[_ Old Earth _] A number reasons why I find Evolution impossible to believe!

[Sparkey]

We pause for commercial interruption.

PRAISE GOD! Who, and in His wisdom, has created and caused all things to happen.

We now return to our regular program.

Regarding the debate centering on our various positions of belief and faith --and how science may interact, I do notice that Observation Evidence is given great credence. None here need me to point the effective use of the Scientific Method as they are more than qualified to speak of such things on their own, so now, I'm just calling stuff to mind that all know, not teaching or correcting. Further, and along the same lines, and although I have been taught about the differences found between laws and theories and hypotheses, it is here, and on this forum, during our debates that the finer distinctions are honed.

That's one of the good things that comes from healthy debate, we get to point out stuff that we might not have seen otherwise.

One of the good things that comes from religion (at least for me) is the message that confirms what is already known too. The saying about not seeing the forest for the trees is aptly demonstrated by the trouble that religious leaders during the time of Jesus had because, and I'm thinking of Scribes here, they focus too narrowly on the detail on such little things, like counting the number of pen-strokes, while missing the fact that their Messiah had come.

So we learn to zoom out. We practice it, even while we zoom in and discuss detail.

Part of that means, on the religious side, we constantly refresh ourselves in the knowledge that we are brothers and sisters in Christ even while we have our conversations. Part of that means, on the scientific side, we recall the large scale observations made by not only the scientific community itself but also by all mankind while we have our conversations.

What observation? I would like to propose a law, based on observational evidence that has zero exception. And I have no doubt that it would be laughed at in the scientific community for reasons unknown so instead of even trying to go through the rigorous process of doing so formally, maybe I could mention it here?

The bible states that God created man and woman and that they produce after their kind. It states that other living things, like birds, fish, mammals did the same thing, coming forth "according to their kinds" (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). This is very similar to what scientists have observed in nature, that every living thing comes from parents of like kind.

So if we zoom out, and accept this as a starting point (without considering 'species' --whatever that is-- because it is too fine of a definition for this purpose) and notice what we, every one of us, have indeed observed? It would not conflict with observational evidence. It would not conflict with historic record. It would attempt to actually reconcile what appears to be a major difference.

 

[Sparkey]

Pardon the previous post, sometimes I find it necessary to state the obvious. Like the fact that God delights in showing those who deem themselves intelligent to be fools. That fact applies to me as well as anybody and sometimes I find myself cooperating with Him too much in that regard.

I know that what I've said does not controvert the evidences found in the fossil record but didn't want to stir the pot too much in my previous post. I also know there are legitimate points of contention here and should admit that I do enjoy our conversations here, on our little forum. Very much so.

Blessings to you,

~Sparrrow

 

[Barbarian]

The bible states that God created man and woman and that they produce after their kind. It states that other living things, like birds, fish, mammals did the same thing, coming forth "according to their kinds" (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). This is just what scientists have observed in nature, that every living thing comes from parents of like kind.

I notice that the Bible avoids saying that organisms reproduce according to kind, but rather the Earth produced them according to their kind (without describing the process by which they became different kinds).

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

They clearly don't, as Darwin observed. His second point of of natural selection is that every organism is slightly different than either parent. Each of us has a surprising number of mutations that neither parent had.

It's an easy calculation to show that these mutations, over time, can account for the evolution of humans from other primates.

 

[Sparkey]

I notice that the Bible avoids...

Greetings, Barbarian. I also notice that you have not addressed my "law" so called, based on what you (and others) have observed in your lifetime. That every living thing comes from parents of like kind. It's not directly stated in the bible and I like to think of it as my own observation. Call it the law of Sparrow, if you must. Prove me wrong with direct observation or just give me your word that I'm wrong. That would be considered as I do respect your opinion. I would invite you to present your directly observed evidence - a picture maybe? I've never heard anybody say different. Will you be the first?

 

[stovebolts]

It's an easy calculation to show that these mutations, over time, can account for the evolution of humans from other primates.

Hello Barbaian, whom I have great respect for your scientific knowledge. If I may, I have a question for you that perhaps you could address on the idea of mutations.

If I could, I would like to go a few steps back, according to Evolution before the jump from primate to human and ask this. Is it true that when mutations occur, dna information is lost? In the same way, isn't dna information lost through natural selection?

