about God along the way, there are plenty of people willing to be of help for you (including myself) But, that will be your choice…..

    In the meantime, Thanks & Please keep up the good work!!! The Darwits want to brainwash everyone….lol….

    Aloha, Dale in Hawaii…

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks for the great and intelligent note. Evolution is sure the mystery that you think it is. Why do otherwise perfectly intelligent people trip over themselves believing and trying to prove this hoax? It has really been a shocker to me since I started this trip in 2001. Indoctrination and groupthink are far more powerful than I ever could imagine.
      I find the most calm and reasoned comments come from Biblical creationists, like yours. Not from supposed scientists.
      The science of origins shows that biological systems had to appear at once, all put together, or they could not have functioned at all. Species appear suddenly in the fossil record, but at different times, not gradually as evos claim. If you read my book, or check my page on population paradox, mankind could not be more than 6,000-10,000 years old. If it were 200,000 YO, the universe, and trillions of trillion of more universes would be filled solid with people. I love the story of the 800,000 year old human footprint that was just “found”… not close to being in the realm of possibilities. Real science is kinder to your belief than it is to evos. Real science kills evolution. Me? I will die not knowing the answer to this incredible Puzzle, somewhere in a neverland with no real group support. But we humans have to go with what our brains allow us to think and believe. I will continue to puzzle, think, and wonder… and be astounded at what the intelligence we both know must be there has invented and assembled. Thanks again for the visit and comment!

      • Kent Perry said,

        Quote:”I find the most calm and reasoned comments come from Biblical creationists, like yours. Not from supposed scientists.”

        Wow ,,it’s been so long since I have seen anyone say anything nice like that,, well,, it just put the biggest smile on my face you have no idea and damn near a tear in my eyes ha ha .

  42. Mohammad Naim said,

    Steve, i was wondering what you said about the human brain. About how if there is no conscious observer the universe doesn’t exist. If a tree falls in the forest it makes vibrations which get turned into sound in our brain. So all the senses we experience take place in our mind. This makes perfect sense to me. However while pondering this , the questions comes up then isn’t out mind also a perception of our mind? Our brain a perception of our brain? Doesn’t this become a paradox? How do we know whats actually going on? Cheers

    • Mohammad Naim said,

      sorry spelling error our mind not out

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Yours is sure an interesting thought, along with the fact that human CO’s had to be born into something. The universe and its Earth is that something. Which brings another chicken and egg problem which isn’t solvable. Which came first, the universe or consciousness? In the 17th century, the French philosopher René Descartes came up with the “explanation for it all”: “I think, therefore I am”. We are also observers of ourselves, which means we bring our own existence into existence. I can see and feel my hand, therefor it exists. But it does so in my perception only. The feel, the visual observation exist only in my mind. A very strange paradox. We exist because our consciousness and perception exist.

  43. Mohammad Naim said,

    yes i know we exist in some shape or form. i “believe i exist” because iam typing this message. Rene Descartes was dealing with questions of existence which he provided a very good answer to. ” i think, therefore iam is as good as it gets, because if you are not, why in the hell are you writing this question. But you have stated that perception and consciousnesses exist in our mind, which is a physical object. That means this physical object is the source of our consciousness, which means there dosnt have to be a conscious observer. you see what im getting at?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      The source of our consciousness is a physical entity. Every physical entity exists because of our perception and consciousness. It is a symbiotic paradox; a symbiotic relationship. If you are really interested in this subject, a great read is “The Symbiotic Universe” by Greenstein.

      • Kent Perry said,

        Quote:”Every physical entity exists because of our perception and consciousness.”

        Mmmmm you saying they exist to “serve our perception and consciousness? That they were made FOR our perception and consciousness? Every physical entity exists simply because it does, doesn’t it? Unless it exists as part of a system and is a mechanism that assists that system, Not because of anything we perceive.

        Do we not perceive it because it exists rather than the other way around? For something to exist “because” of something else, I don’t know if that means,, as a result of something else, or dependent on something else.

        If the source of our consciousness is a physical entity steve, and that same physical entity exists because of our consciousness, which is a physical entity.. which exists because of our consciousness,,,

        Is that not a circular argument Steve?

      • stevebee92653 said,

        It IS a circular argument. I made a vid on the subject, “The Age of the Universe, a Paradox”. Feel free to give it a look on YouTube. I like Greenstein’s book, The Symbiotic Universe in which he describes how we need the universe to be born in to, and the universe needs us as conscious observers for it’s existence. It’s circular, a paradox, and we can’t get away from these kinds of discussions when talking about origins. The bird and egg is one as well, as well as thousands of other examples: blood and blood vessels, visual cortices and retinas, ball and socket, nucleus or cell wall, protein or ribosome (which is made up of proteins)… Which existed first? Everything does exist because we perceive it, though. It’s such a brilliant system. Brilliant beyond imagination. How could it be thunk up? By what uber-brilliant source? That is the scientific question of the ages, the Puzzle.

  44. Mohammad Naim said,

    Yeah ok so it is a paradox, you basically said that in your first reply though lol but i had to confirm. Yeah i might read that thanks. Also, you should get into debates steve!!! This should be the next step in your journey. Imagine if it had been you up there, instead of ken ham or whatever his name is agaisnts bill nye the science guy. I bet you could make a great Argument. The Best Argument should be the fossil record. They have a handful of transitionals which are supposedly evolved into whatevr the hell. But there are millions of fossils in museums. Also bring up the caterpillar paradox, the caterpillar could not have evolved from the cacoon. Well thats my rant.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      You are right on, Ken Ham was pretty terrible. Evolution should be argued on a strictly objective and scientific basis. Ham was half preacher in his debate. I could have had Nye mumbling and drooling. Ham lost. Challenging evolution with religion plays right into evo’s hands.

