If Evolution Is True...

[ikester7579 19]

If evolution is a true fact, then why is the foundation of what truth and reality is, removed?

 

Example: There are no absolutes.

 

Absolute: perfect or complete or pure, complete and without restriction or qualification. expressing finality with no implication of possible change.

 

Truth: a fact that has been verified. Accuracy.

 

Fact: statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened. An event known to have happened or something known to have existed.

 

Falsifiable: Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. Logically capable of being proven false.

 

Unfalsifiable: not able to be proven false, but not necessarily true.

 

So in one hand science teaches no absolutes. But in the other hand they claim that evolution is a true fact.

 

So how many parts of evolution are there that cannot be verified for one reason or another?

 

1) Abiogenesis. The closest verification was the Miller experiment. But no life walk out from the experiment. And only 70-80% of the amino acids requires for life was produced. What is the source for the missing 20-30% amino acids?

2) Macro evolution. The closest verification is one stage of speciation. No out side of kind speciation has ever been observed, so therefore verification is not possible because of the time involved.

3) Micro evolution. Has been observed in "some" species 10%. But because of the low percentage. It does not prove that "all" species went trough this process, or was able to.

4) Parallel evolution (evolving together). When two or more systems are needed to work together because one cannot function by itself. It is often claimed that they evolved together. This is not only not observable, but is also unfalsifiable as well. Logic would suggest that there are no organs or systems in any life-form that have the same complexity as another. So therefore parallel evolution is impossible. Because the more complex a organ or system is, the more mutations required for it to evolve.

 

Example: Which evolved first? The eye, or the vision center of the brain? One cannot function without the other. So the answer evolutionists will answer with is that they evolved together. So does the eye and the vision center of the brain have the exact same complexity?

 

So these examples are the reason why the foundation for truth (absolutes) has to be removed before evolution can be taught. Because if someone were to apply the actual meaning of absolutes, true fact, to evolution. They would soon realize that it does not match up to the very definitions it is said to have met.

[jason777 1]

Example: Which evolved first? The eye, or the vision center of the brain? One cannot function without the other. So the answer evolutionists will answer with is that they evolved together. So does the eye and the vision center of the brain have the exact same complexity?

The vision center could have functioned as a tie tack until the eye evolved.

 

Sorry,i've been brainwashed by Ken Miller.

[jason777 1]

2) Macro evolution. The closest verification is one stage of speciation. No out side of kind speciation has ever been observed, so therefore verification is not possible because of the time involved.

An increase in genetic information would only require a few mutations,which would easily happen in our life time.according to them,it may have taken millions of years for a dinosaur to evolve into a bird,but an increase in genetic information is just one tiny step,that should have been observed thousands of times already in every species on the planet.

 

 

The only observed variations are acting upon pre-existing information.And the only benefical mutations accounted for are acting upon pre-existing information,but only beneficial at a cost.

[jason777 1]

In fact,here is an empirical,real time,theory test of evolution for you.

 

It was believed that adaptation takes millions of years,but here is an experiment on a lizard species introdued to the carribean that evolved in a decade or so.

 

The rate of evolutionary change is measured in units called darwins. Darwins provide a measure of the proportional change in a given organ over time. Changes typically seen over millions of years in the fossil record usually amount to 1 darwin or less. The transplanted lizards evolved at rates of up to 2000 darwins.

 

"Darwin thought that natural selection had to be slow and gradual," Losos said. "I think it is clear he was mistaken. In some cases change can be very rapid."

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/evol/lizard.html - 7k -

 

Not only is it an empirical experiment that proves Darwin was wrong again,but it validates rapid diversification after the flood that evolutionists have always said would be impossible.

 

Now for the theory test;

 

This lizard,after introduction,was forced to feed on plants in order to survive.According to evolutionists,it evolved filaments in its digestive track to digest it.That would be an empirical increase of genetic information.But,as Dr. David Menton pointed out,these lizards are actually omnivores (feeding on plants and insects) and already have these filaments in their digestive track,they just got bigger because their diet changed.

 

All that needs to be done is to map the entire genome of the parent colony and then those on the island.If molecules to man evolution is true,then we can empirically test an increase in genetic information.

 

To this date,i've heard of no such plans to test the theory...go figure.

 

 

 

Enjoy.

[Percy 0]

If evolution is a true fact, then why is the foundation of what truth and reality is, removed?

34496[/snapback]

This is one of my big complaints, too. In explaining evolution many like to refer to both the fact and the theory of evolution. They often draw analogies to other theories, arguing for example that there is both the fact and theory of gravity, or the fact and theory of light, or the fact and the theory of a heliocentric solar system.

 

The analogies *are* valid while use of the word fact maybe not so much, but it isn't a simple matter explaining why. Everyone easily understands and agrees that it's a fact that there's such a thing as gravity. And everyone agrees that there's such a thing as light. And everyone agrees with heliocentrism, that it's a fact that the Sun is at the center of the solar system and that the planets orbit around the Sun.

 

But there's a difference in degree regarding how obviously these things are facts. It only requires being conscious to verify that gravity and light are facts, but this is not the case with heliocentrism. It took many, many observations over many years combined with careful study and analysis (Copernicus was the first) to demonstrate heliocentrism. While it's a fact, it's not an obvious fact. You have to collect a lot of data and do a lot of math before you can prove it's a fact.

 

And so those on the science side are often given to arguing that evolution is like heliocentrism. It took a lot of evidence gathering and analysis to demonstrate that evolution is a fact, but that life changes over time to adapt to its environment is a fact, or so they argue. They like to quote Stephen Jay Gould's definition of fact. Paraphrasing, Gould said that a fact is something so obvious that it would be perverse to withold at least provisional assent. In other words, even Gould agrees that facts have a tentative component, as they must if they're to be part of valid science.

 

Let me say it again, because this is important. In science, even facts are tentative. I'm sure it's going to sound weird to most people, but not only are the facts of evolution and heliocentrism tentative, but so are the facts of gravity and light.

 

A natural response might be, "I pick up a rock, I release it, it falls to the ground, and that's a fact. Things being drawn by a force toward the center of the earth is a fact, and we call this force gravity. There's nothing provisional or tentative about it. It's a 100% true fact!"

 

But even direct observations can be erroneous. The most famous example is probably the canals on Mars, which I won't dwell on since everyone is probably already familiar with it. A less famous but even more profound example is N-Rays, here's a link to the Wikipedia article. French scientists around the turn of the 20th century thought they had discovered a new form of electromagnetic radiation. They sincerely believed that they were directly observing this radiation, but in the end it was discovered they were mistaken and that there was really no such thing as N-Rays.

 

So to be scientifically consistent we have to consider all observations tentative, and this includes even very direct observations such as of gravity and light, even when the likelihood of being mistaken is a vanishingly small. Use of the word "fact" is not going to go away, it's just too ubiquitous, and so we're stuck having to keep in mind Gould's careful redefinition, that even facts are tentative.

 

This means that, at least in science, one must keep in mind that fact and truth are not the same thing, at least not if one believes that truth is not tentative or falsifiable.

 

--Percy

[Guest Keith C]

So how many parts of evolution are there that cannot be verified for one reason or another?

 

1) Abiogenesis. The closest verification was the Miller experiment. But no life walk out from the experiment. And only 70-80% of the DNA requires for life was produced. What is the source for the missing 20-30% DNA?

The main products of Miller's experiment were amino-acids and I do not think any measurable amount of DNA was produced.

For one recent news item on the abiogenic formation of RNA nucleotides, see:-

A Leading Mystery of Life's Origins Is Seemingly Solved

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...f%20life&st=cse

 

2) Macro evolution. The closest verification is one stage of speciation. No out side of kind speciation has ever been observed, so therefore verification is not possible because of the time involved.

Since there is no useful definition of 'kind', this claim is meaningless.

 

3) Micro evolution. Has been observed in "some" species 10%. But because of the low percentage. It does not prove that "all" species went trough this process, or was able to.

Do you have any evidence of species in which no mutation occurs? Since all species have essentially similar DNA and/or RNA genomes, mutation must occur in all species and mutation means microevolution. Genetic drift and recombination are also important causes of genetic change.

 

4) Parallel evolution (evolving together). When two or more systems are needed to work together because one cannot function by itself. It is often claimed that they evolved together. This is not only not observable, but is also unfalsifiable as well. Logic would suggest that there are no organs or systems in any life-form that have the same complexity as another. So therefore parallel evolution is impossible. Because the more complex a organ or system is, the more mutations required for it to evolve.

You have used this 'different levels of complexity in different organs' previously and it is no better here than in your previous attempts to make this claim.

Did you dream up this idea yourself, or are there other creationists laboring under the same delusion?

 

Example: Which evolved first? The eye, or the vision center of the brain? One cannot function without the other. So the answer evolutionists will answer with is that they evolved together. So does the eye and the vision center of the brain have the exact same complexity?

Same problem as 4)

[scott 3]

The main products of Miller's experiment were amino-acids and I do not think any measurable amount of DNA was produced.

For one recent news item on the abiogenic formation of RNA nucleotides, see:-

A Leading Mystery of Life's Origins Is Seemingly Solved

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...f%20life&st=cse

Since there is no useful definition of 'kind', this claim is meaningless.

Do you have any evidence of species in which no mutation occurs?  Since all species have essentially similar DNA and/or RNA genomes, mutation must occur in all species and mutation means microevolution. Genetic drift and recombination are also important causes of genetic change.

You have used this 'different levels of complexity in different organs' previously and it is no better here than in your previous attempts to make this claim.

Did you dream up this idea yourself, or are there other creationists laboring under the same delusion?

Same problem as 4)

34546[/snapback]

All mutation does not = microevolution, actually nothing = micro or macro evolution since neither have been proven to exist. What you call micro evolution, is simply not, because no increase in genetic information is found. Can you prove this, can you observe this??? If it's not observed to have happened then it most likely hasn't happened.

 

" different levels of complexisty in different organs" HA! that's a fact of life Keith, and a simple observation at that. I thought you would've figured that out on your own. No, there are no claims at differences in complexity, that's just the way bodily organs are, some are more complex then other's.

 

No Keith, if you can't see this, then you are most definitely under some form of delusion yourself. Unless you can somehow tear a hole in reality and disprove the differences of complexity in different organs and organisms... which has been observed and verified.

 

The only way evolution can be a fact, is through observation, and without observation it simply cannot be a fact.

[ikester7579 19]

The main products of Miller's experiment were amino-acids and I do not think any measurable amount of DNA was produced.

For one recent news item on the abiogenic formation of RNA nucleotides, see:-

A Leading Mystery of Life's Origins Is Seemingly Solved

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...f%20life&st=cse

I meant to say amino acids, I will correct the mistake. But where did the other 20-30% amino acids come from? Pointing out my mistake does not get you off the hook of answering the question.

 

Since there is no useful definition of 'kind', this claim is meaningless.

LOL, the usual excuse. You know exactly what kind means but you equivocate because you would rather be ignorant. How easy can it be?

 

Birds are bird kind. Dogs are dog kind. etc... Admiting to what kind really means is to also admit to what a major problem for evolution is. So it is better for every evolutionist to plea that there is a problem with the word kind instead of addressing the issue they do not want to address. Which is that speciation outside of animal kind has never been observed and never will be.

 

And if you want to play more ignorance, I'll step ahead and give you an example of reproducing outside of an animal kind. Has a bird every given birth to a lizard, or a lizard give birth to a bird? Evolution implies that they have. Even though it breaks all observable reproductive laws. According to how evolution is supposed to work. Given enough time all know laws can and will be broken so that evolution can work.

 

Do you have any evidence of species in which no mutation occurs?  Since all species have essentially similar DNA and/or RNA genomes, mutation must occur in all species and mutation means microevolution. Genetic drift and recombination are also important causes of genetic change.

Mutations must occur in all species? You see you are assuming that evolution is a true absolute fact with that comment. That is what this whole thread is about. First you guys want to teach us there are no absolutes, then turn right around and imply that evolution is an absolute.

 

Also, since you claim "all" species must mutate. There must be a catalog of all known species and their mutations. Can you provide it? No? Then you have no evidence that "all" species must mutate.

 

And if you think mutations are all done unintellgently, then explain this one. There is a fish in the ocean that has it own fishing rod and bait on the end of it. It sticks out of it's head, and fish actually fishes with it to lure his prey. He will wiggle the rod to make the bait seem alive so that the prey will be attracted to it.