I asked you last year about genetic potential where I asked something like, "Is it possible that one "kind" could have had the genetic potential to create such a vast array of species we see today". If I recall, I may have used an example of cats, where, according to Noah's arc, a pair of "cats" could have repopulated the earth to the various "cats" we see today. You said something to the effect that it couldn't happen, but I forget why.

It is through this lens that I'm finding it difficult to see how mutations can account for such a great and vast array of species and kinds, when observation shows that through each mutation, dna information is lost.

Of course, this is simply what I read, and I'm not qualified in the Sciences like you and others. But I am curious how that all fits in to Evoloutionary theory, especially when we consider that evolution started in the oceans, and at one time we were simply one cell entities.

Thanks.

 

[Barbarian]

Hello Barbaian, whom I have great respect for your scientific knowledge. If I may, I have a question for you that perhaps you could address on the idea of mutations.

If I could, I would like to go a few steps back, according to Evolution before the jump from primate to human and ask this. Is it true that when mutations occur, dna information is lost? In the same way, isn't dna information lost through natural selection?

No. Every new mutation adds information to a population. Would you like to see the numbers?

I asked you last year about genetic potential where I asked something like, "Is it possible that one "kind" could have had the genetic potential to create such a vast array of species we see today". If I recall, I may have used an example of cats, where, according to Noah's arc, a pair of "cats" could have repopulated the earth to the various "cats" we see today. You said something to the effect that it couldn't happen, but I forget why.

A single pair of felids could produce all the cats we see today, via mutation and natural selection. Without that, no. Two cats could have at most, four alleles for each gene locus. And we see a much larger variety of them among cats today. So the rest would have to have been produced by mutation, and of course fitted by natural selection.

It is through this lens that I'm finding it difficult to see how mutations can account for such a great and vast array of species and kinds, when observation shows that through each mutation, dna information is lost.

Turns out, it's not. You see, when a new mutation appears on a population, that adds to the information of that population. Picture a book, with a lot of pages, all pretty much the same, but each page differs slightly in a unique way (say by spelling differences). Suppose, as in genetics, those errors can actually be advantagous. And now you have a new page, pretty much like the others, but with a word never before seen.

The book would then have more information. Populations are like that.

Of course, this is simply what I read, and I'm not qualified in the Sciences like you and others. But I am curious how that all fits in to Evoloutionary theory, especially when we consider that evolution started in the oceans, and at one time we were simply one cell entities.

I took a look at that, a long time ago, trying to find a place in the great bush of life, where a transition would be impossible.

Never did. And as you may have noticed, my requests for others to find one, have been unrewarded.

So it comes down to evidence, again. And there we are.

 

[Barbarian]

Greetings, Barbarian. I also notice that you have not addressed my "law" so called, based on what you (and others) have observed in your lifetime. That every living thing comes from parents of like kind.

I notice, as Darwin did, that each new living thing is unlike its parents in different ways. So change is both obvious and inevitable.

It's not directly stated in the bible and I like to think of it as my own observation. Call it the law of Sparrow, if you must. Prove me wrong with direct observation or just give me your word that I'm wrong. That would be considered as I do respect your opinion. I would invite you to present your directly observed evidence - a picture maybe? I've never heard anybody say different. Will you be the first?

Every human ever tested shows a number of mutations not present in parents. That's how it works.

Of course, you won't see a fox giving birth to a grizzly bear, but then, if that happened, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble.

Change over time accumulates. It works that way for every other thing in the universe. Why is it a surprise that it works for living things?

 

[Barbarian]

This is again pure misunderstanding of the case you have to answer. I don't know how I can get this across to you.

We understand the MECHANICS of vision fairly well.

That is like saying I understand HOW a car engine works.

But the organism uses the mechanics to 'see'. As you should know, we don't see with our eyes. Yes, the eyes are instrumental in vision - but we do not see with them. The information collected by the organs of vision undergoes 4 processes:

1 The collection of the information (by the 'eyes' or whatever organ the organism uses)

2 The transmission of the info to the central processing unit (ie the brain in our case, simpler structures in the lower animals)

3 The interpretation of that information

4 The utilisation of that information by the organism.

Maybe there's a 5th step in there: the decision how to utilise the information.

So explain to us how a bacterium sees light, and effectively responds to it, without all that stuff.

But 3, 4 and 5 are untouchable by evolution, because they are immaterial. Interpretation and utilisation of information is unevolvable.

