How Darwinism Sucked the True Power out of Biology

J. Scott Turner is a professor, biologist, and physiologist whose tireless work concludes that Modern Darwinism has failed in a big way.

After countless decades, we are at a scientific dead-end still unable to clearly define what LIFE is.

Turner says, that only after Modern Darwinists surrender their materialist and mechanistic biases, and acknowledge the qualities and roles Purpose & Desire play, will the field move forward.

Purpose and desire at present are held only as “mere illusion”.

I could not agree more. The purposefulness of living things is apparent to any six year old. It is manifest at every level at which you study life. So, as in Mao’s China, it takes a great deal of “re-education” for people to un-learn the obvious.

In banishing purpose from the discussion, he says, “Where we have striven to exclude the ghosts from our machines, we have inadvertently constructed back doors that allow the ghosts to creep right back in.”

His book is extremely well written and congenial. Turner is a gentleman through and through, and does not go on a shaming rampage. This book is no rant. Rather, he invites you to really think and decide for yourself.

Join us in this fireside chat as we discuss his work.

Read more at:
//evo2.org/purpose-desire-review/

95 Responses

  1. Larry Iles says:

    Removing intent from existence likewise removes one of the most important aspects of the existence of everything that is or ever was. Purpose without intent is impossible to reconcile, and those who study biology cannot define any living thing or the way it functions without assigning a rational purpose for each and every function required for its survival. Mechanical reduction does not have the capacity to explain that away.

    • Absolutely correct.

    • bill says:

      actually the discussion where we assign purpose to evolutionary traits is a
      ex: our skin gets wrinkled because that helps our grip under water.
      dead wrong- our skin gets wrinkled because some organisms skin getting wrinkled helped that organism compete… that organisms spawn lived, we are that spawn- our fingers wrinkle
      any biologist worth their weight understand this, it’s only the untrained person who confuses this incorrect semantic stance as innate

    • Joseph McGee says:

      Yes, I agree. My cats are totally purpose driven. They find very invetive ways to communicate. I forgot to clean out the box, and was working on the computer. She jumped and planted one next to the keyboard. Intelligent? Absolutely.

    • Douglas Patterson says:

      Darwin, so far as I know, did not deny the existence of purposeful behavior. His point in more modern terms was merely that genetic changes occur as a matter of mutations that are sorted out and eliminated or sustained by natural selection.

      • Yomi Adeniji says:

        Yes indeed, people confuse and stretches Darwin’s theory he didn’t say. When Darwin tried to state origins, he looked at genes and mutation and that aspect is ever relevant, though debatable and not quit so by my own belief on creation.

        • Veljko Blagojevic says:

          False. Darwing knew nothing of genes, the man died in 1882, and genetics was established officially in 1905. Which makes his work even more genius – he pretty much hinted at how heredity worked, decades before scientists discovered what genes are.

    • ariel gaspardis says:

      There is no need for purpose. Purpose implies a desire for a particular outcome. Life is it’s own purpose. The rest is invented by the human mind according to their desires.

  2. Jan Hellsund says:

    Purpose can be evolved. Similarly, a universal taboo against cannibalism evolved because eating others of your own kind is counter-productive to growing a population. Others like ourselves are the perfect food and we would not venture outward to find food if the perfect food was available in our midst. Similarly, purpose would evolve because it serves the function of making the individual more robust. Purpose can be as simple as mating as often as possible or seeking safety. Lots of failures until advantageous tendencies come to be via mutation. I don’t see how this conflicts with classical Darwinism.

    • “Purpose evolved” is a total non-explanation. It doesn’t tell you one whit about how it actually occurs. Nor has anybody explained how such a thing takes place in such a way that you can actually reproduce it physically and observe it. It’s “just-so” stories. And It conflicts with classical Darwinism because classical Darwinism says there is no purpose.

      • Steve barry says:

        So how does it actually occur?

        • I have a $5 million prize for anyone who can figure it out. Which is probably a too-small amount of money considering how much the discovery is worth.

          • Phillip Whitaker says:

            How would someone go about collecting the $5M you mentioned?

            • Veljko Blagojevic says:

              You can collect Mr Perry’s big number prize by successfully refuting the current scientific consensus on evolution. Good luck with that. 😀
              Keep in mind, it is not a real, collectible prize – it is Mr Perry’s contribution to the creationist agenda of denying evolution (it presupposes that genetic codes fits a distinct, unique, predetermined pattern – which it does not). Kent Hovind had a similar prize, and I believe the famous bananaman Ray Comfort did the similar, although the most laughable one (the infamous ‘crockoduck’). 🙂
              This whole blog is a propaganda piece, not a serious discussion on science. Also notice how often Mr Perry goads people into buying his book (not knowing it can be downloaded for free, probably). 🙂

          • Roger Sawtelle says:

            Perry, this is Roger Sawtelle again.

            I have already explained how meaning and purpose came into being in my book, Darwin’s Myth. Tell me how I can collect my prize.

            • The application instructions are on the prize page.

              • Roger Sawtelle says:

                The book we are discussing, Purpose and Desire, says that life is not just physical, just genetic, and he is right. This is the reason Darwinism is not good science. It does not understand the nature of life.

                Life is physical, rational in that it has meaning, and spiritual in that it has purpose. Thus evolution because it is about Life must be about more than the physical, the rational, and the spiritual.

                The only way this can happen is to combine Variation (genetics or the physical) with Selection (ecology or rational and spiritual) to determine evolution.

                Sadly this does not seem to fit within the parameters of the contest.

                • Veljko Blagojevic says:

                  Roger…
                  ”Life is physical, rational in that it has meaning, and spiritual in that it has purpose. ”
                  Even if we somehow distinguish meaning and purpose, could you please elaborate or point out to a scientific paper which offers evidence for what you just wrote? What kind of experiment would prove that ”life has a purpose”?

                  Purpose is a subjective and relative term – a purpose of a knife in a murder is killing someone, in making food it is cutting food, in training knife-throwing it is as a tool, in some cases it can even have the purpose of a screwdriver or a hammer. And when it is just laying idly on a table – it has no purpose. In that sense, a guard dog has a purpose – to guard cattle or a house. A house cat has a purpose – to cuddle and catch pests. Again, those are things WE assigned to them, not something they signed up for or were constructed to do – stray dogs and cats have no purpose.
                  Talking about purpose IMPLIES someone assigning purpose. So to talk about purpose, first you must prove that the ”purpose assigner” exists. And so far, no one has done such a thing ever. It is just the difficulty in shaking off traditional prejudices – if the world was religious for millennia, it is expected that people still hold to the simplistic line of reasoning which underlies it.

    • John says:

      I am pretty sure I lost IQ points by just reading that post. Perfect food?!?! Our digestive tract is omnivorous in total but more herbivore than carnivore. The “perfect food” could not have “evolved” in the first place without the ingestion of a significant amount of imperfect food. There is no evidence that cannibalism has ever been widely practiced. Where it has been they only ate enemies whose populations they were attempting to eliminate. Seldom seen that much ignorance packed into such a small space.

    • Larrd says:

      If others like ourselves were the perfect food, why wouldn’t we evolve to have 1000 babies each year?

    • Dave Matuzak says:

      So if we are overpopulated, it makes sense to start eating one another? That makes no sense

    • Curtis Greer says:

      The problem with your understanding is that all mutations are neutral or negative. They do not introduce new DNA. They are corruptions of pre-existing programs that allow organisms to adjust to their environment. Programs do not just automatically appear the are intelligently designed, whether in a computer or living thing. Without a programmer designing an operating system, nothing happens, in electronics or living things.

      • Roger Lahti says:

        Your understanding is evident in your comment. Changes in dna are incremental not instantaneous. A study of the relationship of different lines of species often show a mix of one degree or another of other species dna. Certainly not exact but with tell tale markers or similar dna. Combine that with the fossil record, the anthropological record including ancient dna and you see that all creatures are related in a very distant past from the most complex as in the example of humans and their ancient relatives but also in all other creatures back to single cell life with nothing before that found in any fossil record. The simple implication and explanation considering the proven age of the earth and the rest of the known Universe is that with the right conditions life can happen and evolve into more complicated life with branches into all the various types of creatures we find in the past and today. So the creation of life itself may be mechanical given the right conditions or it may be set in motion in the same way but by A Universal Intelligent Design….Er. Other than by faith there is no proof one way or the other. Most scientist would not be in the business of disproving a God nor proving a God, rather investigating what happened and maybe eventually why and how it happened, regardless of the x
        Scientific topic. Some such investigation is further along than others. But neither the existence nor the non existence of a Creator has been unequivocally proven buy scientific examination. So with the evidence at hand,a mechanism like evolution may be the most reliable explanation at this time. It has happened and it continues to happen but you need to think in longer time spans than 6,000 years. Or SevenDays.

    • joey alcantara says:

      Darwin’s theory put humankind to the level of other lower form of animals
      It does not consider that man is not only a physical being but also spiritual entity capable of a higher moral judgement. Humankind came into being for a purpose not by chance or random mutations.

      • Veljko Blagojevic says:

        joey, if humans are capable of ”higher moral judgement” because they are ”spiritual”, tell me – why don’t rape and genocide exist in the animal kingdom?
        Why are the people who claim to have a direct line to their god usually responsible for child molesting?
        Why does the book supposedly written by a perfect and moral creator condone slavery and denies women’s rights?

        Because if some of us are incapable of moral judgement, that means we are not all spiritual. And if we are not all spiritual – it is not a defining trait of our species.

  3. Jan Hellsund says:

    In the 1700s we searched for a mechanical explanation of life. In the 1800s we looked for a thermodynamic explanation because “high tech” at the time was steam power. Earlier we seeked a hunting/gathering or agricultural explanation. Now we’re looking for some kind of code because of our information age goggles. Perhaps we’re a bit premature and should wait til our technology is more biologically driven. Computer code is just so… 20th century.

    • Perry says:

      This is a good observation. Living things are vastly superior to any software man has created.

      • Veljko Blagojevic says:

        Perry, how are ”living things vastly superior to any software man has created.”?
        I can use Facebook to contact people I haven’t seen for ages. I can use an app on my phone to refresh or build up my mental functions. I can use a simple notepad to keep track of my thoughts, or information, or even to type more code.
        Can I do anything even remotely useful with, let’s say, a bug? Or a plant? We can write a code which releases herbicides and insecticides in an area – can bugs or plants do anything about it? If not, than the code is superior to them, even if it is much simpler.

        Even better, I can use a program to complete extremely complex calculations much much faster than even the most talented people. And those programs are far simpler than, for instance, the part of DNA that codes brain structures and functions. Why?
        Even better, we have a simple code which permits literally perfect copying of any amount of computer code or information. Living things are unable to do so. Why?

        And if we are talking complexity – the species with the largest number of genes is a species of a water flea – Daphnia pulex. This is a microscopically tiny crustacean which eats algae and gets eaten by fish. Does that sound like a superior, vastly complex being? A slow growing plant, Paris japonica, has a genome 50 times longer than human genome. Why? Why aren’t humans in possession of more genes/longer genome than other living things?

        Answer these questions, and your ‘design’ argument unravels itself neatly. 🙂

        • Name one software program that’s been running for 80 years.

          Name one programming language that’s been in continuous use for 3 billion years.

          • Veljko Blagojevic says:

            Perry
            Are you seriously asking me for a COMPUTER software… which is running for… 80 years? Or a programming language…that’s IN USE… for 3 BILLION years?!
            Aren’t you an engineer?! You are aware that COMPUTERS didn’t exist for 80 years, let alone software, right?
            On the other hand, look at this software and hardware that existed for less than 80 years. The difference between the first software and programming languages and modern ones is night and day, and this astonishing progress has been made in a heartbeat, compared to the billions of years that life existed (and it still uses the same “software and codes”, no patches no updates, NOTHING).
            Now, why did one progress so fast, and the other is so stagnant and error prone for so many millenia? I’ll give you a hint – one of them is designed! Guess which one? 🙂

            You also try to argue that life is “more complex” than anything man made… Do you know what is a key trait of good design? It’s SIMPLICITY! The most simple solution and most simple usage is the most efficient. So, complexity would actually be an argument for bad design. I mean, who is more effifient for digging – a simple shovel, or a mole? 🙂

    • Veljko Blagojevic says:

      No, ”we” are not looking for any kind of ”code”. It’s just creationists, due to their misunderstanding of the term ”code” and how it can be used in multiple meanings. For instance, if I say ”moral code” or ”code of honor”, I am not talking about anything remotely similar to a computer code. In the same sense, when I say ”genetic code”, I am also not referring to anything akin to computer code. Information theory doesn’t really apply to genetics, except for some broad terms.
      I mean, the main argument that Mr Perry holds true to his heart is that we use the same word – code. But that argument is as strong as saying that Darwin was a racist because his book, written 160 years ago, had the subtitle ”preservation of the favored races” – it’s a weak argument, since the book (and the subtitle, by extension) doesn’t refer to human races, but species of animals/plants/fungi.

  4. Mark Snell says:

    I think you may be conflating “practice” with purpose. The purpose of surviving is universal, made more likely by the practices of lots of mating and hiding from the storm.

  5. Daniel White says:

    Certainly the biggest horse laugh of modern thought is the general assumption that Darwin’s evolutionary theory is a correct explanation of how life appeared and flourished on Earth. Had Darwin known what we now know about genetic structure and DNA, he would have never put forward his theory because he would have seen that the printing process which is used for replication has no provision for one specie to change into another. If I take a rubber stamp that says ‘Perry Marshall’ on it and stamp it a million or more times, it will never say, ‘Daniel White’, yet that is what the evolutionist is asking us to believe. I do not know how we got here, but I am pretty confident that it was not via evolution. Remember, Darwin’s finches not only continued to be birds, they continued to be finches.

    • James Bennett says:

      Daniel White, very well said.
      Good interview.

    • Colin Hughes says:

      The origin of life is unknown at this point, though there are some interesting hypotheses about parts of it. Most evolutionary biology has nothing to do with the origin of life (nor the origin of humans). Daniel White is however, completely wrong about DNA replication and mutation in general; we know a great deal about the generation of genetic variation. How natural selection acts on that variation is just math, no mystery there. As for speciation, there is lots of evidence, including examples of speciation events that have been observed. No biologist claims that a finch which undergoes speciation will give rise to a finch and a toad, or a parrot or whatever; the two products will both be finches, he’s right about that.

      • Bruce Cain says:

        Colin Hughes:

        What speciation events have been observed?

        Were they observed in sexually reproducing organisms?

        Were they demonstrably the result only of cumulative randomly occurring genetic mutations?

      • Ian Gattuso says:

        Like you said, it’s math. Vox Day used math to basically display the absurdity of speciation on his Dark stream podcast. He concluded based on the “scientific data” that we would have a major human mutation every 67 years or so. Evidence of speciation seems to just be an attempt at filling in the gaps to fit a preconceived evolutionary narrative that has already moved the goalpost many times and is in no way predictive.

      • Patrick Gallagher says:

        I agree until the finches adapt in enough different ways and over a long enough time that they can no longer create offspring. Or you can have the point of separation when the offspring are infertile.

      • Tammy Casey says:

        There are four elements necessary for life. They could not possibly have arisen in the necessary amount, under the necessary conditions etc to have risen on their own by accident. What a preposterous proposition. The code we speak of is information. When you buy a bike in a box, you are provided with the necessary information and instructions and parts to put it together correctly. In our world if there ar missing parts one can ask for more, on the other hand, in the biochemical natural world of chance, you cant get more elements!! God hanged the earth in nothing. He spoke and it was done. His power is what makes him God. That he reveals himself to us is an act of love. I dont understand the rebellion against a loving God. He clearly tells us that sin and the fallen Angel’s are responsible for the desecration and destruction of life on eath and the earth itself.Choose this day whom you will serve, as for ne and my house we will serve the LORD.

        • Veljko Blagojevic says:

          Tammy, you don’t serve anyone, you just defend your ignorance with pride.
          How do you KNOW that the four “elements” couldn’t possibly form in the necessary amount? What is your conclusive proof?
          The instructions for a bike and DNA are not similar, because bike instructions cannot form a bike without an intelligent assembler, and it is very likely that the assembler can do it without looking at the instructions. On the other hand, the genetic code is not a piece of paper that someone must translate – it is a chemical which reacts with other chemicals, just like any other chemical. It doesn’t act intelligently – why would those harmful mutations exist if it was intelligent? There are more catastrophic mutations in DNA than there are minor bugs in man-made computer code – that would make humans superior designers to your god.
          You don’t understand the “rebellion afainst god” because you were never taught to think outside of the box – you were brainwashed into believing that all people believe in your god, so the only way you make sense that someone says they don’t believe (or they believe in another god) is in your narrow view – that they are rebelling… Even though it would make no sense to rebel against someone who is all-powerful and all knowing, if you are convinced that such a person exists. The only logical conclusion would be that those people don’t actually believe in your god, but you were taught to ignore logic and not let anything disturb your faith, so…
          How can “sin” be responsible for “destruction of life”? What sin exactly? Disobedience in diet choices?! How would a loving person punish you eternally for eating something you were told not to? That is way too petty for anyone rational to believe. And that is one of the many reasons why a lot of people DON’T BELIEVE, they are not REBELLING. Get that through your head. 🙂

          • Tammy Casey says:

            Blah blah blah . you do not know me. I graduated from a highschool and attended a college both teaching evolution as fact when there is not one shred of evidence. Can you name the four elements necessary for life? How are they assembled and in what order and in what amount by what mechanism in the theory of evolution? And in what environment? You know nothing. Your post is nothing but letters maybe typed by a monkey. How can you prove who you say you are?

            • Tammy I expect you to be civil and respectful.
              You also need to get up to speed on this subject. Bandying about talking points from creationist books will not get you very far in this forum.

              • Tammy Casey says:

                I did not make a disparaging comment. I said how can you PROVE who you say you are? Read the statement in context.

              • Tammy Casey says:

                I beg to differ with you about talking points. The only thing evolutionist have to talk about is what they read in their books. I learn from books and lectures just like all college students and learner’s do. I choose different books than evolutionists do. I don’t understand your point. If you don’t agree with the statement please say for example and don’t try to discredit my sources. I have been asking how the four elements for Life came about to produce a living cell. No one can answer. And precisely because evolution is a lie.

                • I suggest you watch this, it’s a good start:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtTE6WXlMsU

                • Veljko Blagojević says:

                  Tammy
                  ” The only thing evolutionist have to talk about is what they read in their books.”
                  This is so incredibly hilarious and ironic. 😀
                  Just put “creationist” instead of “evolutionist”, and “book” instead of “books”, and you have nailed it. 🙂

                  “I have been asking how the four elements for Life came about to produce a living cell. ”
                  What four elements? The four nucleotide bases? The four biomolecules? Water, air, earth and fire? Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen (and Phosphorous and Iron, and etc)?
                  The problem you have is that you equate fragmentary explanation with NO explanation. Which is dishonest at best. There are plenty of papers written on experiments which tested some steps of abiogenesis and a lot of them turned in positive results and explained a lot (for example, how amino-acids could form from simple inorganic matter, how phospholipid bi-layers could form as precursors to cellular membranes, how RNA could form and self-catalyse, etc). If you want, I can dig some up for you, but I will not do it if you are just going to skip over them and return to your previous conclusion without even putting in slightest effort to finding out what the actual scientists say. It seems to me that you never bothered actually listening/reading to any scientific claim and you just collect them from extremely biased creationist sources who are known to distort scientific claims to make them sound sillier.

                  “No one can answer.”
                  If “no one” includes you, then I agree. Which makes it weird why any creationist would claim they DO KNOW the answer. However, scientists have a pretty good set of tracks and ideas they are following, and they seem to be the only ones actually working on decyphering this phenomenon. All creationists seem to do is “Look, you don’t have a concrete explanation of the absolute truth, therefore we place our faith in a mythical book written by people thousands of years ago. Why this book out of so many similar and equally valid? Well, WHY NOT?”

                  “And precisely because evolution is a lie.”
                  I really have to wonder what college you went to that taught you evolution, yet failed to teach you the definition of evolution. What does “forming of the first cellular life forms” have to do with evolution? Evolution, for the n-th freaking time, is the process of CHANGE IN ALLELE FREQUENCY WITHIN POPULATIONS OF LIVING ORGANISMS! So, evolution STARTS with life already formed. You have a bunch of wolves, you make them into a bunch of different dogs. If you say that evolution is a lie, you deny that dogs came from wolves. Who or what or how formed the first life is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!

    • Mark Kapera says:

      Neat analogy, but you’re forgetting one thing. DNA is designed to replicate, is flexible and can be altered (mutate) by external and possibly internal forces. Your ‘rubber stamp’ will eventually wear out and become a blur. But it would never evolve into the flourishing script of Benjamin Franklin.

      • Tammy Casey says:

        DNA copy errors are plenty. One mutation can cause taysachs disease. Another one, sickle cell anemia. Mutations are harmful and no DNA information is added enough to change a mammal into a bird! Nine air sacks, hollow bones, nor wings not come in pieces over time! ABSOLUTELY PREPOSTEROUS PROPOSITION!

        • Veljko Blagojevic says:

          Tammy, copy errors are not necessarily harmful. There are 64 different combinations of nucleotide triplets that translate into 20 amino-acids and one stop-code. The ratio of codes:amino-acids is basically 3:1. That means that even if a mutation occurs, it won’t necessarily change which amino-acid would be placed at that particular position in a protein. And even a change in one amino-acid in a protein is not always harmful.

          The other big misunderstanding you have is this – BIRDS didn’t evolve from MAMMALS! Both birds and mammals evolved from different species of reptiles. This is all well documented in the fossil record. And one single mutation will not change a species into a totally different species. THAT is a preposterous proposition.

      • Tammy Casey says:

        Rob Carter made a computer model demonstrating how DNA will degrade enough…over time….to eradicate humanity. You cannot defy the two laws of thermodynamics!

    • David Winchester says:

      It may not say Daniel white, but it definitely won’t say Perry Marshall…

      • Tammy Casey says:

        God cannot lie. His word says, He spoke and it was done. He created the heavens and the earth. Evolution is a lie to draw people away from the truth. You can trust God and his word. He told us what he did and how he did it A corrupt gene or copy of DNA produces disease and not a new healthy functioning creature. It is impossible.

    • Maria Hernandez says:

      You don’t think gene mutation due to chemical changes in the environment is enough of an explanation for evolution?. I’m not claiming to be a genetics expert or to argue, I just want to know. I do know that a baby with fetal alcohol syndrome has genetic changes. These changes have just as much chance of being passed on to that child’s decendants as any other gene. So that is a form of evolution. What think you?

      I understand that this does not explain the will to live.

      I am a religious person, therefore I need to state that neither evolution, nor spontaneous creation conflict with my relationship with God. He is God afterall and can do both, and more.