 

Through what process of evolution would a pole thing stick out of a fishes head, with fake bait. And the fish have to ability to know how to use it to attrack it's prey? We humans like to fish, I see no poles and fake bait growing out of our heads.

 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

Now, since it takes millions of years to evolve something. Do you think these creatures could wait that long to eat in total darkness?

 

 

You have used this 'different levels of complexity in different organs' previously and it is no better here than in your previous attempts to make this claim.

Did you dream up this idea yourself, or are there other creationists laboring under the same delusion?

Same problem as 4)

34546[/snapback]

Nice dodge. I'm not the one who claims this so your attempt to reverse guilt of "who really has the problem" is quite lame. If you cannot answer the question, just admit to it. I know evolution feeds the needs of know it alls. But there are times when defending the know it all attitude actually does more harm than good.

 

So under your delusion of knowing all the truth because you believe in evolution, answer the question. Can 2 systems or organs, that have diferent complexities, evolve at the same exact time so that each can work together?

 

If you cannot answer the question, then we know why you said what you said. Evolution gives you the mindset that you can always be right and have answers for everything. So in your attempt at wanting to be right, you reverse the problem to me as if I made the claim. Sorry, I don't believe in evolution so the burden of proof is upon you.

[jason78 0]

The only way evolution can be a fact, is through observation, and without observation it simply cannot be a fact.

34555[/snapback]

Just out of interest. If someone were to observe a population of organisms in a laboratory setting acquire a new trait that it did not have before, you would accept evolution as a fact?

[ikester7579 19]

Just out of interest.  If someone were to observe a population of organisms in a laboratory setting acquire a new trait that it did not have before, you would accept evolution as a fact?

34570[/snapback]

Adding "new" information means it was not already in the DNA.

 

Example. Did the first single cell have it already written in it's DNA to become multible land walking animals? Of course not. So what is the process in evolution that writes such information that does not require intelligence?

[de_skudd 41]

Just out of interest.  If someone were to observe a population of organisms in a laboratory setting acquire a new trait that it did not have before, you would accept evolution as a fact?

34570[/snapback]

No, that would simply be adaptation (if it were to happen).

[jason777 1]

Just out of interest.  If someone were to observe a population of organisms in a laboratory setting acquire a new trait that it did not have before, you would accept evolution as a fact?

34570[/snapback]

Define new.Some evolutionists would equivocate as far as saying a finches beak changing it's shape would be a new trait.

 

A new trait would be a worm with only photosensetive cells evolving a primitive eye.Since we all know that bacteria can aquire new traits through horizontal gene transfer without the need to evolve them,we would to see a new trait in an organism that is'nt able to aquire it through HGT.

 

 

Thanks.

[Guest Keith C]

I meant to say amino acids, I will correct the mistake. But where did the other 20-30% amino acids come from? Pointing out my mistake does not get you off the hook of answering the question.

Some sample vials from Millers 1952 experiments have recently been analyzed by modern analytical methods.

"Miller, using the old methods, had found five amino acids; Jeffrey Bada and his teams tracked down 22. What is more, the overall chemical yields were often higher than in the first set of experiments - the mixture appeared to be more fertile "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7675193.stm

Proteins normally use 20 amino acids.

The news article points out that the atmosphere used in these particular experiments was typical of that in the vicinity of volcanic eruptions.

 

LOL, the usual excuse. You know exactly what kind means but you equivocate because you would rather be ignorant. How easy can it be?

Birds are bird kind. Dogs are dog kind. etc... Admiting to what kind really means is to also admit to what a major problem for evolution is. So it is better for every evolutionist to plea that there is a problem with the word kind instead of addressing the issue they do not want to address. Which is that speciation outside of animal kind has never been observed and never will be.

The only consistent definition I have ever seen is that 'kind' means exactly what the particular creationist intends at that time.

For example, here you are telling me that all birds, from hummingbirds to eagles, and probably penguins, are all in the bird 'kind', while the dog 'kind' does not include hyenas, coyotes and perhaps even wolves.

 

And if you want to play more ignorance, I'll step ahead and give you an example of reproducing outside of an animal kind. Has a bird every given birth to a lizard, or a lizard give birth to a bird? Evolution implies that they have.

What evolution (and the history of life on earth) requires is that there is parent-child descent from a reptile species through dinosaurs to modern birds. At any generation, there was never any sudden transition. It is only now that we can look back at the fossil record and classify some as reptiles, others as dinosaurs and still others as birds.

 

Mutations must occur in all species? You see you are assuming that evolution is a true absolute fact with that comment. That is what this whole thread is about. .....................................

Also, since you claim "all" species must mutate. There must be a catalog of all known species and their mutations. Can you provide it? No? Then you have no evidence that "all" species must mutate.

Are you trying to claim that if a mutation rate has not been measured for a species, that that species does not mutate?

All I assume is that since all DNA-based species share the same basic process of DNA replication, that all are subject to mutation, but probably at different rates.

 

Through what process of evolution would a pole thing stick out of a fishes head, with fake bait. And the fish have to ability to know how to use it to attrack it's prey? We humans like to fish, I see no poles and fake bait growing out of our heads.

 

Now, since it takes millions of years to evolve something. Do you think these creatures could wait that long to eat in total darkness?

I have no idea what lead to the evolution of the angler-fish, but am confident that that one problem is not sufficient to disprove the whole of evolution.

 

 

So under your delusion of knowing all the truth because you believe in evolution, answer the question. Can 2 systems or organs, that have diferent complexities, evolve at the same exact time so that each can work together?

.................................... So in your attempt at wanting to be right, you reverse the problem to me as if I made the claim. Sorry, I don't believe in evolution so the burden of proof is upon you.

34568[/snapback]

Evolution has absolutely no problem with organs of different complexity evolving at the same time. The key idea is that each mutation produces only a small change in one of the organs and so does not destroy the balance between the organs. There is no requirement that mutations must be simultaneous.

My biggest puzzle is still why you think that different complexities would create a problem. If you can not explain your thinking, how can I answer your difficulty?

[philosophik 1]

If evolution is a true fact, then why is the foundation of what truth and reality is, removed?

 

Example: There are no absolutes.

 

Absolute: perfect or complete or pure, complete and without restriction or qualification. expressing finality with no implication of possible change.

 

Truth: a fact that has been verified. Accuracy.

 

Fact:  statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened. An event known to have happened or something known to have existed.

 

Falsifiable: Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. Logically capable of being proven false.

 

Unfalsifiable: not able to be proven false, but not necessarily true.

 

So in one hand science teaches no absolutes. But in the other hand they claim that evolution is a true fact.

34496[/snapback]

You are misconstruing what science says about no absolutes. Aside from mathematics which scientist will admit has absolutes, what scientist mean when they say that there are no absolutes is that any fact, or conclusion they deduce from observation, is true in degrees of certainty with never being absolutely certain. For instance, we are 99.9999% certain that our earth revolves around the sun, this inference based on a vast body of observational evidence and mathematics from numerous scientist. The reason why science will say this is not an absolute is to account for the subjectivity of the observer, the chance that our perception may be flawed due to some unknowable variable intrinsic in our human condition; a flaw that we can never see in ourselves lest we cease being human to observe it. But for functional purposes in our human condition, we have devised methods to determine truth and facts so that we may better understand and order our existence; and one such way is through science.

 

Using the scientific method we have developed a very solid way to verify claims about the real world, with such high degrees of certainty that we call them facts, or say that the claim is true, all the while making the disclaimer that subjective human perception is inherently insufficient insomuch that determining objective absolutes about our observable world is impossible, mathematics excluded.

 

 

So how many parts of evolution are there that cannot be verified for one reason or another?

 

1) Abiogenesis. The closest verification was the Miller experiment. But no life walk out from the experiment. And only 70-80% of the amino acids requires for life was produced. What is the source for the missing 20-30% amino acids?

2) Macro evolution. The closest verification is one stage of speciation. No out side of kind speciation has ever been observed, so therefore verification is not possible because of the time involved.

3) Micro evolution. Has been observed in "some" species 10%. But because of the low percentage. It does not prove that "all" species went trough this process, or was able to.

4) Parallel evolution (evolving together). When two or more systems are needed to work together because one cannot function by itself. It is often claimed that they evolved together. This is not only not observable, but is also unfalsifiable as well. Logic would suggest that there are no organs or systems in any life-form that have the same complexity as another. So therefore parallel evolution is impossible. Because the more complex a organ or system is, the more mutations required for it to evolve.

 

Example: Which evolved first? The eye, or the vision center of the brain? One cannot function without the other. So the answer evolutionists will answer with is that they evolved together. So does the eye and the vision center of the brain have the exact same complexity?

 

So these examples are the reason why the foundation for truth (absolutes) has to be removed before evolution can be taught. Because if someone were to apply the actual meaning of absolutes, true fact, to evolution. They would soon realize that it does not match up to the very definitions it is said to have met.

34496[/snapback]

Why you will knock science and say that it can't know anything for an absolute certainty and use this view to dismiss the theory of evolution but in the same breath you have no qualms about enjoying all the other benefits of modern society brought about by science, the revolutionary innovations that were achieved through the same long tedious process that scientist are currently employing to better understand evolution, is beyond me. I will agree that there are still many gaps in the theory of evolution to where the degree of certainty is not as high compared with the degree of certainty of the fact that our earth revolves around the sun, but that is no reason to dismiss it. Any body of knowledge that we currently have a scientifically high degree of certainty for, at one point had as many gaps in understanding it as the theory of evolution currently does. But just because pieces of the puzzle are currently not in place, it does not mean that the puzzle does not portray a coherent world-view. You can look at an incomplete puzzle and have a good idea of what the whole picture will look like despite there being holes from missing pieces.

 

But in order to put a puzzle together you have to start somewhere, and using a scientific approach that started less than 200 year ago in attempting to understand a 4+ billion year process of the origin of species how can you blame the scientist for not knowing everything concerning exactly how the process works? I mean there's no wonder why there are still a lot of gaps yet to be filled, it's because we are just getting started. And considering how relatively new the scientific discipline of studying genetics and DNA is, and how much we still need to learn concerning this very important aspect of evolution, I don't expect you to have answers to your pressing questions that point out the areas of difficulty in fully understanding the exact mechanisms involved in such a vastly complex process as evolution any time soon. But not knowing how something works does not mean that it doesn't work, and that is your contention against evolution, that because we currently can't explain the exact process that the evolution of species undertook with 100% certainty that it's impossible for it to happen; all this despite the fact that we are just beginning to put the pieces together and that the more the pieces do come together the more evolution seems to be true with higher and higher degrees of certainty.

[ikester7579 19]

Some sample vials from Millers 1952 experiments have recently been analyzed by modern analytical methods. 

"Miller, using the old methods, had found five amino acids; Jeffrey Bada and his teams tracked down 22. What is more, the overall chemical yields were often higher than in the first set of experiments - the mixture appeared to be more fertile "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7675193.stm

Proteins normally use 20 amino acids.

I wonder why numbers just keep changing in the favor of evolution? Like how much time it takes. Or how close we are related to chimps through our DNA. Now the miller experiment changes. I guess next they will find 99.8 percent of all the amino acids needed.

 

The news article points out that the atmosphere used in these particular experiments was typical of that in the vicinity of volcanic eruptions.

Because there was no oxygen yet, means there was no ozone layer. So did ths include UV rays? Leave out the bad stuff, and make sure no real world experiments are done but claim that they were.

 

The only consistent definition I have ever seen is that 'kind' means exactly what the particular creationist intends at that time.

LOL, I guess we learned that one from you guys. Change the meaning of words, even have dual meanings of words. Being true is real truth in normal words. Apply it to science and you have many levels, but it still all true. Fact means proven and verifiable. But when used in science it implies such things even thought nothing really stand up to that definition.

 

For example, here you are telling me that all birds, from hummingbirds to eagles, and probably penguins, are all in the bird 'kind', while the dog 'kind' does not include hyenas, coyotes and perhaps even wolves.

You have your own version that makes evolution work, and we have ours that makes creation work.

 

What evolution (and the history of life on earth) requires is that there is parent-child descent from a reptile species through dinosaurs to modern birds.  At any generation, there was never any sudden transition.  It is only now that we can look back at the fossil record and classify some as reptiles, others as dinosaurs and still others as birds.

