Many problems stand in the way of accepting evolution as established fact. First, if evolution was really occurring, granted that this was the case, its very doubtfull that evolution occurs per the same rules described by some evolutionists since no matter how far we stretch the imagination it’s almost impossible to conceive how evolution could be a process without an end. Evolution does serve an end: it creates organisms that can live and adapt in their environment with the best possible results. In short, evolution is theologically driven. Second, if evolution was really occurring, there would be no birds no fish and no mammals, just 1 sort of creature that would be widespread on the entire planet, the diversity we see now would never have existed thanks to a supposedly random process. There would only be one big kind of animal with minor variations according to the region in which these large creatures would live in, Insects would not exist and the variety of diets we find in the animal kingdom would not either. It would be only these large animals eating either plants or beef or both but not the kind of animals we see today with some eating greenstuff and others eating meat.Also, Random mutations are not sufficient to produce all the differences in color, behavior and the likes we see in the animal kingdom. Evolution would only be capable to create maximum 1 kind of color pattern and this one would only vary on these large animals ( the ones we would be expect to see if evolution DID occur) in color intensity, so their would be only one sort of living creature with say red as a color and different shades of red. On the other hand one thing is certain: that a creator is responsible for their being such a diversity of life which I repeat: cannot occur from random mutations. Darwin and company were wring when they claimed that nature obeys a random mutation process. It was as much a problem for Darwin even in the hayday of evolutionism as it is today. In short, diversity and art cannot be created by a random process, only an act of creation creates diversity and art, art is present in the design of beasts in the wild thanks to this creator and this is the biggest evidence against evolution.

Welcome to the forum John!


I'm sure that someone will be along to comment on your opening post in a short while. In the meantime, here is a little welcome pack we give to our new members.

Enjoy!

Can you convert Dembski points into Tesco clubcard vouchers?

Yes, welcome to the forum.

Excellent 1st post, by the way.

BlackBart wrote:Can you convert Dembski points into Tesco clubcard vouchers?

Yes. That was my thought too.

I guess every little helps.

Paging Wolfgang Pauli - Wolfgang Pauli, quotation needed in Creationism Forum!

Hello John, welcome to the forum.

John Figgs wrote:Many problems stand in the way of accepting evolution as established fact. First, if evolution was really occurring, granted that this was the case, its very doubtfull that evolution occurs per the same rules described by some evolutionists

Would you care to list what these "rules" are which are doubtful, and possibly back it up with references to "evolutionists" detailing these rules?

I know a little something about evolution, and the "rules" i know about aren't doubtful, they're observed facts. Mutation, recombination, genetic drift and natural selection.

John Figgs wrote:since no matter how far we stretch the imagination it’s almost impossible to conceive how evolution could be a process without an end.

It's not clear what you mean by this and you don't seem to be offering any clarification later in your post. Why should it follow that evolution has some kind of "end" to it? This isn't clear to me, except in the case where all life goes extinct. That would be "the end" of all kinds of biological evolution.

John Figgs wrote:Evolution does serve an end: it creates organisms that can live and adapt in their environment with the best possible results.

That statement is not correctly phrased. Species don't evolve into "the best possible result", they merely adapt to the extend that their capabilities are sufficient for survival and reproduction in their environment. And it should not be forgotten that this process happens at the expense of a large number of species over evolutionary time. Many more species have gone extinct than are alive today.

John Figgs wrote:In short, evolution is theologically driven.

This statement does not follow from anything you said before this. It is also false.

John Figgs wrote:Second, if evolution was really occurring, there would be no birds no fish and no mammals, just 1 sort of creature that would be widespread on the entire planet, the diversity we see now would never have existed thanks to a supposedly random process.

It is mindboggling to consider how you could have arrived at this conclusion. It is diametrically opposite to observed fact and there is nothing about the extant theory of evolution that predicts this.

John Figgs wrote:There would only be one big kind of animal with minor variations according to the region in which these large creatures would live in, Insects would not exist and the variety of diets we find in the animal kingdom would not either.

How do you get to this? From what principle do you derive these conclusions?

John Figgs wrote:It would be only these large animals eating either plants or beef or both but not the kind of animals we see today with some eating greenstuff and others eating meat.

Either plants or beef? Where'd they get plants and meat if there's only one species?

Beef and tomatoes, the evolutionists diet!

This is a poe... I'm not going to respond to the rest of this nonsensical gibberish. Some guy is having a ball...

AAAAAAAAND another thing. Where are the crocoducks? Huh? What...the...fuck...about...crocoducks, evolutionists? Why are there still monkeys, Mr. Smartypants? If we evolved from monkeys then why...the...fuck...are...there...still...monkeys? Can't answer that, Mr. Science has all the answers, can you? Peanut butter. Now there's an evolutionary conundrum. I've had peanut butter in my refrigerator for many, many years, but never - NOT ONCE - has that peanut butter turned into an elephant. Or a bat, or a goat, or even a simple housefly. It remained PEANUT BUTTER because God CREATED it as peanut butter and it will STAY peanut butter until God DECIDES to turn it into an elephant. Which he can do without even breaking a sweat, because Our God is a Mighty God! Praise Him in His Celestial Glory! But the FINAL argument, the one that disproves not only evolution but in fact ALL of Ungodly, Heathen SCIENCE.....I give you Ray Comfort and the Banana.

CHECKMATE, Atheists!

Beware the evolutionkiller:

THE BANANA-PEANUTBUTTER SANDWICH

John Figgs wrote:Evolution does serve an end: it creates organisms that can live and adapt in their environment with the best possible results. In short, evolution is theologically driven.

I think you mean "teleologically driven", no?

For some reason, that one error struck me, out of the many, many others you make in your post.

But, hey, welcome to the forum.

So, even if we can trace, through the fossil record, the emergence of birds from small theropod dinosaurs it's all still not possible?

What a fucking farce.

RS

John Figgs wrote:Many problems stand in the way of accepting evolution as established fact.

Welcome to the forum John Figgs.

I have no time to go into what you have asserted here, will get to that later today hopefully.
But in summation it looks like ; John Figgs is convinced that 'evolution' is false because he doesn't understand evolution.

Weaver wrote:Paging Wolfgang Pauli - Wolfgang Pauli, quotation needed in Creationism Forum!

He's a touch busy right now marvelling at the ever increasing angular momentum of Charles Darwins corpse.

Let's take a look at this shall we?

John Figgs wrote:Many problems stand in the way of accepting evolution as established fact.

No they don't. In case you're unaware of this, evolutionary postulates have been subject to direct empirical test and verification, and have passed those tests. Here's a list of scientific papers containing relevant empirical tests for you to wade through, before posting more drivel of this sort:

Direct Experimental Tests Of Evolutionary Concepts

[1] A Model For Divergent Allopatric Speciation Of Polyploid Pteridophytes Resulting From Silencing Of Duplicate-Gene Expression by Charles R.E. Werth and Michael D. Windham, American Naturalist, 137(4): 515-526 (April 1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL TO MATCH OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

[2] A Molecular Reexamination Of Diploid Hybrid Speciation Of Solanum raphanifolium by David M. Spooner, Kenneth. J. Sytsma and James F. Smith, Evolution, 45(3): 757-764 - DOCUMENTATION OF AN OBSERVED SPECIATION EVENT

[3] Cavefish As A Model System In Evolutionary Developmental Biology by William R. Jeffrey, Developmental Biology, 231:, 1-12 (1 Mar 2001) - contains experimental tests of hypotheses about eye evolution

[4] Chromosome Evolution, Phylogeny, And Speciation Of Rock Wallabies, by G. B. Sharman, R. L. Close and G. M. Maynes, Australian Journal of Zoology, 37(2-4): 351-363 (1991) - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

[5] Crystal Structure Of An Ancient Protein: Evolution By Conformational Epistasis by Eric A. Ortlund, Jamie T. Bridgham, Matthew R. Redinbo and Joseph W. Thornton, Science, 317: 1544-1548 (14 September 2007) - refers to the reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals by back-tracking along the molecular phylogenetic trees and demonstrating that the proteins in question WORK

[6] Evidence For Rapid Speciation Following A Founder Event In The Laboratory by James R. Weinberg Victoria R. Starczak and Danielle Jörg, Evolution 46: 1214-1220 (15th January 1992) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

[7] Evolutionary Theory And Process Of Active Speciation And Adaptive Radiation In Subterranean Mole Rats, Spalax ehrenbergi Superspecies, In Israel by E. Nevo, Evolutionary Biology, 25: 1-125 - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

[8] Experimentally Created Incipient Species Of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230: 289 - 292 (2nd April 1971) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

[9] Founder-Flush Speciation On Drosophila pseudoobscura: A Large Scale Experiment by Agustí Galiana, Andrés Moya and Francisco J. Alaya, Evolution 47: 432-444 (1993) EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

[10] Genetics Of Natural Populations XII. Experimental Reproduction Of Some Of the Changes Caused by Natural Selection by Sewall Wright & Theodosius Dobzkansky, Genetics, 31(2): 125-156 (1946) - direct experimental tests of natural selection mechanisms

[11] Hedgehog Signalling Controls Eye Degeneration In Blind Cavefish by Yoshiyuki Yamamoto, David W. Stock and William R. Jeffery, Nature, 431: 844-847 (14 Oct 2004) - direct experimental test of theories about eye evolution and the elucidation of the controlling genes involved

[12] Initial Sequencing Of The Chimpanzee Genome And Comparison With The Human Genome, The Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium (see paper for full list of 68 authors), Nature, 437: 69-87 (1 September 2005) - direct sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and direct comparison of this genome with the previously sequenced human genome, whereby the scientists discovered that fully twenty-nine percent of the orthologous proteins of humans and chimpanzees are IDENTICAL

[13] Origin Of The Superflock Of Cichlid Fishes From Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, 300: 325-329 (11 April 2003) - direct experimental determination of the molecular phylogeny of the Lake Victoria Superflock, including IDENTIFYING THE COMMON ANCESTOR OF THE 350+ SPECIES IN QUESTION and NAMING THAT ANCESTOR as Haplochromis gracilior

[14] Phagotrophy By A Flagellate Selects For Colonial Prey: A Possible Origin Of Multicellularity by Martin.E. Boraas, Dianne.B. Seale and Joseph .E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology 12(2): 153-164 (February 1998 ) - direct experimental test of hypotheses about the origins of multicellularity

[15] Pollen-Mediated Introgression And Hybrid Speciation In Louisiana Irises by Michael L. Arnold, Cindy M. Buckner and Jonathan J. Robinson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 88(4): 1398-1402 (February 1991) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

[16] Protein Engineering Of Hydrogenase 3 To Enhance Hydrogen Production by Toshinari. Maeda, Viviana. Sanchez-Torres and Thomas. K. Wood, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 79(1): 77-86 (May 2008) - DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION OF EVOLUTION IN THE LABORATORY TO PRODUCE A NEW BIOTECHNOLOGY PRODUCT

[17] Resurrecting Ancient Genes: Experimental Analysis Of Extinct Molecules by Joseph W. Thornton, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 366-375 (5 May 2004) - direct experimental reconstruction in the laboratory of ancient proteins from extinct animals

[18] Sexual Isolation Caused By Selection For Positive And Negative Phototaxis And Geotaxis In Drosophila pseudoobscura by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 56: 484-487 (1966) - direct experimental test of selection mechanisms and their implications for speciation

[19] Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006) - DETERMINATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE, FOLLOWED BY LABOARTORY REPRODUCTION OF THAT SPECIATION EVENT, AND CONFIRMATION THAT THE LABORATORY INDIVIDUALS ARE INTERFERTILE WITH THE WILD TYPE INDIVIDUALS

[20] Speciation By Hybridization In Phasmids And Other Insects By Luciano Bullini and Guiseppe Nascetti, Canadian Journal of Zoology 68(8): 1747-1760 (1990) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

[21] The Gibbons Speciation Mechanism by S. Ramadevon and M. A. B. Deaken, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 145(4): 447-456 (1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL ACCOUNTING FOR OBSERVED INSTANCES OF SPECIATION

[22] The Master Control Gene For Morphogenesis And Evolution Of The Eye by Walter J. Gehrig, Genes to Cells, 1: 11-15, 1996 - direct experimental test of hypotheses concerning eye evolution including the elucidation of the connection between the Pax6 gene and eye morphogenesis, and the experimental manipulation of that gene to control eye development

[23] The Past As The Key To The Present: Resurrection Of Ancient Proteins From Eosinophils by Steven A. Benner, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA., 99(8): 4760-4761 (16 April 2002) - direct experimental reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals

When you've read that little lot of papers, you'll be in a better position to comment. Just for the record, I have 2,869 scientific papers on evolutionary biology and related topics in my collection, all of which flush your above assertion down the toilet.

Moving on ...

John Figgs wrote:First, if evolution was really occurring, granted that this was the case, its very doubtfull that evolution occurs per the same rules described by some evolutionists

Oh, dear, it's the "evolutionist" canard rearing its ugly head once more. Yawn, yawn, fucking yawn. Time to wheel this out:

The "evolutionist" canard (with "Darwinist" side salad).

Now, if there is one guaranteed way for a creationist to establish that he or she is here for no other reason than to propagandise for a doctrine, it's the deployment of that most viscerally hated of words in the lexicon, namely, evolutionist. I have posted about this so often here, that I was surprised to find that I'd missed it out of the original list, but I had more pressing concerns to attend to when compiling the list originally. However, having been reminded of it, now is the time to nail this one to the ground with a stake through its heart once and for all.

There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". Why do I say this? Simple. Because the word has become thoroughly debased through creationist abuse thereof, and in my view, deserves to be struck from the language forever. For those who need the requisite education, there exist evolutionary biologists, namely the scientific professionals who devote decades of their lives to understanding the biosphere and conducting research into appropriate biological phenomena, and those outside that specialist professional remit who accept the reality-based, evidence-based case that they present in their peer reviewed scientific papers for their postulates. The word "evolutionist" is a discoursive elision, erected by creationists for a very specific and utterly mendacious purpose, namely to suggest that valid evolutionary science is a "doctrine", and that those who accept its postulates do so merely as a priori "assumptions" (see [3] above). This is manifestly false, as anyone who has actually read the peer reviewed scientific literature is eminently well placed to understand. The idea that there exists some sort of "symmetry" between valid, evidence-based, reality-based science (evolutionary biology) and assertion-laden, mythology-based doctrine (creationism) is FALSE. Evolutionary biology, like every other branch of science, tests assertions and presuppositions to destruction, which is why creationism was tossed into the bin 150 years ago (see [2] above). When creationists can provide methodologically rigorous empirical tests of their assertions, the critical thinkers will sit up and take notice.

Furthermore, with respect to this canard, does the acceptance of the scientifically educated individuals on this board, of the current scientific paradigm for gravity make them "gravitationists"? Does their acceptance of the evidence supporting the germ theory of disease make them "microbists"? Does their acceptance of the validity of Maxwell's Equations make them "electromagnetists"? Does their acceptance of of the validity of the work of Planck, Bohr, Schrödinger, Dirac and a dozen others in the relevant field make them "quantumists"? Does their acceptance of the validity of the astrophysical model for star formation and the processes that take place inside stars make them "stellarists"? If you are unable to see the absurdity inherent in this, then you are in no position to tell people here that professional scientists have got it wrong, whilst ignorant Bronze Age nomads writing mythology 3,000 years ago got it right.

While we're at it, let's deal with the duplicitous side salad known as "Darwinist". The critical thinkers here know why this particular discoursive elision is erected, and the reason is related to the above. Basically, "Darwinist" is erected for the specific purpose of suggesting that the only reason people accept evolution is because they bow uncritically to Darwin as an authority figure. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, droolingly encephalitic drivel of a particularly suppurating order. Let's provide a much needed education once and for all here.

Darwin is regarded as historically important because he founded the scientific discipline of evolutionary biology, and in the process, converted biology from a cataloguing exercise into a proper empirical science. The reason Darwin is considered important is NOT because he is regarded uncritically as an "authority figure" - the critical thinkers leave this sort of starry-eyed gazing to followers of the likes of William Lane Craig. Darwin is regarded as important because he was the first person to pay serious attention to reality with respect to the biosphere, with respect to the business of determining mechanisms for its development, and the first to engage in diligent intellectual labour for the purpose of establishing that reality supported his postulates with respect to the biosphere. In other words, instead of sitting around accepting uncritically mythological blind assertion, he got off his arse, rolled up his sleeves, did the hard work, put in the long hours performing the research and gathering the real world data, and then spending long hours determining what would falsify his ideas and determining in a rigorous manner that no such falsification existed. For those who are unaware of this, the requisite labour swallowed up twenty years of his life, which is par for the course for a scientist introducing a new paradigm to the world. THAT is why he is regarded as important, because he expended colossal amounts of labour ensuring that REALITY supported his ideas. That's the ONLY reason ANY scientist acquires a reputation for being a towering contributor to the field, because said scientist toils unceasingly for many years, in some cases whole decades, ensuring that his ideas are supported by reality in a methodologically rigorous fashion.

Additionally, just in case this idea hasn't crossed the mind of any creationist posting here, evolutionary biology has moved on in the 150 years since Darwin, and whilst his historical role is rightly recognised, the critical thinkers have also recognised that more recent developments have taken place that would leave Darwin's eyes out on stalks if he were around to see them. The contributors to the field after Darwin are numerous, and include individuals who contributed to the development of other branches of science making advances in evolutionary theory possible. Individuals such as Ronald Fisher, who developed the mathematical tools required to make sense of vast swathes of biological data (heard of analysis of variance? Fisher invented it), or Theodosius Dobzhansky, who combined theoretical imagination with empirical rigour, and who, amongst other developments, provided science with a documented instance of speciation in the laboratory. Other seminal contributors included Müller (who trashed Behe's nonsense six decades before Behe was born), E. O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, Motoo Kimura, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, J. B. S. Haldane, Richard Lewontin, Sewall Wright, Jerry Coyne, Carl Woese, Kenneth Miller, and they're just the ones I can list off the top of my head. Pick up any half-decent collection of scientific papers from the past 100 years, and dozens more names can be added to that list.

So, anyone who wants to be regarded as an extremely low-grade chew toy here only has to erect the "evolutionist" or "Darwinist" canard, and they will guarantee this end result.

John Figgs wrote:since no matter how far we stretch the imagination it’s almost impossible to conceive how evolution could be a process without an end.

Bullshit plain and simple. Because, wait for it, evolutionary processes filter out variations that don't function within the current ecosystem parameters, and confer increased fecundity upon variations that work better than the previous ones. But by doing so, evolutionary processes incrementally change the ecosystem parameters. Which means the process is a dynamic feedback process. Furthermore, if other natural forces generate their own changes in ecosystem parameters, then evolution acts within those new, changed parameters. There is no "end" in sight. As long as there exist replicating entities whose persistence is differentially determined by the environment, evolutionary processes will continue operating. The only "goal" within the system is whatever happens to work at the present. That is it. Yet, this is sufficient to account for all observed biodiversity. As you will learn if you read actual scientific papers, instead of bullshit apologetics on lies-for-doctrine creationist websites.

John Figgs wrote:Evolution does serve an end: it creates organisms that can live and adapt in their environment with the best possible results.

Wrong. Evolutionary processes remove incompetent organisms from the gene pool. Not so much "survival of the fittest", as "survival of the sufficiently competent". Of course, if a more competent variation arises, that variation enjoys increased reproductive success. But that more competent variation can be wiped out in a short space of time, if the ecosystem parameters change on a sufficiently large scale, and render that variation incompetent.

John Figgs wrote:In short, evolution is theologically [sic] driven.

No it isn't. It doesn't have a long term goal. Oh, and the word you're looking for is "teleologically". Except that evolution isn't teleological, because if it was, we wouldn't see numerous examples of kludges and fudges of the sort that litter the biosphere. Such as Carabid beetles with otherwise fully functional wings, that are rendered useless because the species in question have fused elytra. A genuine teleological process wouldn't produce this sort of result.

John Figgs wrote:Second, if evolution was really occurring, there would be no birds no fish and no mammals, just 1 sort of creature that would be widespread on the entire planet

Poppycock. Did you ever attend a biology class at any time in your life?

Quite simply, no single organism can utilise all possible resources and fill all available niches. Exploitation of a new resource, followed by movement into the niche that resource provides, is one of the major engines driving biodiversity.

John Figgs wrote:the diversity we see now would never have existed thanks to a supposedly random process.

Crap. Go pick up a biology textbook and learn why your above assertion is crap.

John Figgs wrote:There would only be one big kind of animal with minor variations according to the region in which these large creatures would live in

Crap. How do I know this is crap? Oh, that's right, more scientific papers. This one being particularly apposite here:

Origin Of The Superflock Of Cichlid Fishes From Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, 300: 325-329 (11 April 2003)

This paper traced the ancestry of the 350+ species of Cichlid fish in Lake Victoria to one ancestor, namely an ancestral population of Haplochromis gracilior from nearby Lake Kivu. Courtesy of the developmental plasticity that is a feature of the Cichlid oropharyngeal tract, those ancestral haplochromis gracilior diverged, courtesy of different individuals utilising different food resources. That divergence became entrenched because the diverging individuals mated assortatively - in other words, they preferred individuals with the same tastes to mate with. As subsequent generations acquired various mutations, such as colouration mutations, this reinforced assortative mating and cessation of gene flow between individuals from diffferent sub-populations. Eventually this led to rampant speciation.

John Figgs wrote:Insects would not exist and the variety of diets we find in the animal kingdom would not either. It would be only these large animals eating either plants or beef or both but not the kind of animals we see today with some eating greenstuff and others eating meat.

This is drivel, plain and simple. Go pick up a biology textbook, and learn some real science.

John Figgs wrote:Also, Random mutations are not sufficient to produce all the differences in color, behavior and the likes we see in the animal kingdom.

Bullshit. Those Lake Victoria Cichlid fishes are laughing at your assertion.

John Figgs wrote:Evolution would only be capable to create maximum 1 kind of color pattern

Crap. I don't even need to be a tropical fishkeeper to know that this is crap, but just for the record, here's some of the colour variations that have arisen in just one species over the past century, namely Betta splendens:



















Here's a nice concise explanation of the genetics involved. All of those colour varieties started life as mutants appearing in breeder aquaria that were then fixed, by selecting the mutants for breeding. All of those mutants ultimately derived from this:



That's the wild type Betta splendens. Which gave rise to all of those technicolour mutants you see above. Game over.

John Figgs wrote:and this one would only vary on these large animals ( the ones we would be expect to see if evolution DID occur) in color intensity, so their would be only one sort of living creature with say red as a color and different shades of red.

Those fish above are laughing at your latest assertion, because that assertion is so manifestly retarded and divorced from reality as to be nothing more than comedy fodder.

John Figgs wrote:On the other hand one thing is certain: that a creator is responsible for their being such a diversity of life which I repeat: cannot occur from random mutations.

Bullshit. Those fish above are laughing at you again. ALL of those colour variations started life as random mutations. Game over. No fantasy magic man in the sky needed.

John Figgs wrote:Darwin and company were wring [sic] when they claimed that nature obeys a random mutation process.

Bullshit. They were right. How do we know this? Oh, because mutation and selection have been harnessed in the laboratory to produce useful biotechnology products. Want me to hit you with the papers describing the experiments in question?

John Figgs wrote:It was as much a problem for Darwin even in the hayday of evolutionism as it is today.

Poppycock. There is no "problem" for evolution. It happened, is happening, and will go on happening as long as living organisms exist. It's why we need to produce new flu vaccines on a regular basis.

John Figgs wrote:In short, diversity and art cannot be created by a random process

Those fish above are laughing at your assertion once more.

John Figgs wrote:only an act of creation creates diversity and art, art is present in the design of beasts in the wild thanks to this creator and this is the biggest evidence against evolution.

Bullshit. Those fish are laughing at your assertion again. Tell me, what's it like, peddling assertions that are so retarded, that fish laugh at them?

Game, set, match.

Okay, hello again John Figgs.
For a start a bit of a critique of the whole:
You posted a whole mess of assertions, one after another, without making any effort to back up any of them in any way. you will no doubt therefore get a lot of responses to each and every one; way too much to enter into a proper discussion with. It would have been far better for you to pick one claim and then begin to make an actual argument for it. Perhaps you should pick one from here?

John Figgs wrote:Many problems stand in the way of accepting evolution as established fact.

So for a start we have to talk about this word “evolution”, as you seem to be misapplying it here. There are a number of ways it can be used (and misused):
1)“Evolution” simply means change over time, nothing much more to it.
2)“Biological evolution” can be described as change in allele frequency over time, or less deeply as change in organisms over time.
3)“The theory of evolution” is the scientific explanation of the observed diversity of life on this planet.
4)“(Creationist) evolution” as I have come to put it is how many creationists abuse the term 'evolution'. It tends to be used as a general reference to any and all science that conflicts with creationist doctrine, invariably via building straw man caricatures of those scientific concepts, as apparently they aren't up to challenging the real things.

Evolution (definitions 1 & 2) is a fact (or set of observed facts) , and the only notable “problem that stands in the way of accepting” those facts is religious indoctrination.
Evolution (definition 3) is a “theory” not a fact. Theories don't become facts, they are in some ways better than facts, facts are small things, theories explain them.
Evolution (definition 4) is just silly, no need to go into that at all.

John Figgs wrote:First, if evolution was really occurring, granted that this was the case, its very doubtfull that evolution occurs per the same rules described by some evolutionists since no matter how far we stretch the imagination it’s almost impossible to conceive how evolution could be a process without an end.

Biological evolution is really occurring, even many, if not most, creationists admit this. They just make up nonsense about “microevolution” being a different thing than “macroevolution.”

The key words and phrases in your assertion here are:
“very doubtful”
“stretch the imagination”
“almost impossible to conceive”
These are all indications of personal incredulity. Saying no more than you don't understand it enough to even imagine it.
It's actually rather easy to imagine, so I can only think that whatever religious indoctrination you have gone through has limited your ability to do so.

And what does “an end” have to do with anything? I take it you are implying intent, that you can't imagine that living organisms could not vary in different and interesting ways unless something intentionally made it so. All this indicates is that you have been driven (by some unspoken means) to assume agency and intent from the start. That is; the only reason you find it hard to imagine things occurring without intent, a plan behind it, is that you have had that assumption drilled into your subconsciousness that you just assume it as if it were an obvious truth.

John Figgs wrote:Evolution does serve an end: it creates organisms that can live and adapt in their environment with the best possible results.

That's a result (not an ultimate result though.) As you have provided no evidence of argument, it is only your assumption that it is an “end”, that the results are intended beforehand.

It rarely if ever results in the “best possible results” either. There are plenty of examples one could bring up that if they were designed it would be sloppy and/or bizarre design indeed.

John Figgs wrote: In short, evolution is theologically driven.

Nice slip; confusing “teleological” (having design/purpose) with “theological” (study of religion.)

I note that your entire 'argument' there is; you can't imagine how evolution could occur without an intended end...therefore it is designed with an end goal. And that there is absolutely zero substance to that.

John Figgs wrote:Second, if evolution was really occurring, there would be no birds no fish and no mammals, just 1 sort of creature that would be widespread on the entire planet, the diversity we see now would never have existed thanks to a supposedly random process. There would only be one big kind of animal with minor variations according to the region in which these large creatures would live in, Insects would not exist and the variety of diets we find in the animal kingdom would not either.

Sorry John Figgs, all this shows is that you have no understanding of the theory of evolution at all.
The very point of the theory, not even starting with Charles Darwin, but going back before him as well, is to explain the diversity of life. In other words; the variation, all the different species and varieties of fish, bird, mammal, plant, bacteria.... is the whole point of the theory of evolution.

If you really want to make an argument against the theory of evolution then you would be best to start by learning what it actually is, what it's about.

John Figgs wrote:It would be only these large animals eating either plants or beef or both but not the kind of animals we see today with some eating greenstuff and others eating meat.

There is a demonstration of your confusion right there:
Large animals eating plants? That would be two sorts of creature already: large animals and plants.

You really don't get it. You appear entirely ignorant of even the fundamental basics of evolutionary biology. Different variations of organisms can take advantage of different resources in their environment. For example; your large animals eating plants; if some vary so that they can eat beef (Beef is rather silly, but it is your example for some strange reason) then perhaps they will evolve to favour doing that, rather than having to compete with all of the other plant eaters. Life, it has been shown, tends to fill all possible niches. When a niche becomes open for some reason (the ones that live in it are killed off for example) new organisms tend to come in and fill it.

John Figgs wrote:Also, Random mutations are not sufficient to produce all the differences in color, behavior and the likes we see in the animal kingdom.

This is nothing but an empty assertion. You give absolutely no reason to believe what you say, not a shred of reasoning or evidence to back up your claim.

You are simply wrong, and this is known, but tell me; why do you believe that they are not sufficient? What makes them insufficient?

John Figgs wrote:Evolution would only be capable to create maximum 1 kind of color pattern and this one would only vary on these large animals ( the ones we would be expect to see if evolution DID occur) in color intensity, so their would be only one sort of living creature with say red as a color and different shades of red.

Another simply false and empty assertion. Simply insisting thing s like this is pointless and worthless.

John Figgs wrote: On the other hand one thing is certain: that a creator is responsible for their being such a diversity of life which I repeat: cannot occur from random mutations.

Another empty assertion. In what possible way is this claim of yours “certain?! Because as far as I can see; it is about as far from “certain” as it could possible be.

John Figgs wrote:Darwin and company were wring when they claimed that nature obeys a random mutation process.

Charles Darwin of course knew nothing of mutations. His work was based on the observation of variations, not the underlying causes of those variations. The process he did propose (and evidence has only supported and improved our understanding thereof) was natural selection, which is not a random process, but nor is it (as far all all evidence shows) guided with intended ends in mind.

John Figgs wrote: It was as much a problem for Darwin even in the hayday of evolutionism as it is today.

Ignoring the use of that stupid word “evolutionism”; It still is the “heyday” of evolutionary biology. If anything it is more of a heyday now than it ever was! As the theory has only gone from strength to strength.

John Figgs wrote:In short, diversity and art cannot be created by a random process, only an act of creation creates diversity and art, art is present in the design of beasts in the wild thanks to this creator and this is the biggest evidence against evolution.

More empty empty assertions. You haven't made a single argument in any of this, only assertions. Why should anyone believe a word of it?
In other words you have yet to make a case, care to try?

John Figgs wrote:It would be only these large animals eating either plants or beef or both

Doubtdispelled wrote:

John Figgs wrote:It would be only these large animals eating either plants or beef or both

I know right? What's up with those large animals are they all muslim? What about pork?

looks like drive by to me.

campermon wrote:looks like drive by to me.

Drive by's always remind me of those individuals who get on Underground trains, babble noisily about Jesus and get off at the next stop.