Do fossils disprove evolution?

No. His characteristic use of the word "evobabble" suggest that he escaped from the little lunatic asylum that is the evolutionfairytale forums, where they use this term to describe any facts that disagree with their delusions.Having found that his fantasies don't cut it in the real world, he has, presumably, slunk back to his padded cell, where the walls are nice and soft and the attendants will keep him away from reality and sharp objects.

Apart from intelligent design, what can coordinate the incidental changes that hereditary transmission passes from one generation to the next? To perform such coordination, evolution requires a designer substitute. Darwin's claim to fame was to propose natural selection as a designer substitute. In making that proposal, Darwin perpetrated the greatest intellectual swindle in the history of ideas!
Natural selection is no substitute for intelligence. All natural selection does is narrow the variability of incidental change by weeding out the less fit. THAT IS ALL IT DOES! What's more, it acts on the spur of the moment, based soely on what the environment at present deems fit, and thus without any foresight of future possibilities. And yet this blind process, when coupled with another blind process (incidental change), is supposed to produce designs that exceed the capacities of any designers in our experience.
Where is the evidence that natural selection can accomlish the intricacies of bioengineering that are manifest throughout the living world?

Hi ICDESIGN, welcome to the fray. I object to your monolithic characterisation of design as intelligent, and challenge you to show why we shouldn't discuss BOTH SIDES of the Design Controversy.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

There's the fact that when we simulate the process of reproduction with random variation plus selection, this does in fact produce intricate feats of engineering beyond the capacities of designers.

Both sides should be discussed, absolutely. The problem with Darwinism is that it is all smoke and mirrors. Where is the evidence that the sorts of incidental changes required for large-scale evolution ever occur? The evidence simply isn't there. Imagine what would happen to the germ theory of disease if scientists never found any microorganisms or viruses that produced diseases. Thats the problem with Darwinism. In place of detailed, testable accounts of how a complex biological system could REALISTICLLY have emerged, Darwinism offers handwaving just-so stories of how such systems might have emerged...in some idealized conceptual space far removed from biological reality.
Why, then does Darwinism continue to garner such a huge following, especially amoung the intellectually elites such as many of you folks?
Two reasons: 1) It provides a materialistic creation story that dispenses with any need for design or God (this is very convenient for those who want to escape the demands of religion, morality, and conscience) 2) The promise of getting design without a designer is incredibly seductive--its the ultimate free lunch.
Getting design without a designer is a good trick indeed. Darwinism
is a magic trick performed far enough away from the audience to dazzle them...untill someone(like ID"ers) starts handing out binoculars making Darwinism's sleight of hand plain to see.
The Gig is up and the truth will prevail!
Now lets talk about the details close to home for each one of us, the human body. RAZD, you deny the human body is not intelligent correct?
Then you tell me your opinion of what constitutes a design worthy of the title "intelligent" and what qualifies your example for that title?Edited by ICDESIGN, : mispelled a word

Your joking right Dr Adequate. If you want to impress someone lets see you simulate creating life from nothing. I'll make it easy on you. Lets see you prove how to create significant new information from a blind non-thinking source.

University libraries full of scientific journals. Large museums full of fossils etc. University research laboratories where relevant experiments are conducted. Biology/evolution textbooks. The web (search for non-creationist sites).Next question?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

HO HUM.....OK, your right Coyote. The fossil record is chocked full of transitional forms that are undisputable and the science labs are bustling with scientist's and their mountians of proven tests of how to generate significant new information to a Genome.
I mean, we have observed Macro-evolution in so many studies its a miracle no one in the world has ever heard of it.
Ohh, no more questions here Coyote. I'll just sit down and shut up after being put in my place like that.

You asked: Perhaps my reply was a bit short, but truly, there is evidence in quantity for this.Large-scale evolution is made up of small-scale changes, what creationists often refer to as micro-evolution. Given some time and selection pressure, those small changes add up, and before long you have what is commonly called macro-evolution. There is no mechanism known to prevent those small changes from adding up to macro-evolution, given the time and pressure to do so.Your post refers to "how to generate significant new information to a Genome." There is no requirement for "new" information, although that is often the case. Evolution is change, which can be increased complexity or even loss of complexity. Or just change.And there really is a lot of information in those dusty stacks in the university libraries. Not all of it by far is yet available on the web.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

Lets see you prove how to create significant new information from a blind non-thinking source.

---

NASA has used evolutionary algorithms to produce a better antenna. You can see a description of the process here. The new antenna looks like this: Any other questions?Edited by subbie, : Subtitle change

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Here is the perfect example of the smoke and mirrors trick you guys try to pull all the time.
Lots of small changes do not equal a huge leap into another brand new species. This has NEVER been observed and never will be because it is impossible.
If you think massive new information to the Genome is not required to produce a new feature in an organizm I highly recommend you head down to the libraries you keep refering to

Yes I have a question. How did the items in the picture come into being?

There have been many, many observed instances of speciation. Talk Origins discusses some of them here.Now, you are the one who is going to try to pull a smoke and mirror trick by saying that you want to see more change than just speciation. You want to see a change in kind. However, it will be impossible for us to show this, because you can't give any coherent definition of kind.Edited by subbie, : Subtitle

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

The antenna was manufactured based on plans that were developed by a blind, non-thinking process.I imagine you are going to point out that an intelligent being manufactured the antenna, and you would be correct. But that would be irrelevant to the question you posed that I was answering. You asked for the creation of significant new information by a blind non-thinking process. The information that was created was the design of the antenna. That it was manufactured by an intelligence makes no difference, the information, the design, was created without intelligent intervention.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

OK subbie. I'm the one trying to use smoke and mirrors. You busted me.