So here is a problem for you. Which came first, the chicken or the egg. Now considering that the egg needs to be kept warm. And the parents have to take car of it. You know that the chicken has to be first. Which poses a huge problem for evolution. Because if the first chicken was born without an egg. Then why did reproduction using eggs start? Because survival of the fittest doe not apply because eggs can be eaten by other animals. And natural selection does not make sense about eggs. Through what process were eggs determined the better way? And why would egg reproduction start anyway?

 

Are you trying to claim that if a mutation rate has not been measured for a species, that that species does not mutate?

All I assume is that since all DNA-based species share the same basic process of DNA replication, that all are subject to mutation, but probably at different rates.

DNA replication is not evolution. Evolution is the "adding" of information through mutation. Duplication of DNA is not adding new information. It's duplicating the same information.

 

I have no idea what lead to the evolution of the angler-fish, but am confident that that one problem is not sufficient to disprove the whole of evolution.

One of many. Do you actually think this is the one and only problem? That's just one that happen to pop in my head while doing that post. Here is another. A fish with a clear canopy head like a jet.

 

Evolution has absolutely no problem with organs of different complexity evolving at the same time.  The key idea is that each mutation produces only a small change in one of the organs and so does not destroy the balance between the organs.  There is no requirement that mutations must be simultaneous.

My biggest puzzle is still why you think that different complexities would create a problem.  If you can not explain your thinking, how can I answer your difficulty?

34596[/snapback]

Random chance and accidents. Role the dice and lets see if these two organs the vision center of the brain, and the eye will evolve at the same time.

 

More complexity = more mutations required. More mutations required = more time needed.

[ikester7579 19]

You are misconstruing what science says about no absolutes. Aside from mathematics which scientist will admit has absolutes, what scientist mean when they say that there are no absolutes is that any fact, or conclusion they deduce from observation, is true in degrees of certainty with never being absolutely certain. For instance, we are 99.9999% certain that our earth revolves around the sun, this inference based on a vast body of observational evidence and mathematics from numerous scientist. The reason why science will say this is not an absolute is to account for the subjectivity of the observer, the chance that our perception may be flawed due to some unknowable variable intrinsic in our human condition; a flaw that we can never see in ourselves lest we cease being human to observe it. But for functional purposes in our human condition, we have devised methods to determine truth and facts so that we may better understand and order our existence; and one such way is through science.

Science does not use math unless it supports their finding. So absolutes in math have to = support for evolution. If there is no support like the odds of whether something will happen. Then it will be ignored. So math with no support = no absolute = being ignored.

 

For they will claim that we are 99.8% alike in DNA with chimps because it supports evolution. So the figure is an absolute. But if a odds calculation is done on whether something can happen naturally, then it is ignored in favor of the answer: No matter the odds, given enough time anything can happen. So this is when the time god steps in and solves all problems.

 

Using the scientific method we have developed a very solid way to verify claims about the real world, with such high degrees of certainty that we call them facts, or say that the claim is true, all the while making the disclaimer that subjective human perception is inherently insufficient insomuch that determining objective absolutes about our observable world is impossible, mathematics excluded.

Why you will knock science and say that it can't know anything for an absolute certainty and use this view to dismiss the theory of evolution but in the same breath you have no qualms about enjoying all the other benefits of modern society brought about by science, the revolutionary innovations that were achieved through the same long tedious process that scientist are currently employing to better understand evolution, is beyond me. I will agree that there are still many gaps in the theory of evolution to where the degree of certainty is not as high compared with the degree of certainty of the fact that our earth revolves around the sun, but that is no reason to dismiss it. Any body of knowledge that we currently have a scientifically high degree of certainty for, at one point had as many gaps in understanding it as the theory of evolution currently does. But just because pieces of the puzzle are currently not in place, it does not mean that the puzzle does not portray a coherent world-view. You can look at an incomplete puzzle and have a good idea of what the whole picture will look like despite there being holes from missing pieces.

How many of the claimed processes of evolution can be verified in a lab?

How many claimed processes of evolution have been observed?

How many claimed processes of evolution have panned out to 100%?

How many claimed processes use the time excuse as to why it cannot be tested or observed?

 

But in order to put a puzzle together you have to start somewhere, and using a scientific approach that started less than 200 year ago in attempting to understand a 4+ billion year process of the origin of species how can you blame the scientist for not knowing everything concerning exactly how the process works? I mean there's no wonder why there are still a lot of gaps yet to be filled, it's because we are just getting started. And considering how relatively new the scientific discipline of studying genetics and DNA is, and how much we still need to learn concerning this very important aspect of evolution, I don't expect you to have answers to your pressing questions that point out the areas of difficulty in fully understanding the exact mechanisms involved in such a vastly complex process as evolution any time soon. But not knowing how something works does not mean that it doesn't work, and that is your contention against evolution, that because we currently can't explain the exact process that the evolution of species undertook with 100% certainty that it's impossible for it to happen; all this despite the fact that we are just beginning to put the pieces together and that the more the pieces do come together the more evolution seems to be true with higher and higher degrees of certainty.

34600[/snapback]

The problem is: All of the known existing ingredients are here. If we cannot make it to 100% in verification, it means something is missing in each step. And what is wrong with that?

 

Think of it as like baking a cake. If in each step you are missing an ingredient are you going to have a cake at the end of the making and baking process? No. So how do you expect to get life when there are missing things that don't add up? You guys come up with ideas to work around the problems, but the truth is, the problems remain.

[Arch 0]

I wonder why numbers just keep changing in the favor of evolution? Like how much time it takes. Or how close we are related to chimps through our DNA. Now the miller experiment changes. I guess next they will find 99.8 percent of all the amino acids needed.

34604[/snapback]

That's called progress ikester. It means new experiments are being done, new information is being found and old theories are reorganized. Unlike the Bible science is a constantly changing endeavor.

 

LOL, I guess we learned that one from you guys. Change the meaning of words, even have dual meanings of words. Being true is real truth in normal words. Apply it to science and you have many levels, but it still all true. Fact means proven and verifiable. But when used in science it implies such things even thought nothing really stand up to that definition.

