Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:23 pm**

In this thread I will take Gmans email and highlight in Blue facts.
I will do the same for opinions and assertions, but in Red.

Then we can determine if the facts back up the assertions.

Gman wrote:KARYOTYPES,OF COURSE,ARE THE ENGINES OF INHERITANCE.

-evolution's unbelievable phylogenies are so obviously incompatible with karyotypes(perhaps because Darwin knew nothing about inheritance-he published his fantasies 7 years before Gregor Mendel's original publication,decades before Mendel's findings were widely known).Evolution's fantasies have never caught up with and can never catch up with or accomodate the facts of biology(read on,please);karyotypes conclusively disprove evolution's implausible phylogenies.

-meiosis absolutely/obviously thwarts evolution(by thwarting the generation of novel-and-fertile karyotypes)
-evolution cannot account for karyotypes,nor,therefore,for the origin of species.
-karyotypes and their modes of function prove that they could not have originated by incremental growth.
Evolution's fantasies rest on false premiss,evade contradictory evidence,are incompatible with karyotypes,meiosis,the environment,and more.

Evolution rests on the absurd assumption that errors in nucleic acid replication could produce novel karyotypes-obviously entirely irrational.
Evolution cannot incorporate karyotypes nor the mechanisms of meiosis since they are entirely incompatible with it.Meiosis thwarts reproducible modification of chromosome number.
Ironically,and for exactly the same reasons as above evolution provides no explanation for any fossil ever found!!!And conversely,fossils are no evidence of evolution!!!

Evolution has no modus operandi,since gene mutations cannot produce novel chromosomes or karyotypes.And novel karyotypes cannot breed.Has evolution not seen these most obvious errors?

Dear Reader,I suspect that the few facts discussed here represent merely the starting point of an exciting journey of discovering the grossness of the errors of evolution. Evolution is a very elaborate fallacy which is very simply disproven.EVOLUTION IS ENTIRELY IMPRACTICABLE AND UNFEASIBLE-ABSURD.Many many facts trash evolution.The discussion below centres on sexual reproduction.Evolution could never ever have produced a cell,let alone progress beyond asexual reproduction. Polyploidy could never have produced karyotypes as we know them,for two reasons at least.Firstly,polyploidy never produces novel chromosomes. Secondly,simple arithmetic tells us that polyploidy could never have produced karyotypes as we know them.And besides,polyploidy is only relevant to plants.Karyotypes ridicule evolution and laugh it to scorn. Evolution cannot breed.

Each chromosome has one centromere.a split chromosome will lose that part which is no longer attached to the centromere- the detached part will not be included in next cell division.the part still attached to the centromere will probably not be able to synapse so as to enable the next meiotic division.

If a centromere splits transversely all the genes of one of the segments of the chromosome will be lost.splitting chromosomes cannot beget evolution. Centromeres outsmart evolution.

Here are the facts related to this argument

Meiosis thwarts reproducible modification of chromosome number.

gene mutations cannot produce novel chromosomes or karyotypes

polyploidy never produces novel chromosomes

Each chromosome has one centromere

a split chromosome will lose that part which is no longer attached to the centromere- the detached part will not be included in next cell division.

And now the conclusions.

evolution's unbelievable phylogenies are so obviously incompatible with karyotypes

meiosis absolutely/obviously thwarts evolution

evolution cannot account for karyotypes

Evolution cannot incorporate karyotypes nor the mechanisms of meiosis since they are entirely incompatible with it.

Polyploidy could never have produced karyotypes as we know them

simple arithmetic tells us that polyploidy could never have produced karyotypes as we know them

polyploidy is only relevant to plants

Centromeres outsmart evolution

Now we can stay on this portion of the email and discuss if you choose, or we can do this with the entire email first.

Posted: **Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:52 pm**

>>Polyploidy could never have produced karyotypes as we know them,for two reasons at least.Firstly,polyploidy never produces novel chromosomes. Secondly,simple arithmetic tells us that polyploidy could never have produced karyotypes as we know them.And besides,polyploidy is only relevant to plants<<

Ever heard of Down's syndrome? It's also known as trisomy 21 - an extra piece on chromosome #21.

Posted: **Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:50 pm**

David Blacklock wrote:>>Polyploidy could never have produced karyotypes as we know them,for two reasons at least.Firstly,polyploidy never produces novel chromosomes. Secondly,simple arithmetic tells us that polyploidy could never have produced karyotypes as we know them.And besides,polyploidy is only relevant to plants<<

Ever heard of Down's syndrome? It's also known as trisomy 21 - an extra piece on chromosome #21.

That's my point, this article is full of assertions. It's like brain washing.

Although it is less likely defects such as trisomy could in theory lead to new chromosomal counts. One cannot say with such certainty that it is impossible. And what of chromosomal breakage or fusion which could lead to healthy offspring, with odd numbers of chromosomes?

Posted: **Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:03 pm**

I did not write this, nor would I have.

Posted: **Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:29 pm**

Who's brain washing whom here then?

Posted: **Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:47 pm**

Who said anything about brainwashing?

Posted: **Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:50 pm**

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:That's my point, this article is full of assertions. It's like brain washing.

Right here... Not you David. At least we know your scientific background.

Thank you for your honesty.

Posted: **Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:20 pm**

Attached is the original document in full as received by me from jacksprat.

These are his words, not mine.

Direct dialogue to him.

Bart

Posted: **Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:01 pm**

An article of interest. My feeling is that belief in evolution is no different than belief that any other branch of science is doing their job. These religious scientists feel the same:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID ... 414B7F0000

"It is practically a rite of passage that scientists who reach a certain level of eminence feel compelled to pub-licly announce and explain their religious beliefs. The new books by Owen Gingerich and Francis Collins, reviewed this month on page 94, follow in the footsteps of Arthur Eddington and Max Planck. Yes, these authors say, they believe in God, and no, they see no contradiction between their faith and their research--indeed, they see each as confirming the other."

Posted: **Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:04 pm**

I'm still worried about the evolutionists... How are we going to get them to change their minds when they make claims that science isn't philosophy-free?

Evolutionist Daniel Clement Dennett states:

But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination. Darwin's Dangerous Idea p.21

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett

Posted: **Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:36 pm**

Gman said: "I'm still worried about the evolutionists... How are we going to get them to change their minds...when they make claims that science isn't philosophy-free?"

I don't have a comment about "they make claims that science isn't philosophy-free" - but I know how you might get their attention. Come out with a theory that's testable.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me the whole concept of Irreducible Complexity suggests that a concept or process is so complex, it's no use even looking further. Come up with a way the designer could have done it - something testable. Young scientists would be falling over themselves, knowing the Nobel Prize was in store for anyone who could overturn evolution - working within the boundaries of the conventional scientific method.

[/quote]

Posted: **Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:55 pm**

Actually IC does not suggest such a thing, but in line with Behe, attempts to get those who adhere to methodological naturalism to put their money where their mouth is by providing the "how" in support of their claims it happened. Neither side can win by just claiming it happens by a certain process or creation. Both sides need positive arguments.

IC mixed with specified complexity which draws from information theory, presents a positive argument for an engineer. Yet, I am not sure what this has to do with the discussion at hand of Karyotypes. A bit off topic from what BGood raised isn't it?

Kurieuo

Posted: **Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:12 pm**

David Blacklock wrote:I don't have a comment about "they make claims that science isn't philosophy-free" - but I know how you might get their attention. Come out with a theory that's testable.

There are many many things that need to be studied in the case for ID. ID is still very much in it's infant stage...

David Blacklock wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me the whole concept of Irreducible Complexity suggests that a concept or process is so complex, it's no use even looking further. Come up with a way the designer could have done it - something testable. Young scientists would be falling over themselves, knowing the Nobel Prize was in store for anyone who could overturn evolution - working within the boundaries of the conventional scientific method.

I wouldn't ever say it's no use even looking into further. Science needs to be tested against other theories. That is where we get good solid facts..That is all I'm saying.

I would look at it more like you can't have the ying without the yang, the democrat without the republican, the thesis without the anti-thesis, etc..

I say let's watch the chips fall where they may... Evolution is a theory... ID is a theory... Neither are factual.. Either one could be right or wrong. So let's not get dogmatic about it and let them both breath together. Hey if evolution wins one, then more power to them.. That wouldn't scare me a bit. If one side would ever said that "I win", they would have to prove their point on every level of the scientific spectrum. My belief about this is it never will as long as we live on this planet (without some divine intervention of course). But that is not up to me...

Posted: **Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:14 pm**

Kurieuo says: "Actually IC does not suggest such a thing"

Then I guess I've been misled

Kurieuo says (continuing): "but in line with Behe, attempts to get those who adhere to methodological naturalism to put their money where their mouth is by providing the "how" in support of their claims it happened..."

I think I can provide some of that, if you wish, if you don't mind a little thread drift.

Posted: **Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:47 pm**

Gman: "...ID is a theory..."

From the scientific definition of a theory, it is not. A theory in science carries much more weight than the dictionary use of the word. For a concept to be called a theory in science places it at the top of the heap. It doesn't get any better than that.

A legitimate ID hypothesis would have to produce a formal and testable alternative explanation for the process in question...that is, if it is to compete on the same playing field as science. This means offering details that have testable implications.

I have read statements in ID literature that boil down to "You haven't explained this to my satisfaction, so evolution is untrue" or "This is irreducibly complex, so by default, an intelligent designer did it." Perhaps I'm wrong, but aren't these two ideas consistently presented in ID? Yet neither present a testable hypothesis.

Evidence for God from Science

Facts and Opinions (Karyotype Discussion)

Facts and Opinions (Karyotype Discussion)

File Attachment

answering Gman