      • Ian Gattuso says:

        Maria Henderson not if you have a relationship with the God of the Bible. If evolution occurred in order for humans to exist, then there was death and predation before sin. You must then conclude that sin does not cause death. So why do you need saving from your sin if it doesn’t cause death? Why Jesus? You effectively discredit the entire Bible if you believe man’s guess – who wasn’t there – of what happened over the Bible’s Creation account in Genesis – that claims to be God breathed. Evolution is based on the premise that nothing came from nothing and then exploded into nothing that immediately became something at the exact same time – time needed to become a thing at that exact moment also – that nothing exploded into it and than billions of years later You and I are communicating our thoughts in a chat on the WWW. Why would you believe there is a God and also play along with the evolutionary non-sense that time space and matter all came into existence at the exact same moment?

      • Patrick Gallagher says:

        Well said, if we were created in God’s image, it seems likely he would like us to follow the truth, wherever it may take us.

    • Ken Hunt says:

      Your taking to hard of a stand point about what evolution is just look at what mankind has become in just the last 100 years alone….that’s living evolution in action….. The only constant in the universe is that everything changes….

      • Tammy Casey says:

        Rheblovenof ma yvwill grow cold in the last days. The Bibke is history and truth. We stand on a firm foundatuon. Evolution is a lie and always changing. They describe it in fuzzy words such as may be, could have, perhaps, must have, or even religious words like we believe. It is not a scientific fact. I’m sorry but artists Renditions of What creatures may have looked like in the past are not empirical science.

    • Jeffrey Dixon says:

      The main reason you can know that evolution has occurred is by looking at the fossil record and the order in which we find fossils. If in fact creationism, especially biblical creationism, was true, we would find all types of animals at all levels of the fossil record. But that is the exact opposite of what is found. At the earliest levels we find no life. Then we find only single celled organisms. Then we find early complex life. Then fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, birds and finally humans.

      We never find humans within the lower strata or any other species that came along after earlier ones. The oft repeated comment about never finding a bunny in the Pre-Cambrian represents the problem that creationists have.

      The evolution of one species into another species is the only explanation of why this order exists in the fossil record. If mammals evolved from reptiles, then it should be impossible to find a mammal that is beneath the reptiles. And so far, after looking for 150 years, we have never found one example of an out of place fossil.

      So, creationists try to pick holes in the theory, but never address the main issue. If all creatures were created at the same time, why can we never find bunnies, horses, wolves, reptiles, birds or most anything else in the Pre-Cambrian?

      We do not know everything about how evolution works, but we understand the big picture.

      Now, most creationists I have spoken with say the fossil pattern is explained by the Flood, which is complete nonsense. If almost all animals and humans died in a flood, we should find their fossils all jumbled together. They mutter about the flood sorting bodies by size, but the fossil record is not based on size. Yes, dinosaurs are big and they are found under animals like birds and humans. But we find smaller reptiles under the huge dinosaurs and we find single celled organisms under most all of it, which are the smallest of all. A flood is a completely absurd idea to try and explain the fossil record. But it all you have, so they pin their hopes on it.

      And given that each strata is a different time period and there are fossils in all but the earliest strata, the flood idea, is shown as complete bunk.

      So, while you may feel you are pointing out the flaws in the theory, you really are not. Perhaps there are aspects which need further investigation, and it is probable that we will find new aspects of how evolution has occurred. But you will never be able to get around the reality that different species came along at different times over the history of the earth. And only evolution has a viable explanation for how that occurred.

      • Ben Letto says:

        A couple issues here…first, evolution is not the only explanation of one species into another…there are other explanations…you are not justified in shutting down the investigations on alternatives to descent with modification.

        So, why don’t we find bunnies in the “early” layers? Because we define the layers! If we find a trilobyte, we then decide that this is a Cambrian layer…and if we find a human fossil, we declare that layer to be a only 90,000 yrs old…and voila! No H. sapiens are ever found in Cambrian layers…imagine that! It’s the worst kind of science there is, and it’s called paleontology.

        Another serious problem with the fossil record is that it’s woefully incomplete. Some estimates say that less than 5% of the species that ever existed, are represented in the fossil record. How can you claim to use such a horrible source of information for any conclusions? It’s not a useful tool…unless you just want to speculate and argue. Honestly, the fossil record is inconclusivity defined.

        The geologic column has been debunked with the discovery of soft tissue within numerous dinosaur bones…bones thought to be 65-million years old have been accurately dated with radicarbon of their bone collagen at 20,000 years. So the notion of deep-time biology has been wiped out…and without deep time, evolution simply doesn’t have time to operate (if it ever could actually be demonstrated as operable)

      • Ian Gattuso says:

        Jeffrey,
        Graham Hancock and Randall’s carlson and Creation Appologists would disagree with you. There are 3 podcasts on the Joe Rogan Experience that debunk the narrative based on very strong evidence of a worldwide flood and the strata mixing as a result. Additionally, we would see evidence of speciation in the fossil record if it were true – it’s all speculation- and we would also see evidence of speciation today – we don’t. The fact that we have no real evidence of speciation and that it is basically debunked by DNA and the gnome project trumps the strata argument anyway. If you would like to be able to argue the view you oppose check out Creation apologetics at http://www.answersingenesis.com or go to Kentucky and talk to the scholars. Science has not settled anything.

      • Kurt Knapp says:

        Jeffery you do realize that the fossils are dated by the strata they are located in and the strata is dated by fossils that are found in it. But I guess its good for story telling

        • Veljko Blagojevic says:

          Kurt, do you realize that that is completely false?
          http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC310.html

          As you can see, the geological column was determined before the theory evolution, so fossils are NOT the primary way of determining age of the strata and most certainly cannot be the manipulation of ”evolutionists”. Besides, only SOME fossils, which were never found outside a certain strata are used as index fossils (meaning, if you find that specific fossil in a strata, it is most probably the strata in which that specific fossil was always found). But, that is just one of many methods of dating the strata, NOT THE ONLY ONE! The strata are also dated using absolute dating methods, like radiometric dating.