34604[/snapback]

All occupations have jargon. If you don't care to learn it find another occupation

 

So here is a problem for you. Which came first, the chicken or the egg. Now considering that the egg needs to be kept warm. And the parents have to take car of it. You know that the chicken has to be first. Which poses a huge problem for evolution. Because if the first chicken was born without an egg. Then why did reproduction using eggs start? Because survival of the fittest doe not apply because eggs can be eaten by other animals. And natural selection does not make sense about eggs. Through what process were eggs determined the better way? And why would egg reproduction start anyway?

34604[/snapback]

Clearly the egg came first. It's parents were some sort of chicken/dino crossbreed, who were still similar enough to take care of it. This egg, when it hatched became the first chicken.

 

As for why did egg laying evolve in the first place you'll have to wait for someone with more expertise than me

 

Oh, but egg laying would be considered better because it keeps the young in a protective casing while they develop, rather than weighing down the mother for additional time.

 

DNA replication is not evolution. Evolution is the "adding" of information through mutation. Duplication of DNA is not adding new information. It's duplicating the same information.

34604[/snapback]

Okay, now apply some random mutations to the duplicated DNA. Presto! New information whilst still retaining the old!

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

[ikester7579 19]

That's called progress ikester. It means new experiments are being done, new information is being found and old theories are reorganized. Unlike the Bible science is a constantly changing endeavor.

When one gets it right the first time, it does not need to be changed.

 

All occupations have jargon. If you don't care to learn it find another occupation 

So either agree or leave? Sounds like a true evolutionist.

 

Clearly the egg came first. It's parents were some sort of chicken/dino crossbreed, who were still similar enough to take care of it. This egg, when it hatched became the first chicken.

That's of course if evolution is a absolute true fact. Is it?

 

As for why did egg laying evolve in the first place you'll have to wait for someone with more expertise than me

Even so, it would be only an opinion.

 

Oh, but egg laying would be considered better because it keeps the young in a protective casing while they develop, rather than weighing down the mother for additional time.

So maybe we humans should be laying eggs?

 

Okay, now apply some random mutations to the duplicated DNA. Presto! New information whilst still retaining the old!

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

34607[/snapback]

Presto, if evolution is an absolute true fact. Well?

[philosophik 1]

Science does not use math unless it supports their finding. So absolutes in math have to = support for evolution. If there is no support like the odds of whether something will happen. Then it will be ignored. So math with no support = no absolute = being ignored.

34605[/snapback]

When I say that absolutes exist only in math I'm doing so by implying that equations and formulas in math alone are absolute, but when used in correlation with an observation of the real world, math can only be used to determine truth about the observation to a certain degree of certainty. Statistical analysis concerning any aspect of the theory of evolution at this point is insufficient in that it will not prove anything beyond the data it represents.

 

For they will claim that we are 99.8% alike in DNA with chimps because it supports evolution. So the figure is an absolute. But if a odds calculation is done on whether something can happen naturally, then it is ignored in favor of the answer: No matter the odds, given enough time anything can happen. So this is when the time god steps in and solves all problems.

34605[/snapback]

The claim about chimp DNA itself is not absolute, but is considered accurate to a high degree of certainty, in fact the percentage has a very small (+) or (-) margin for error. As far as odds are concerned, there is no rule that says that the lower the probability of an event happening necessarily means that it absolutely could not happen, or that it won't happen in the earlier trials. In other words, if the odds for life emerging from non-life on earth were 1 in 10^100 there is no rule stopping it from happening on the first try. And considering the amount of molecules present on the planet and the almost incomprehensible amount of possible interactions each one could have with each other, I say given the right conditions which this planet naturally provides allows for the chances to be decent for life emerging especially considering the exponentially vast amount of chemical reactions that have been taking place on a daily basis since the beginning of earth.

 

And the fact that there is such biodiversity on the planet proves that extremely low probability does not mean impossibility. And because there is life that existed long ago that no longer exists today, and there is life today that did not exist long ago its safe to say that life changes over time.

 

How many of the claimed processes of evolution can be verified in a lab?

How many claimed processes of evolution have been observed?

How many claimed processes of evolution have panned out to 100%?

How many claimed processes use the time excuse as to why it cannot be tested or observed?

34605[/snapback]

Judging from your questions it seems that you require scientist who have been studying and gathering data to support TOE for only a couple hundred years to replicate and fully explain a process, one that has taken nature billions of years and countless unknown variables to arrive at the current state of biology, in order to prove TOE to be true. There is no way for any scientist to observe evolution directly because the task would involve that the scientist observe every individual in a given population over countless generations. Not only is this not practical, but borderline impossible for any one team of scientist lest they live thousands of years with constant surveillance on every individual. And the time needed for evolution is not an excuse, it's a necessary variable, it's the dimension that allows change.

 

Consider a picture of an infant, and then consider a picture of the same person when he is 70. There is no instance in time that you can point to and say 'hey that's when he changed from an infant in the picture to the adult in the picture,' it's a gradual process with perpetual transitional stages. It's the same thing with evolution, there is no point where a lizard changed to a bird, but through time, countless transitional stages occurred where the only way to notice the difference is to look at an early stage and compare it to a later stage, much like the infant to adult.

 

The problem is: All of the known existing ingredients are here. If we cannot make it to 100% in verification, it means something is missing in each step. And what wrong with that?

 

Think of it as like baking a cake. If in each step you are missing an ingredient are you going to have a cake at the end of the making and baking process? No. So how do you expect to get life when there are missing things that don't add up? You guys come up with ideas to work around the problems, but the truth is, the problems remain.

34605[/snapback]

You keep insisting that gaps in knowledge means that there is no knowledge to fill the gaps, so you conclude god did it. But how many previously unknown causes for phenomenon were attributed to the powers of god(s) that are now explained via natural processes?

 

To use your cake analogy, if you go into a kitchen and find a baked cake with no recipe or instructions are you going to know how to bake it? No, you can look around the kitchen and look for clues on how it was possibly made, maybe looking in the fridge and seeing eggs missing from a carton, and a jug of milk that was left open, and flour on the counter, and any other possible countless clues that you could use to begin to put together an idea of how it happened. And let's say after 15 minutes of trials and error you still can't replicate the already made cake, does that mean it was impossible, or that you are just unaware of the exact process? Lets then assume for arguments sake that you figure out how to make it, and that it takes 1 hour to bake.

 

As soon as you realize this someone walks in and says "oh look at that cake, since I have never seen one being made it must of been made by god," and you say "slow down, I'm pretty sure I have figured it out I just need to have all the ingredients and put them in the right conditions and then wait for an hour to bake." And then the other person says, "well, I'm only gonna be here for five minutes and since you can't do it it that time, and I can't see it happen then you are foolishly thinking it can happen without god."

 

It's the same sort of thinking you have about evolution, we have only just barely started trying to figure out how it works, and we know it takes a considerable amount of time for it to happen, but then you are asking for the impossible task of scientist showing you the whole time consuming process, aside from explaining how they think the ingredients ended up as the current product, in a very unrealistic span of time.

[Percy 0]

It's parents were some sort of chicken/dino crossbreed...

34607[/snapback]

If you're kidding then you shouldn't make jokes like this because this is one of the creationist caricatures of evolution and will only mislead creationists about the nature of evolution.

 

If you're not kidding then you understand evolution as poorly as creationists.

 

--Percy

[Adam Nagy 49]

As for why did egg laying evolve in the first place you'll have to wait for someone with more expertise than me

34607[/snapback]

If someone comes in here thinking they can explain to us empirically why and how egg laying started, we would love to hear this tale. I'm just afraid that our blowvation detectors would be on overload.

[Arch 0]

If you're kidding then you shouldn't make jokes like this because this is one of the creationist caricatures of evolution and will only mislead creationists about the nature of evolution.

 

If you're not kidding then you understand evolution as poorly as creationists.

 

--Percy

34610[/snapback]

Hmm, I can see how that might be misinterpreted. My bad

 

The supposed dino-chicken in this instance would be 99.9999% chicken at this point. Can you think of a better way to word this so as to avoid confusion?

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

[Arch 0]

When one gets it right the first time, it does not need to be changed.

34608[/snapback]

Which is a rather large assumption, but no matter. The point was these changes in the science record are a good thing. If you're going to be arguing against evolution I suggest you keep up with it's latest developments.

 

So either agree or leave? Sounds like a true evolutionist.

34608[/snapback]

No, learn or leave. If you're not interested in learning then I'll quickly loose my interest in teaching. That's hardly exclusive to evolution.

 

Even so, it would be only an opinion.

34608[/snapback]

You're clearly not interested in learning ike, you've already dismissed the potential to learn without even hearing the premise.

 

So maybe we humans should be laying eggs? 

34608[/snapback]

Or maybe, because we came down from the trees laying eggs would be a silly idea. They tend to break when dropped from great heights.

 

Okay, now apply some random mutations to the duplicated DNA. Presto! New information whilst still retaining the old!

Presto, if evolution is an absolute true fact. Well?

34608[/snapback]

So you agree that theoretically this could work?

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

[ikester7579 19]

Which is a rather large assumption, but no matter. The point was these changes in the science record are a good thing.

Well going by observation, one can also see that science through evolution has not been able to totally do away with the Bible or creation. And since they cannot do it in scientific means, poisoning young minds towards any religion is a much better way to do it when your science cannot, right? That is why organizations of Christian hatred like the Rational Response Squad exist and are so popular. Atheistic evolutionist hatred goes a long way in molding a poisoned mind. And there is money and status in it as well.

 

But it's also going to backfire. How? When the 7 years starts, it will be the biggest revenge upon those whom have done this.

 

 

If you're going to be arguing against evolution I suggest you keep up with it's latest developments.

How about T-Rex blood and veins? O sorry,yo guys need to ignore that one because it does not support the old earth view hich is required for evolution to work. My bad.

 

No, learn or leave. If you're not interested in learning then I'll quickly loose my interest in teaching. That's hardly exclusive to evolution.

You go on any atheistic-evolutionist forum and it pounded unmercifully on every Christian that shows up. You guys need to bully an use strong arm tactics to convince people which in my opinion shows how weak the theory is that such things need to be resorted to even with all the mountains of claimed evidence. Is it as big as Mt. Everest yet?

 

You're clearly not interested in learning ike, you've already dismissed the potential to learn without even hearing the premise.

There is a difference between learning and brain washing.

 

Question: Why do absolutes need to be removed from reality in order to be taught evoluton?

 

Or maybe, because we came down from the trees laying eggs would be a silly idea. They tend to break when dropped from great heights.

Presto, if evolution is an absolute true fact. Well?

34608[/snapback]

Well at least birds learned to build nests.

 

So you agree that theoretically this could work?

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

34672[/snapback]

Sure, as long as yo get the presto magic part to work,right?

[ikester7579 19]

When I say that absolutes exist only in math I'm doing so by implying that equations and formulas in math alone are absolute, but when used in correlation with an observation of the real world, math can only be used to determine truth about the observation to a certain degree of certainty. Statistical analysis concerning any aspect of the theory of evolution at this point is insufficient in that it will not prove anything beyond the data it represents.

So odds are not an issue? If there is one chance in a google it will happen, right? You see it's not only odds that is the problem with evolution, it's timing. Everything in the very begining has to be so timed, with only one chance. The odds of both are not even calcuable.

 

Example: Life has to form along the lines of how the atmosphere is forming. There is a certain point from abiogenesis that a ozone layer is needed to protect the newly forming life from UV rays. If the life forms before the ozone can block enough UV rays, the life form will be burned until dead. Which will make it not be able to survive long enough to reproduce. And if it did, it's offspring could not survive either.

 

Also, how does one get rain before plants make oxygen? Plants need water, water needs oxygen? So which cames first?

 

1) The water? In which you must provide the oxygen source and then prove it.

2) The plant? In which you must provide a water source. And a oxygen source for the ozone so that the plants can live.

 

Just because you can fill up the atmophere with plant loving CO2, does not mean the plants have all they need to survive. And the same goes for life.

 

So what are the odds that the exact timing for life to form did, when the ingrdeints needed did not exist yet?

 

The claim about chimp DNA itself is not absolute, but is considered accurate to a high degree of certainty, in fact the percentage has a very small (+) or (-) margin for error. As far as odds are concerned, there is no rule that says that the lower the probability of an event happening necessarily means that it absolutely could not happen, or that it won't happen in the earlier trials. In other words, if the odds for life emerging from non-life on earth were 1 in 10^100 there is no rule stopping it from happening on the first try.

So evolution is as easy as baking a cake? Interesting.

 

Also, do you know what the total is that 99.8% comes from? And also why the total is never printed because people would figure out evolution is not true.

 

The human genome has over 3 billion base pairs. Do the math. .1% = 3,000,000 (3 million) differences. So .2% means we have 6,000,000 (6 million) differences between us and chimps. Now does that sound like we are so so close? Of course not. But 99.8% does. So sell the percent to the masses nd hide the number.

 

So here is the perfect example of how evolution hides the truth in math so that the deception can be sold to the masses while the truth is hidden. If not, answer as to why no one book on evolution gives the actual number of the percentage difference?

 

In fact, I challenge you to find a high school book that says we are 6 million base pairs difference? You won't find one unless it is in a creation high school book. So are creationist smarter in math, or are the evolutionists hiding the truth?

 

And considering the amount of molecules present on the planet and the almost incomprehensible amount of possible interactions each one could have with each other,  I say given the right conditions which this planet naturally provides allows for the chances to be decent for life emerging especially considering the exponentially vast amount of chemical reactions that have been taking place on a daily basis since the beginning of earth.

Then every other planet should have life as well. Do they? You can one moment sell how easy evolution is so that the odds are ignored because it makes evolution work. Then on the other hand sell how hard it is as the reason it took so long to evolve. So which is it? You cannot have opposites making a theory work just because you want it to be true.

 

And the fact that there is such biodiversity on the planet proves that extremely low probability does not mean impossibility. And because there is life that existed long ago that no longer exists today, and there is life today that did not exist long ago its safe to say that life changes over time.

So the math is denied that does not work in evolution's favor. I already know this one.

 

Judging from your questions it seems that you require scientist who have been studying and gathering data to support TOE for only a couple hundred years to replicate and fully explain a process, one that has taken nature billions of years and countless unknown variables to arrive at the current state of biology, in order to prove TOE to be true. There is no way for any scientist to observe evolution directly because the task would involve that the scientist observe every individual in a given population over countless generations. Not only is this not practical, but borderline impossible for any one team of scientist lest they live thousands of years with constant surveillance on every individual. And the time needed for evolution is not an excuse, it's a necessary variable, it's the dimension that allows change.

Well you guys do imply that you have proven evolution to a true absolute fact, right? So instead of complaining when someone actually makes you own up to your claims of this, why don't you provide the information required to meet the status in which you exalt the theory to?

 

You see your claims that evolution is a true fact are only warranted if you can provide the evidence. Complaining that it's impossible to provide what I ask proves that the claims are fraudulent and unwarranted, and basically a deception. Just like hiding the real numbers for DNA difference. What is wrong with providing actual math numbers that is basic math? Is it to decieve the dummies in highschool to believe a deception? Explain it to me.

 

Consider a picture of an infant, and then consider a picture of the same person when he is 70. There is no instance in time that you can point to and say 'hey that's when he changed from an infant in the picture to the adult in the picture,' it's a gradual process with perpetual transitional stages. It's the same thing with evolution, there is no point where a lizard changed to a bird, but through time, countless transitional stages occurred where the only way to notice the difference is to look at an early stage and compare it to a later stage, much like the infant to adult.

So now growing is evolution? And you guys say I don't know what evolution is?

 

You keep insisting that gaps in knowledge means that there is no knowledge to fill the gaps, so you conclude god did it. But how many previously unknown causes for phenomenon were attributed to the powers of god(s) that are now explained via natural processes?

How are you going to fill the gaps of time? Are will the excuse that because of time we cannot test it, be used forever? You believe lightening started the process of life in abiogenesis right? By doing this you concede to a higher power even if it's a natural one. Now how many lightening strikes are there a year? The Earth has 100 lightning strikes per second - 3.6 trillion per year! ...

Now how many spawn off new life? ZERO. So what does that tell you?

 

To use your cake analogy, if you go into a kitchen and find a baked cake with no recipe or instructions are you going to know how to bake it? No, you can look around the kitchen and look for clues on how it was possibly made, maybe looking in the fridge and seeing eggs missing from a carton, and a jug of milk that was left open, and flour on the counter, and any other possible countless clues that you could use to begin to put together an idea of how it happened. And let's say after 15 minutes of trials and error you still can't replicate the already made cake, does that mean it was impossible, or that you are just unaware of the exact process? Lets then assume for arguments sake that you figure out how to make it, and that it takes 1 hour to bake.

But in each step you find something missing because everytime you try to duplicate the cake it does not work. After using every known ingredient in the world, you find that you cannot duplicate the process. But you want everyone to believe the cake exists. So what do you do? You find work arounds to fill the void about the cake. So that people will buy it that the cake actually exists, and there is a process for making and baking it.

 

But in each instance of filling in the blanks, you actually realize more problems. So more work arounds have to be thought up. But you can only go so far before people start seeing this. So what needs to be done next is that anyone whom dares to challenge you cake idea get their credibility destroyed. Make all anti-cakers look stupid, uneducated, inintelligent morons. Just because they claim that there must be a cake maker and cake baker, when your idea is that the cake happened all by itself. So the anti-cakers get stereotyped into a box and labelled as fundamentalist. In this way your self forming cake cannot be challenged because the anti-cakers are stereotyped into being too stupid to do so. So you eliminate all challengers by doing this which allows your idea to remain supreme by other means beyond what you were supposed to use (ever heard of science).

 

As soon as you realize this someone walks in and says "oh look at that cake, since I have never seen one being made it must of been made by god," and you say "slow down, I'm pretty sure I have figured it out I just need to have all the ingredients and put them in the right conditions and then wait for an hour to bake." And then the other person says, "well, I'm only gonna be here for five minutes and since you can't do it it that time, and I can't see it happen then you are foolishly thinking it can happen without god."

God is not needed to bake a cake.

 

It's the same sort of thinking you have about evolution, we have only just barely started trying to figure out how it works, and we know it takes a considerable amount of time for it to happen, but then you are asking for the impossible task of scientist showing you the whole time consuming process, aside from explaining how they think the ingredients ended up as the current product, in a very unrealistic span of time.

34609[/snapback]

But it's claimed to be a scientific theory, and a true fact, right? So now you claim we just barely touch the surface? I think you are crying uncle because I called you guys bluff on how provable evolution is in reality.

 

 

Edit: Math corrected

Edited July 8, 2009 by ikester7579