No, that's wrong, too. For example, the plants you told me were using "instinct" to move toward the light, merely evolved auxins that allowed the plant to grow more rapidly on the dark side, thus turning it toward the light.

Evolution produced a change in behavior.

You read these words: and the physico-chemical equipment is in use - but once that information reaches your brain, it immediately steps out of the physico-chemical. There is no p-c mechanism involved in your thought processes.

That's wrong, too. Every time we discover how some aspect of cognition or action works, it turns out to by the actions of neurons.

Japanese researchers at Nara Institute of Science and Technology and Kinki University implanted a tiny video camera into the brain of a mouse, and managed to record moments when the mouse made new memories. Researchers hope to use the system to understand the inner workings of the brain that lead to conditions like Parkinson’s.

http://www.medgadget.com/2008/02/post_21.html

Functional MRIs
http://on.aol.com/video/seeing-thoughts-with-mris-175528969

So all of your decisions to accept or reject the fully valid information I have continually placed on this board are above and beyond the p-c.

It appears you haven't been cognizant of what science has learned about it.

That is what I choose to call 'instinct'.

You chose to call the photobleaching of a chemical in plants "instinct."

It is not an entirely satisfactory description

Ya think? It merely means "I don't know why it happens."

but is the best science has been able to produce so far

See above. And auxins have been known for a long time.

You keep repeating the statement that we know HOW a plant responds thigmotropically, phototropically and geotropically, and that is a big plank in your argument.

It merely points out that behavior, when we find out why it happens, is the result of physical processes. None of this means we're mere robots. Do you not think God is capable of creating a world in which natural processes can be consistent with free will?

However, you cannot account for WHY those responses exist.

See above. You're wrong.

And that is the truly vital question: and one that evolution cannot answer, because evolution's main premise is that things happen randomly and for no reason.

Wrong again. As you learned earlier, evolutionary theory does not hold that things happen randomly. And while it cannot identify any teleological functions, it isn't supposed to. That requires a more encompassing method. I suggest Christianity.

Because the moment you accept that things have a reason for their existence, your theory has collapsed completely.

And now, you know otherwise.

There is no directing intelligence in evolution,

Or meteorology, for that matter. God seems to have done so well, He doesn't have to tinker with it to make it work.

no matter how much you may protest that things happen non-randomly.

Comes down to evidence, so we know that's the case.

Barbarian observes:
The evidence shows that it evolved. So no problem for science. As in all sciences, there are still many things for us to yet discover. But the evolution of vision is very well-established.

I regret to have to inform you that that is not the case.

See above. It's better than you were led to believe.

As shown above, evolution cannot account for the most important instincts involved in vision - just as it cannot account for the instincts involved in ANY of the living processes.

I showed you the example in plants, which you identified as instinct, because it's a relatively simple one accessible even for those without a lot of biochemical training.

I asked you how a reptile could ever learn to fly - even if it has feathers,

As you saw, the small, running feathered dinosaurs had the same motions as birds, using their feathered arms/wings to provide movement and balance. We still see those motions in ostriches. So it was mostly a matter of being smaller and perhaps becoming arboreal.

something that is becoming increasingly doubtful, given the recognised skill of the Chinese fossil-fakers.

As you know, scientists easily debunked that one case, but of course there are scores of those that are not faked.

Your answer, completely contrary to the tenets of evolution, is that the instincts were already there, waiting to be used.

You've been misled about that, too. Exaption is a common thing in evolution, and well-characterized would you like to learn more about it?

But if they were there, and of no use to a non-flying reptile, then 'natural selection' - whose existence and value is now under considerable fire, as I showed you

The person you characterized as putting natural selection under fire, has (as I showed you) asserted that natural selection is essential to the welfare of humans, unless we can figure out a suitable alternative. So, that isn't working for you, either.

At every step of the way, you have been shown that evolution is helpless to explain the existence of instinct:

The first example I showed you that it is. The "instinct" you referred to in phototropism is easily evolved.

How does anything see?

Photons striking a photosensitive material, with electromagnetic energy being transformed to thermal or chemical energy. The energy then impinges on neurons capable of using that energy to effect a change in the organism.

Light-sensitive substances can transform electromagnetic energy into chemical energy, which makes neurons fire. That, as I have shown, is a totally inadequate answer.

Indeed. A simpler process works in bacteria and protists, as well as in plants.

We understand HOW the car engine works - but it is the driver, for whose existence we are seeking an account.

And how does it know what it's 'seeing'?

You've assumed that consciousness is required for eyes, and of course, that's not the case.

I don't think a scallop "knows" anything. But it can see a predator and take action accordingly.

And there's your problem again. If it 'takes action accordingly', then it SEES the predator, REALISES that it is a predator, and DECIDES to run in the opposite direction.

Nope. Turns out a simple reflex arc does nicely and serves the scallop quite well.

Those are examples of some kind of BEING in the scallop, making those decisions. That immaterial BEING governing the scallop's behaviour is the thing evolution cannot account for.

Reflex arcs are quite well characterized.

I'm afraid you are in an endless loop here.

Doesn't seem like it.

1 You believe in evolution and generate all sorts of inadequate 'explanations'

Notice, I showed you a number of cases where we know in detail how it works.

2 You can see, I'm sure, that the reasons for the behaviours we have extensively discussed are inexplicable in evolutionary terms

And now, you understand that they are quite explicable.

3 So you generate further and wilder 'explanations' for the inexplicable.

It comes down to evidence, again. And you're not doing well.

That's your real problem.

As you know, we have, in some phyla, living examples of the way complex eyes evolve.

 

[Sparkey]

Greetings, Barbarian. I also notice that you have not addressed my "law" so called, based on what you (and others) have observed in your lifetime. That every living thing comes from parents of like kind.

I notice, as Darwin did, that each new living thing is unlike its parents in different ways. So change is both obvious and inevitable.

That is not the question that I asked. Read again to confirm that what I said was correctly quoted by you, "that every living thing comes from parents of like kind." And thank you for correctly quoting me. But what about your response?

What is the term used when somebody makes slight changes to the intent of the wording they want to argue against? What is that kind of ingenious trick called? There is a technical term for that type of move, isn't there?

Of course, you won't see a fox giving birth to a grizzly bear, but then, if that happened, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble.

I was careful in my setup and gave very few example, because the bible also gives very few examples. No mention of foxes or grizzlies was made. Here, let me get it for you:

It states that other living things, like birds, fish, mammals did the same thing, coming forth "according to their kinds" (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). This is very similar to what scientists have observed in nature, that every living thing comes from parents of like kind.

I'm looking for any exception to the broad rule I've summarized here to show any evidence that has been directly observed by anyone whatsoever to prove what I have said is wrong or that it does not qualify as a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur through countless independent observations.

Do you have even one example that you've directly witnessed or do you know of any other, even those that have been observed and given by any other person?

 

[Barbarian]

Read again to confirm that what I said was correctly quoted by you, "that every living thing comes from parents of like kind." Thank you for correctly quoting me. But what about your response?

What is the term used when somebody makes slight changes to the intent of the wording they want to argue against? What is that kind of ingenious trick called? There is a technical term for that type of move, isn't there?

So you're saying that gradual change over time, won't work to produce new "kinds?" I'm not using scare quotes, I'm just not sure what "kinds" mean to a creationist. Or are you saying it's not evolution if the change isn't large enough in a single generation?

I'm not sure what you're getting at, here.

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that living things almost always tend to be slightly different than their parents, but not completely different)

I'm looking for any exception to the broad rule that has been directly observed by anyone. Do you have one or know of any?

This well-observed fact is consistent with evolution that is gradual in terms of human lifetimes. So sudden change is relatively rare. One example is that teraploid rodent in S. America. Polyploidy is rare in mammals, because our chromosomal set-up is such that polyploidy (multiple copies of chromosomes) is almost always fatal. But in this case, it appears that a polyploid mutation in one litter produced a completely different kind, which were absolutely reproductively isolated from the mother and all of her kind.

Usually, that happens over a much longer period.

 

[Sparkey]

I'm not sure what you're getting at, here.

read again, and pardon my edit to modify - it was a statement in the making

 

[Sparkey]

(Barbarian notes that living things always tend to be slightly different than their parents, but not completely different)

This statement agrees with and supports my contention that every living thing comes from parents of like kind. I was hoping for some form of disagreement. Stay with me, I'm still addressing the first issue - my contention that what the Bible has said about kinds is indeed observational fact and that nobody has ever seen anything but.