      • Kent Perry said,

        I’m a Christian and totally agree with that. I too could have had Bill Nye the Science Lie, spun and done. But the topic was ABOUT creationism , Steve, makes it a little hard NOT to talk about it. I just think the way he was put on the defense by the very format of the debate was not something I would have agreed to. He could have made a better argument just suggesting SOMETHING had to design plan and execute all the parts of this bio system. It has always seemed a lot easier to prove that than it is to prove it all was some very lucky happy accident or ill say many trillions of tosses with loaded dice.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Science should not be argued with religion. Science needs to stand on its own. If it cannot, it should be discarded. Evolution cannot stand the test, not even close. Evo-illusionsts like Nye love to debate religious leaders. Put them in a debate about the validity of evolution, and they would go up in smoke in five minutes. The debate would be over. The debate always seems to be the religious protagonist defending Noah’s ark. Which is why Nye won big time. Let me get my hands on him in a debate, and he would be drooling quickly.

  45. dvhuff said,

    hey Steve,
    I haven’t been here in a while. there is a rumor that you have a book availabe on amazon! congratulations! I’m eager to read your thoughts in book form as I am quite sure I won’t be able to put it down. I’m going to amazon as we speak! may i inquire as to what the title of this fine piece of literature might be?I hope all is well with you and your family. I have had many debates with the omnicient evonaut crowd. it’s so important to stay in a scientific framework rather than a religous worldview. I see many religous comments on your blog that makes me realise most people just don’t get “it”. you have to argue the facts not personal beliefs. something you
    have mastered to a spectacular degree. your unbiased examintion of the TOE is spot on as it resonates from deep common sense. common sense
    is what science really is about. origins are a very difficult question. one that requires an open mind like yours. and mine hahaha,
    anyway congatulations again, I’ll be back to post after i’ve read your book!
    warmest regards from one of you long standing youtube troll beaters hahaha…

    your freind, Dave

    P.S. can I get my copy signed?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Hi Dave, and welcome back! The name of the book is Evo-illusion. I hope you enjoy the read. It was really a fun project, and there is a lot of original stuff on board that isn’t on this blog or my vids. If you do like the read, please give me a good review. In fact an honest review, no matter what your conclusion is. And, of course I will be happy to sign it.

  46. Kent Perry said,

    Quote:”What an absurd comment! If you don’t understand what John means, then the joke is on you”

    This is just so typical of the genus “Darwit” cheerleader coming in to defend one of the members of the collective hive mind or “Borg” members for the religion of evolution. While he is shaking his Pom Poms accusing you of making an absurd comment in the same voice he makes his own absurd comment, patently absurd.

    They’re all the same. It don’t matter what lofty degree they have or title, they all turn to jack assery, with their snide, stuck up, condescending comments that all translate the same.

    Or,”I hate losing “

  47. Darren Pearce said,

    if we didn’t come about by creation or evolution, what alternative mechanism, if any, do you have?

    thanks

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Everything DID come about by a creation. What I find funny is that evolutionauts look down on creationists, while they tout that random mutations, natural selection, and time created all of living nature. Everyone who ponders this subject is a creationist. Of course the source of the creation is the question. On a scientific level we humans aren’t intelligent enough to figure this out. We are all stuck with the same answer: We just don’t know, and we can’t even come up with plausible imaginary scenarios for the formation of living nature. I wish I had more, but I just don’t.

  48. Darren Pearce said,

    so a creation, but not a biblical creation. An alien creation then?
    A race of beings that can create universes, if a superior race was experimenting, then they probably don’t want us to know about them, hence we will never understand, is that what your getting at?, or are you thinking something more naturalistic that is currently beyond our scope of understanding?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Yes, you got it: “naturalistic that is currently beyond our scope of understanding.” I like Einstein’s thinking, which I have a page on here if you are interested.(p. 14)
      The alien thing is absurd, and there is still the problem of where they come from and how did they originate. Aliens, if they do exist, which I think they do, have the same immense problems we have for stellar exploration: the speed limit of the universe and time.

  49. George Keith said,

    You may be amused by how I found your website. I searched on “Why are evolutionists such assholes?”. That led me to a number of debates you have participated in, and from there, to your entertaining and educational website. You are the perfect person for this question, as you have scientifically categorized the typical evolutionist debate responses, which appear over and over and over. I laughed until tears came to my eyes over your post of Blue Butterfly’s sign off post, with your priceless picture of the angry ranter to accompany it. I’ve read through most of the debates, and there were a number of other “rolling on the floor laughing” moments, I have also spent some time debating evolutionists, with experiences that parallel your own (though I don’t have your biology credentials). Of course, that’s never stopped me. I’m still exploring, so I’ll wait a while to comment in more detail. In general, I am in agreement with most of your approach, and strongly identify with your epiphany. I had my own epiphany over this about five years ago. Up until then, I didn’t agree with evolution, but at that time I started to actively look at the “state of the art” arguments against it. They are legion. What a nice job you have done articulating them.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 57 other followers

%d bloggers like this: