Is origins research actually a subject of the invisible? Yes!

why is there so much disagreement in origin subjects when they are claimed to be based on scientific methodology? Who is messing up here in making/rejecting conclusions where othewise science subjects never have such contentions.?

I suggest and conclude that this is because origin subjects are about invisible processes and events. it’s not intellectual failure of one side or the other in presenting or understanding positions.

In fact like religious ideas, or physics, or even atomic levels of biology, like germs etc etc EVERYTHING investigated is not clear to the human eye. germ theory was rejected well into the 19th century because they couldn’t see the germs. physics gain its prestige as more complicated because it was about invisible forces. So proving how these forces existed and worked was lauded as a brilliance above visible discoveries. Continue reading

Were some “types” of “dinosaurs” like Theropods/T-rex, simply ground birds that adapted to a diverse planet??

I wrote a thread once about Theropods having like anatomy with birds as possibly just a convergence of bone type with physics. So birds did not evolve from dinosaur types like theropods.

I have watched recently youtube docs on T-rex and theropods etc and how they are claimed to be birds.

Once again its ac classification error. First there was no dinosaurs. tHey are just KINDS with some trivial like traits. just as mammals or reptiles are just KINDS of creatures with like traits. no relationship otherwise from a creator ir from evolutionary lineage.

It occured to me as another option that these theropods and T-rex could be simply ground birds.

there was later, post flood or above the k-pg line, 6 and 9 foot moas and elephant birds on islans like New Zealand and madasgaschar, and South America, and elsewhere.

They also were meat eaters, sometimes, and could not fly or even had wings/yet flourished in great sizes.

I think its a very viable option that many KINDS of dinos who have very bird like anatomy were in fact just ground birds. So T-rex, despite its great head/teeth, was possibly just a ground bird that did not roar. I saw a Youtube doc by a Dino guy, who advised the Jurassic park movies, who argues T-Rex etc head shape changed greatly as they grew older.

I suggest its very likely true that some ‘dino” types like the bird bone ones were just birds. Not reptiles. Just adapted to a rough post fall world. Just that simple. Possible also for others to have like anatomy for like needs but I’m leaning towards like anatomy means the same thing.

So the evolution of birds from dinos is not true and based on a classification system more then observation and other options of anatomy origins.


Is the scientific revolution the result of Christianity’s influence in Europe? No/Yes!!

the issue/question of why europe became the origin for the scientific revolution has been said by many, now and in the past, to be the unique result of christian thought and could not of happened elsewhere in the world and thats why it didn’t.

I see many Christians, of all types, who care about science and who want to resist attacks about Christian beliefs being opposed to science MAKING these claims.

They say conclusions about God and order and laws is from Christian faith and led to seeing this in nature etc etc.

I say this is not true. Christian thought/beliefs had nothing to do with the science revolution and Europe’s superiority.

Continue reading

Did Stephen Gould accomplish anything in science. Yes!!

As someone aware of accomplishment in science I note always people are celebrated as having accomplished something but didn’t actually do so.

Its a modern list but therefore I pay attention when folks are celebrated.

I bump into the late Stephen Gould a lot because of evolution/creation conflict.They made a big deal about him and at first glance i thought it was another case of hyping somebody because of a establishment agenda. likewise someone who sold books etc

Yet after reading a major summery of his ion evolution and his punctuated equilibrium contribution I came to a sincere different point of view.

Continue reading

Is anatomy the evidence that theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds? No!

On another forum the claim was strongly put that the anatomy of theropod dinosaurs was so similiar to moderrn birdds that its excellent evidence for birds to have evolved from dinosaurs. So some evolutionists  say birds today are really the end game of dinosaur evolution.

yEC say birds wewre created in their kinds on creation week and were on the ark in kinds. So were creatures we call dinosaurs and so these theropod ones.

So its impossible birds evolved from theropod dinos.

The only evidence they have is the anatomy of theropods . Some say they had feathers.

I have another hypothesis. That it is only a convergence of bone structures(anatamy) for the same needs. It is not that these dinos have bird bones but thart birds don’t have bird bones. they both only have bones to join body with physics. the theropods needed to be liught on their feet and the only answer is size and structure of bones to allow this. birds have the same need and so have the same bones. Yet its physics that determoines the bone structure and not a biological ancestry. there is no ancestry. they were created in whole right away. Perfect. its just the right and only conclusion .

Continue reading

Possibly a better conclusion for the sexual selection phenomena.

Creationists have no problem with sexual selection concepts while rejecting natural selection for the origin of biological life.

Sexual selection in fact would confirm YEC ideas on a fallen world desperately striving against decay in order to allow rime for God’s redemptive plan. Biology grasping at a marginal advantage to beat a dying/decay attrition. A arms race in survival.

Secxual selection claims are fine but once again are they accurate? Are they really done well by those who don’t do well in figuring out origins and living equations in biology? i think not!

i watch youtube videos , well done, on sundry creatures. Recently i saw ones on the Tasmanian devil and the hyaena. Surprising information but suggesting quickly clues.

Instead of a sexual selection going on in the episodes of creatures in mating I discovered instead the creatures always are striving/selecting to maintain the group/herd/nation in its strengh. So when selecting for mates its just a minor extra episode of what they do all the time. they just in sexual union continue to maintain the reasons for why their is strong.

Therefore its not a strange , instinct, desire to improve/maintain genes. its not that sophisticated. they just continue to aggressively desire strength in the whole group. they just do it in mating also. So its not a special thing but a continuum in a spectrum of maintaing the groups strength.

So I might say sexual selection doesn’t exist but only is a special case in a spectrum of staying strong.

This makes more sense, to me, then a segregated , special, drive for special mating designs.


Does Puncuated Equilibrium actually destroy evolutionary biology? Yes!

I just read, skimmed, struggled with Stephen Gould’s ” Structures of Evolution theory”  Its really one long argument for Punctuated Equilibrium.

Aside from many interesting observations on the substance and style the surprising thing i note is how PE actually disproves all of evolutionary biology if you think about it. No wonder Dawkins and the rest smelled it as trouble and resisted. Wikipedia also resists it on this subject. Continue reading

Did Patrick Matthew prove natural selection is just a line of reasoning in its conclusions.

I recently found Patrick Matthew , some 20 years before, had some important conclusions about how natural selection can lead to new species. Darwin agreed he had come to like conclusions, on main points, as he did. This is not known well and indeed they emphasis wAllace as a co discoverer of evolution but say nothing about Matthew.

This brings up a good YEC creationist point.

Matthew did do just what darwin did. he observed the seeming hand of selection controling survival/reproduction of individuals and so new environments bring new controls and so new species.

this is fine for creationism. its minor changes in types/kinds of biology. Yet matthew, a little, and darwin, a great deal,  then went on to extrapolate from this the entire creation of biology. Its entire complexity and diversity as from selection on traits. Yet Matthew did no more investigation then his idea of selection. So it follows the both men ‘s conclusions on evolutions story in biology are just lines of reasoning from simple raw data points.

Both desperately embrace the fossil record, geology concepts for deposition, to make thier lines of reasoning.

I say Matthew’s existence in these matters proves Darwins idea was mostly lines of reasoning from a minor trivial observation of selections ability to determine success in creatures survival.

So evolutionism really is based on a real selection truth and then is wild extrapolation.

Micro does not equal Macro after all. Macro needs to cross boundaries beyond selection on traits. It needs these mutations desperately  and thats the great error in the lines of reasoning.


Discovered dollo’s law and it makes a probability case.

i just read in Acts/Facts (ICR creo pub) about a law in evolutionism called Dollo’s law.. Gould said”…restates the general principal of mathematical probability…”

This touches on a thread I made here once about how darwins idea, statement, that to disprove evolution someone would need to show why small steps could not have created anything now in biology. I answered that if small steps can do the glory/complexity of biology then they could do anything. However improbable. Say a fish to a rhino, over time, bacj to a fish, then back to a rhino. WHY NOT is small steps of selection can do anything.

WELL. They had a law here about how evolution can’t reverse/repeat itself due to the math improbability.

Yet this would confute Darwins argument.  SO small steps can’t do everything. There are boundaries indeed. THEN the creationist must be allowed the concept of how improbable biology coming from small steps IS. In fact Gould/Dawkins all agree its improbable for like results. so why not the whole concept of evolution as to explain biology??

The improbability of fish becoming fishermen, a common first instinct, is proved as right as a instinct because of Dollo’s law.  Its impossible to repeat/reverse but this means its impossible for the first time.

Small steps being selected is NOT a answer to the apparent impossibility of what evolutionism claims to demonstrate.

Was Darwin right about female innate intellectual inferiority, why, and how to correct.??

Charles Darwin in his book the Descent of Man (chap12) insisted that womewn were clearly biologically intellectually inferior to men. He said if you compare the accomplishments of men verses women the women not only lose but show the common average must be very inferior of women relative to men.

He said this was not from society but from biology.

In fact he used this case as a typical case in the evidences he listed in his book to show how mankind etc had acquired the traits we have. Not from god but merely steps along the way while evolving .

Continue reading

It is a sampling error to use marine mammal vestigial parts as evidence for evolution.

I note many public evolutionists, Prothero  and Shermer and many others  always stress the cases of vestigial parts in marine mammals as evidence for evolutionary biology.

Yet in reality this is a sampling error that in fact makes the opposite case against evolution.

I agree marine mamnmals once were land lovers and only later gained features to surbvve in the water. Not the impossible steps said by evolutionists, as Berlinski demonstrates, but some other mechanism.

Continue reading

On Darwin’s and modern evolutionists challenge to deny small steps created all biology.

Darwin in a well known challenge in his book defied anyone showing that anything in biology could not be explained as to its origin by small steps from start to finish. Modern evolutionists also insist , however complex, that all biological entities at any point can be seen as coming from small changes in populations and from there in lineages from start to finish for anything.

It always bothered me that this line of reasoning was so important to darwins claim.

It was up to creationists to prove why accumulating small changes could not turn fish could not become fishermen or bugs into buffaloes . WHY NOT ? Darwin asked and ever since. however extreme the claim mat seem to so many.

I say lets turn the argument around on them. The line of reasoning works against them as follows.

I will use two improbable, impossible9did I say impossible) lineages of a finale creatures evolutionary origin.

ONE. to start you have a fish, then a fish breathing on land with crab legs, then it has horse legs, then its got a t-rex head, then its a ground bird with flippers, then a primate monkey, then a rabbit type creature with horns and crab legs, then a bird again, then a mouse. All this happening in about 200 million years of evolution.

TWO. you start with a fish, then a duck like creature, then a fish with flippers, then a land breathing reptile creature with a trunk, then a cat like creature with long giraffe legsm then a primate, then a shrew, then a primate again and finally a bird. 200 million years start to finish.

This is impossible by any common sense, intelligence, of any human being. never mind the intermediates. this sequence of these two creatures evolving this way from start to finish is self evident nonsense.

For evolutionists THEN explain why not BY small steps could these lineages not happen?? Why not, if small populations could be selected on to account for our real biology glory, could not my examples  easily, equally, be accounted for bu evolutions mechanism.

if evolution can explain anything we have then why not anything we can imagine??

iF you say no. then the absurdity of bugs becoming buffaloes and fish becoming fishermen makes the creationist point solid and Darwins reply worthless.


Moderation release

As a temporary fix, until Lizzie returns, anyone who is being moderated and can’t comment is invited to leave a comment here and I will approve it, hoping that it will work as a fix for all commenters in all threads. Perhaps other thread authors could also check to see if they can do the same. I note that Lamont has approved my comment in his thread but this has not stopped my comments in other threads (including my own) ending up in moderation, so maybe it won’t, but you never know!

Added in edit:

Seems that author approval releases moderated comments in that thread only. As Lizzie is, I suspect, the only one with administrator permissions, we are stuck with the status quo.

Added in edit:

Seems it is worse than I thought. Author approval is apparently needed for each comment which is really impractical. Mark Frank has already suggested continuing on his blog but perhaps we could open an ad hoc wordpress blog with shared admin among volunteers and open authorship as this seems to operate well here. The level of abusive posting (apart from one notable exception) has been minimal and I think we should err on the side of open-ness. I will try and be alert to checking moderation.

Added in edit:

Just a thought. It could be democratic with shared admin (volunteers, please) and all members having author status by default as that seems to work well here. Keeping a wordpress format should make it easy to transfer active threads if need be.

Added in edit:

The moderation glitch appears to be fixed!


Gpuccio’s Theory of Intelligent Design

Gpuccio has made a series of comments at Uncommon Descent and I thought they could form the basis of an opening post. The comments following were copied and pasted from Gpuccio’s comments starting here


To onlooker and to all those who have followed thi discussion:

I will try to express again the procedure to evaluate dFSCI and infer design, referring specifically to Lizzies “experiment”. I will try also to clarify, while I do that, some side aspects that are probably not obvious to all.

Moreover, I will do that a step at a time, in as many posts as nevessary.

So, let’s start with Lizzie’s “experiment”:

Creating CSI with NS
Posted on March 14, 2012 by Elizabeth
Imagine a coin-tossing game. On each turn, players toss a fair coin 500 times. As they do so, they record all runs of heads, so that if they toss H T T H H H T H T T H H H H T T T, they will record: 1, 3, 1, 4, representing the number of heads in each run.

At the end of each round, each player computes the product of their runs-of-heads. The person with the highest product wins.

In addition, there is a House jackpot. Any person whose product exceeds 1060 wins the House jackpot.

There are 2500 possible runs of coin-tosses. However, I’m not sure exactly how many of that vast number of possible series would give a product exceeding 1060. However, if some bright mathematician can work it out for me, we can work out whether a series whose product exceeds 1060 has CSI. My ballpark estimate says it has.

That means, clearly, that if we randomly generate many series of 500 coin-tosses, it is exceedingly unlikely, in the history of the universe, that we will get a product that exceeds 1060.

However, starting with a randomly generated population of, say 100 series, I propose to subject them to random point mutations and natural selection, whereby I will cull the 50 series with the lowest products, and produce “offspring”, with random point mutations from each of the survivors, and repeat this over many generations.

I’ve already reliably got to products exceeding 1058, but it’s

possible that I may have got stuck in a local maximum.

However, before I go further: would an ID proponent like to tell me whether, if I succeed in hitting the jackpot, I have satisfactorily refuted Dembski’s case? And would a mathematician like to check the jackpot?

I’ve done it in MatLab, and will post the script below. Sorry I don’t speak anything more geek-friendly than MatLab (well, a little Java, but MatLab is way easier for this) Continue reading

An Invitation to G Puccio

gpuccio addressed a comment to me at Uncommon Descent. Onlooker, a commenter now unable to post there,

(Added in edit 27/09/2012 – just to clarify, onlooker was banned from threads hosted by “kairosfocus” and can still post at Uncommon Descent in threads not authored by “kairosfocus”)

has expressed an interest in continuing a dialogue with gpuccio and petrushka comments:

By all means let’s have a gpuccio thread.

There are things I’d like to know about his position.

He claims that a non-material designer could insert changes into coding sequences. I’d like to know how that works. How does an entity having no matter or energy interact with matter and energy? Sounds to me like he is saying that A can sometimes equal not A.

He claims that variation is non stochastic and that adaptive adaptations are the result of algorithmic directed mutations. Is that in addition to intervention by non-material designers? How does that work?

What is the evidence that non-stochastic variation exists or that it is even necessary, given the Lenski experiment? Could he cite some evidence from the Lenski experiment that suggests directed mutations? Could he explain why gpuccio sees this and Lenski doesn’t?

It’s been a long time since gpuccio abandoned the discussion at the Mark Frank blog. I’d like to see that continued.

So I copy gpuccio’s comment here and add a few remarks hoping it may stimulate some interesting dialogue. Continue reading