 

[Sparkey]

it appears that a polyploid mutation in one litter produced a completely different kind,

I would raise my hand and insist that for "Sparrow's Law" we must use my definition of kind. Not going there. Not talking about narrow definitions of species unless you can show that is what the bible actually said. At the moment, I'd like to stick to the Christianity and Science aspect and will entertain other definitions later.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't see a definition of "kind" that I can apply to the real world. Of course, in the sense that you seem to be using it, all life on Earth is one "kind", if you include the variation we see in offspring.

So, over a few million years, Australopithecines and humans would qualify as one "kind"; they blend into each other at one point in the fossil record.

I would concede, that with a few exceptions, we only see gradual changes between generations.

Edit: Your PM makes sense, and I see what you're thinking about. That is consistent with the Bible, as far as I can see.

 

[Vaccine]

We pause for commercial interruption.

PRAISE GOD! Who, and in His wisdom, has created and caused all things to happen.

We now return to our regular program.

Amen brother!

What observation? I would like to propose a law, based on observational evidence that has zero exception. And I have no doubt that it would be laughed at in the scientific community for reasons unknown so instead of even trying to go through the rigorous process of doing so formally, maybe I could mention it here?
The bible states that God created man and woman and that they produce after their kind. It states that other living things, like birds, fish, mammals did the same thing, coming forth "according to their kinds" (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). This is very similar to what scientists have observed in nature, that every living thing comes from parents of like kind.

The law you propose sounds very similar to Mendel's laws of inheritance. Each inherited trait is defined by a gene pair and variation within a species is fixed. In other words, "every living thing comes from parents of like kind".
Since there's no empirical evidence for the origin of life, everything is inferred. I believe without knowing where life started there's no way of knowing for sure life didn't start from the biblical "kinds" and evolve from there.

This chart is the c-value paradox (or enigma). It shows the Amoeba has the largest genome. Lungfish and worms have a lot more genes than humans. The reason I point this out is the phyla and genes don't line up with evolution, thus the paradox. I believe it supports the idea life is moving from complexity to simplicity.

 

[Sparkey]

Vaccine, thanks for the picture and the support. There are so many points of contention that may be discussed I wanted to push for something that I thought everybody could agree with. Most of that agreement comes from a very loose definition of the phrase "like kind" which, from a scientific view, does not serve very well in the study and classification of the various segments of the kingdoms of all life.

In my Private Message, I asked if Barbarian might consider:

that my point of contention comes when people fail to quote correctly or rightly understand the distinction between the scientific term, "kind" and the biblical terms such as "fully evolved species".

Then, I pretended that my little mistake in wording was not done on purpose and continued:

Wait, did I say that right? Hmmm...

OH! That's right. The bible doesn't use those terms. Also science doesn't use the term "like kind" either. The contention between words and their meanings is very well known, but it is ignored. My assertion is that what we see defined in the Bible is only confirmed by observation. Nobody sees anything other than what the bible describes.

I also conceded to him that if I were to stay strictly within what the Bible does indeed say, that would rule out stuff like the theory of Evolution, Plate Tectonics and even modern dental hygiene methods like flossing teeth. I also pointed out that part of the problem (I see) comes with the whole "Original Ancestor" part and pretty much agreed to table that, thinking that it would not be decided between us anyway.

 

[Vaccine]

Vaccine, thanks for the picture and the support. There are so many points of contention that may be discussed I wanted to push for something that I thought everybody could agree with. Most of that agreement comes from a very loose definition of the phrase "like kind" which, from a scientific view, does not serve very well in the study and classification of the various segments of the kingdoms of all life.

I thinks thats a good idea.

that my point of contention comes when people fail to quote correctly or rightly understand the distinction between the scientific term, "kind" and the biblical terms such as "fully evolved species".

After giving it some thought, I see what you mean.


*I pointed out the cvalue not as a challenge to the theory, but as support for the idea the starting point for life is unknown, or at least confused by the cvalue.

 

[Sparkey]

*I pointed out the cvalue not as a challenge to the theory, but as support for the idea the starting point for life is unknown, or at least confused by the cvalue.

I learn as I go here and like to look for stuff to prove what I think I heard. Wiki is my friend.

To be fair, I've also found this:

[Gen 1:20, 24 KJV] 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

... 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

And that introduces another couple complication for me to ponder, the command to the waters, the command to the earth and the phrase "after his kind".