      • Gary Lewis says:

        “The evolution of one species into another species is the only explanation of why this order exists in the fossil record.” I suggest that a Creator didn’t just create life forms, but created functioning eco-systems, separated by both geography and time. Eco-systems based on simple life forms were established first. As the atmosphere became more oxygenated, He gradually supplanted these with eco-systems with more advanced life forms. Like an experienced zookeeper, He managed life on a global basis over hundreds of million years. Eventually, our current eco-systems were established, compatible with man. This doesn’t answer all the questions related to evolution, but it represents an alternative response to the question of ascending complexity in the fossil record.

        • Veljko Blagojevic says:

          Gary
          If your hypothesis answers only one question, while the theory of evolution answers all of them – that means that the theory of evolution is a far superior explanation. Besides, your suggestion is that your god keeps creating new life forms and ecosystems, while the theory of evolution suggests that species gradually change through genetic changes and selection – and what do we observe today? Genetic change and selection!
          Also, your claim that humans are final and ultimate species is blatantly false, since humans (Homo sapiens) are NOT the youngest species on the planet (polar bears are younger, for example, and we could aldo mention all species that we caused to evolve through domestication).

      • Tammy Casey says:

        What is the mechanism of evolution? There are four elements necessary for life right? Carbohydrates, lipids, proteins a nucleotides. How did they come about? How did they form life? If you can’t answer that then I say concede that evolution is a lie.

        • Tammy you need to read Evolution 2.0 or watch the videos on this site. You are not sufficiently informed to be having this discussion.

        • Veljko Blagojević says:

          Tammy, look, a definition of biological evolution: “Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation. Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules. ”

          And you said: “There are four elements necessary for life right? Carbohydrates, lipids, proteins a nucleotides. How did they come about? How did they form life? If you can’t answer that then I say concede that evolution is a lie.”

          Do you see how your claim about what the theory of evolution should account for and the actual definition of the process of evolution, have literally NOTHING in common? Do you see that there is no mention of “life arising from non-living matter” in the definition of evolution? Do you see that? It is very important that you acknowledge that you see that.

    • Roger Lahti says:

      Not very well said Daniel White. You infect too much spiritual into a Creation and fail to consider that a God set up the Universe to work certain ways. There is just too much evidence that even our species had any number of precursors that led to US. And it fails to acknowledge the actual age of the earth. There certainly has been enough time and enough permutations to allow the creatures that exist today, including us, to develop into what we see now. There is too much evidence in the geological record and the fossil record to show that progression. The idea of ‘purpose’ or ‘mechanical’ is irrelevant. Organisms form to fill a niche, and that is at once a purpose and a simple mechanical function of nature. We see in the distant pas complicated and also simple organisms as we do today. Some made it this far and some didn’t, for various reasons. Our species was always on a path towards what we are now, but we didn’t start out this complicated. Nor are we through. Given time. Immense amounts of time.

    • Veljko Blagojevic says:

      ”Certainly the biggest horse laugh of modern thought is the general assumption that Darwin’s evolutionary theory is a correct explanation of how life appeared and flourished on Earth. ”
      The horse laugh is perhaps your misunderstanding of the theory, because it doesn’t even try to explain how life appeared (a separate hypothesis deals with that, it’s called ”abiogenesis”). As for how it got so diverse, it explains that quite nicely – along with the fossil record and genetic similarities. If it didn’t – we wouldn’t have dogs, cats, horses, or any domesticated plant or animal.

      ”Had Darwin known what we now know about genetic structure and DNA, he would have never put forward his theory because he would have seen that the printing process which is used for replication has no provision for one specie to change into another.”
      Yet he, like we today, could clearly see that species do change over time. Which meant for him that SOMETHING must be causing them to change. And today we know that those things are recombination and mutation.

      ” If I take a rubber stamp that says ‘Perry Marshall’ on it and stamp it a million or more times, it will never say, ‘Daniel White’, yet that is what the evolutionist is asking us to believe.”
      nnnno, this is what the creationist wants you to believe the evolutionist wants you to believe. 🙂
      Your analogy is way off. If you use the same rubber stamp a million times, that is like if a single organism had a million children – of course they will all look like the parent (not perfectly, but pretty close). However, if you stamp it once, then use the stamp print as a mold for another rubber stamp, then stamp it and use its print as mold for another rubber stamp, and repeat that process for a million times, you would get different results than stamping the same rubber stamp a million times (it wouldn’t say ”Daniel White”, but it would not say ”Perry Marshal”). That analogy is also not perfect, but it is more akin to what happens with living organisms. In other words, they have children, and then those children have children, and so on.

      ”I do not know how we got here, but I am pretty confident that it was not via evolution.”
      Then you leave both comparative genetics and the fossil record pretty much unexplained – and evolution is a simple explanation covering both. 🙂
      That is unless you are referring to the origin of life, in which case I must say, for a millionth time, the origin of life is explained by a different, unrelated hypothesis – abiogenesis. THAT is still tested, not evolution, evolution is an easily observable, very well documented fact. You just need to know what the real definition of evolution is – as in, how the scientists define it, not how the creationists define it, there is a great difference. Creationists believe that evolution means ”a monkey gives birth to a man”, or ”a reptile egg hatches into a bird” – and that is NOT how scientists define it, because that is not what we see happening. 🙂

      ”Remember, Darwin’s finches not only continued to be birds, they continued to be finches.”
      Remember, wolves not only discontinued being wolves, they continued to be dogs. Some of which can’t mate with wolves anymore, or some other dog breeds. Wonder why? 🙂
      Also, by you saying that ”finches didn’t evolve because they are still birds”, do you admit that all birds today have a common ancestor? So, if you follow your own logic, you could easily say ”yes, humans are apes, but that is not evolution, since both humans and apes are still mammals (very similarly looking mammals too – and ape intelligence is closest to human intelligence)”.
      In other words, you are merely arguing what name you want to use – you just despise the word ”evolution”, but you recognize that it is what happened and is still happening. 🙂

  6. Gerry Javier, Jr says:

    I have no statistics to back up my claim but I think cannibalism was widely practiced in Southeast Asia as late as the 1950’s. The Illongot, a pagan tribe in Central Philippines ate human. There were no bodies in that fatal plane crash in Papua New Guinea involving a Rockefeller scion because they were assumed to have been eaten by the natives. Reports also tell Japanese soldiers feasting on American captives to stave off hunger during WWII.