********************

So what I'd like to find is a Christian who was enough Scientist (no, not Mary Baker Eddy or her ilk) to be impressed with the Word of God enough to not dismiss it as poetic (non-scientific or not worth serious pursuit) and understand that there are words of truth there, and then commission that scientist to sort through the evidence that others have gathered and look for findings of significance within that light. Of course, this would be a very peculiar person and I think, rare indeed. There are more "clues" to be found in the Book of Job and elsewhere so ideally they would be a unique kind of dual expert, which leaves me out.

The other "type" of qualified person would be a Scientist (biologist?) primarily in their focus but was also a Literalist regarding Scripture. And to me, the unity of the two separate disciplines combined seems more likely to produce result than the fun of taking pot-shots at each other especially regarding end result.

The key is unity. Where may we find that? Opposition = standoff. Try collaboration. I don't mean compromise. Maybe this has happened and I'm just ignorant? That's happened before. I've seen that and it would not really surprise me to see it again.

 

[Asyncritus]

So explain to us how a bacterium sees light, and effectively responds to it, without all that stuff.

Is that an answer to the question, or just another fudge?

No, that's wrong, too. For example, the plants you told me were using "instinct" to move toward the light, merely evolved auxins that allowed the plant to grow more rapidly on the dark side, thus turning it toward the light.

Evolution produced a change in behavior.

You have again shown that you are unable to answer the simple question: WHY does this happen?

Why do roots grow downwards, and shoots grow upwards? Answer: because that is their natural milieu. Leaves would be useless underground, and roots would be useless aboveground (apart from a few specialised instances, such as the mangrove, for which you had no explanation to offer).

The REASON why leaves and roots behave as they do, is that they go where they are designed to go, and function. That is the WHY.

But as I've said time and again, evolution CANNOT answer the question WHY - since any such answer assumes that there is direction, purpose, and intention in the process. Which utterly condemns evolution to the scrap heap: since there cannot be purpose in its random processes.

As one writer said, something cannot evolve in the Cambrian because it may be of use in the Cretaceous.

So the ruthlessly gnawing worm at root of evolution's massive problems, is the simple word WHY?

That's wrong, too. Every time we discover how some aspect of cognition or action works, it turns out to by the actions of neurons.

Japanese researchers at Nara Institute of Science and Technology and Kinki University implanted a tiny video camera into the brain of a mouse, and managed to record moments when the mouse made new memories. Researchers hope to use the system to understand the inner workings of the brain that lead to conditions like Parkinson’s.

You are getting yourself into an enormous pickle here, and you can't see it.

You are saying effectively that everything we do, say or think is ruled, created and effected by purely physico-chemical processes and structures. Are they? Really?

Which is nothing short of amazing, coming from a [EDITED by Staff] believer in the God who offers mankind CHOICES. 'Choose you this day who you will serve' is one such passage, and 'as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord'.

There are hundreds more like these. You claim some knowledge of the Bible. Go look up the subject.

Which neurons, do you suppose, do the choosing? And if it's neurons doing the choosing, then why are you held to be guilty for your iniquities and transgressions? You can raise a finger and point saying: 'They made me do it'! Blame them!

So where do you go from here, barbarian?

This is the final conflict between your religion and your scientific optimism.

Who are you going to serve? [There is a] choice between the scientific dead end that is evolution, and the freedom that rejecting the theory of evolution brings - and that very word 'you' consigns your neuron theory to oblivion.

You exist. You are not the sum of your neuron count. You are above them. You govern them. You tell them what to do.

And that YOU is not the product of evolution - because the YOU is immaterial and not subject to mutations and the now termite-ridden 'natural selection'.

And that individuality exists to greater or lesser degrees throughout the living world, manifesting itself as 'instinct'. That's what drives bacteria to act as they do. That's what causes viruses to act as they do, and plants, and animals.

It's what we call 'life', I suppose. Manifesting itself in these marvellous and myriad ways on the planet.

I have been watching with some amusement your amazing ability to misuse a single passage of Scripture, and twist it into support for abiogenesis.

Have you never read 'For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light.' Ps 36.9

He is the source of life - not dust, physics or chemistry. Abiogenesis, as Pasteur proved, and scripture says, is a total nonsense and a waste of time and resources.

You would do well to abandon support for it.

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Isn't it obvious what it means, barbarian? The body was created from the dust, and life was breathed into it. Why are you making things so difficult for yourself?

At death (another gigantic problem for evolution - from what did death evolve?) the breath of life leaves the body, and death supervenes.

Where is now your abiogenesis? Down the tubes - along with your evolution.