  7. Ray Guarino says:

    You should go do philosophy or religion because that is what it sounds like you all want to do. Should the scientist define for all of us a singular “scientific” purpose of life? I think not. I would rather look to the Pope or the Dalai Lama for that answer.

  8. Duncan Thomson says:

    Are they (termites) little robots carrying out a program or are they living thinking beings. The answer is YES. They (and we) are both. I find this discussion quite empty. Two talking heads struggling with a problem that is not really a problem. Evolution is real – I won’t waste my time arguing about that. Emergent behavior of a complex.system made up of many smaller simpler systems (a termite colony) is fascinating and not fully understood. Conscious Ness is far from understood. So what? How does this evolution 2.0 help understand those things better. Someone please explain in a few lines.

    • Alex "here's your full name" Anderson says:

      The best comment here so far and no one replies to it… because it’s right.

    • Evolution 2.0 acknowledges that the question of consciousness is behind all of this and that labeling something an “emergent property” doesn’t account for how it emerged. Thus the prize.

    • Ian Gattuso says:

      Duncan Thompson said “Evolution is real- I won’t waste my time arguing about that.” Yes, let’s waste Time, because in order for your statement “Evolution is real” to be correct, TIME space and matter all had to come came into existence at the same TIME? Nothing came from nothing and exploded into nothing that came into existence at the same TIME. Please, waste our time. I would love to hear how you are the logically consistent one.

      • Jeffrey Dixon says:

        Your comment is nonsensical. Evolution and the origins of the universe are two separate issues. A god could have created the universe and the first replicating life form and then used evolution as the process to spread life over the earth.

      • Roger Lahti says:

        If you look at the total of science your nothing into nothing makes no sense. The total of science will show that a reversal of the Universe leads back to an incomprehensable, and I finally small something. Then reverse forward and every thing, elemental comes into existence in a minute amount of time. Through a natural progression over billions of years according to conditions present different results happen, including in our little corner, us and all the things that have lived before and all the different conditions that have happened. That’s the evidential truth. The only unanswered question is whether a God initiated all this or was it somehow just physics at work. I contend that physics at work is God at work.

        Refer to the Bible. And tell me what a Creator would reveal to a thinking animal like us, just flirting with coming out of a Stone Age, that we would understand. It is amazing that Genesis comes so close to the same explaination as Science has shown.

  9. Terry Black says:

    Suppose a finch gave birth to another finch that was faster, more agile, better able to flourish than its mom. Supply the improved finch continued to propogate, and the finch population began to exhibit those improved characteristics.

    Now suppose a finch evolved to the point where it could no longer breed with the original. You say this is impossible, but I don’t see why.

    Doesn’t the fossil record show countless examples of new species emerging, to the point where they don’t resemble the original?

  10. Veljko Blagojević says:

    “After countless decades, we are at a scientific dead-end still unable to clearly define what LIFE is.”
    Which should be a clear indication that it may not be a category as clean-cut as creationists like to believe. 🙂

    “Purpose and desire at present are held only as “mere illusion”.”
    They are not “mere illusion”, they are pretty real to the person having them…however, while that doesn’t make them “unreal”, it makes them “subjective” or “relative”. As such, they have no bearing on the study of the origin of life (or it’s functions and processes).

    “The purposefulness of living things is apparent to any six year old. It is manifest at every level at which you study life. ”
    To a six-year old, yes.
    To a thirty-one-yers old scientist – no.
    It is also apparent that the world is flat, and that it didn’t exist before we were born. Yet, it isn’t really a strong conclusion upon adult, rational inspection, is it? 🙂

    “His book is extremely well written and congenial. Turner is a gentleman through and through, and does not go on a shaming rampage. This book is no rant. Rather, he invites you to really think and decide for yourself.”
    Yet, you are unhappy when we actually think for ourselves and arrive at the opposite conclusion from you. You keep insisting how we are ignorant and refuse discussion. Why would that be? 🙂

  11. Roger Lahti says:

    We as a species possess the ultimate in curiosity. We love to discuss and examine everything in an ingrained attempt to understand. It’s the epitome of “life”. But in the simplest terms what is “life”? It is simply the imperative and ability to reproduce itself. Whether it be the simples of organisms, bacteria, fungus, virus, or any more complicated creature, it can and does replicate.

    On cold stretch the analogy to the mineral world in that the cosmos in all its complexity and diversity is in constant death and birth, reproducing itself, creating new stars, planets, and all the physical material forms in between. But we acknowledge that in our understanding Of physics, this is a mechanical function guided by the laws of physics. Life takes a step beyond that while using physics it also uses the miracle of individual reproduction, relying only on the presence of the right, necessary conditions to support a continuation of the presence and reproduction of the organism. That can result, with changing conditions a change in the organism. Evolution. It’s purpose is to not just reproduce but to fill a niche in a suitable environment. Subtle changes in an environment result in subtle changes in organisms. Evolution. Our line has/had the ability to continually become more and more complex, while other lines came to a dead end. Evolving no more but living on in a supportive environment. Filling a niche.

    What is the purpose of life? Reproduction, preservation, and sometimes growth. Why it started or exactly how is at once a scientific inquiry and a spiritual inquiry. Neither is contrary to the other.

    • Veljko Blagojevic says:

      ”We as a species possess the ultimate in curiosity. We love to discuss and examine everything in an ingrained attempt to understand. ”

      I would have to disagree with you on this. Very few people actually discuss and examine what they believe or are being told by someone they consider an authority. Most people like the false idea of ”certainty”, and they cling to it desperately. Like our friend Perry Marshal there. 🙂

      ”But in the simplest terms what is “life”? It is simply the imperative and ability to reproduce itself.Whether it be the simples of organisms, bacteria, fungus, virus, or any more complicated creature, it can and does replicate.”

      False. Are organisms unable to reproduce non-living? Spoiler: they are not!
      See how the question is not that simple to answer? 🙂

      ”On cold stretch the analogy to the mineral world in that the cosmos in all its complexity and diversity is in constant death and birth, reproducing itself, creating new stars, planets, and all the physical material forms in between. But we acknowledge that in our understanding Of physics, this is a mechanical function guided by the laws of physics.”

      If you are implying that biological reproduction doesn’t rely on the laws of physics, the answer is ”of course it relies on the laws of physics!”. It couldn’t exist if it violated them.

      ” Life takes a step beyond that while using physics it also uses the miracle of individual reproduction, relying only on the presence of the right, necessary conditions to support a continuation of the presence and reproduction of the organism. ”

      Buddy, all physical processes require ”the right, necessary conditions” to happen.

      ”That can result, with changing conditions a change in the organism. Evolution.”

      Evolution is not ”a change in the organism.” It is ”a change in a population of organisms.’ Huge difference.

      ”It’s purpose is to not just reproduce but to fill a niche in a suitable environment.”

      It has no purpose. Purpose is solely an attribute that sentient creatures proclaim for things, it is not objective. For instance, this post of mine has a purpose – to elucidate and discuss some points about the scientific definitions of life and evolution. A rock falling on my head, or genes recombining in a certain way in my sperm cells, do not have any purpose. They just happen.

      ” Subtle changes in an environment result in subtle changes in organisms. Evolution. ”

      This formulation again implies causality/intent. Populations of organisms simply change due to the nature of genetic material and reproduction. A change in the environment doesn’t start that genetic change, it just affects how certain combinations of those genes could survive in the environment. For example, if a faster predator migrates to an area where it’s potential prey species already exists, evolution doesn’t mean that all the prey will start running faster, but that only those who can run faster will survive. The arrival of the predator (the subtle change in the environment) didn’t force the prey species to become faster – it simply acts as a filter. And if no members of that prey-population can pass that filter – they go extinct.

      ”Our line has/had the ability to continually become more and more complex, while other lines came to a dead end.”

      Being complex has nothing to do with it. Dinosaurs were as complex as we are – if not more. And they still went extinct. The key point for evolution is ”being adapted to your current environment”, not ”being able to get more complex”. In the most inhospitable environments on the planet you will find only very simple, single-cell organisms: are they not ‘evolved’ as well? Spoiler: they are! 🙂

      ”What is the purpose of life? Reproduction, preservation, and sometimes growth.”
      Reproduction, preservation and sometimes growth are not things specific for life. They can happen (and do happen) to non-living things, and are important for them also.

      ”Why it started or exactly how is at once a scientific inquiry and a spiritual inquiry. Neither is contrary to the other.”

      While I agree that they are not contrary, it is important to distinguish the two inquiries:
      A scientific inquiry could have a correct answer, since life definitely had to originate at some point, since it exists today. How correct the answer will be depends.
      A spiritual inquiry will yield as many answers as there are people who will embark on the inquiry, and they will all be of the same validity.
      Asking ”why” in a purpose-discerning way is simply a mental exercise, since it implies an outside, intelligent driving force, which had intent – this constitutes the spiritual inquiry. Asking ”why” in a cause-discerning way does make sense, since it can possibly be deducted from observation and experimentation – this is the scientific inquiry. 🙂

  12. JReder White says:

    I think we all need to acknowledge that many things on our planet and in our universe stagger the imagination and remain mysterious. It’s all speculation. Some speculation is useful. We can assume the earth is flat and construct a house on a solid foundation. But we can’t sail around the world and hold to that view. It’s more useful to see the earth is round (which it really is). So what use do we see in evolutionary theory, in creation theory?

    Some think that a non-Biblical world view purports that something came from nothing. This is not necessarily so. What if a tiny hole to another dimension suddenly opened up and then matter exploded into our empty universe? Of course, the concept of an empty universe is itself absurd. Then, too, this begs the question of where that other universe got its matter.

    People also think that one has to abandon his belief in God when he “believes” in evolution. This is far from true since Christian scientists before Darwin proposed that life evolves on the earth. One decides for himself whether God is orchestrating life or if life is developing on its own, so to speak, as a reaction to environmental concerns, or as a purpose of survival. Life makes a way, as Michael Crichton put it.

    Belief in God is a choice. So is unbelief. Neither choice provable in any material way. So persons who have chosen one belief over another one have no authority to show any superior attitude at all.

    As for purpose, the Bible makes it pretty clear that most concepts of purpose are like puffs of air. We are all grass that will wither and die. I am cogent of the fact that, fifty years after I pass away, no one on this planet will remember I was here. I just spoke with freshmen in high school who were born after 9/11. Most have no emotional memory attached to that event. And it hasn’t been fifty years yet. When Mary Tyler Moore passed away, I asked high school seniors if they knew that name. They didn’t. Even famous people are forgotten.

    Considering these facts, one can hold on to a belief in God who manages all the order and chaos around us, or decide that life just persists on its own. No one who has lost a family member to senseless violence can remain neutral on this issue.

Leave a Reply

You must use your real first and last name. Anonymity is not allowed.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *