Initial posting from Feinder:

I see nothing in the second law of thermodynamics that prevents local decreases in entropy (or increases in "complexity"). It only says that the total entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Assuming that the universe is a closed system, the 2nd law would tell us that the total entropy of the universe cannot decrease. However, any part of the universe is not a closed system, only the whole. Therefore, the total entropy of any part of the universe can decrease, without violating the 2nd law, if the other part of the universe experiences a greater increase in entropy. The point is, Earth can experience a decrease in entropy without violating the 2nd law.

I am also intrested in the scientific theory of God. How does one go about experimentaly determining the existance of an omnipotent, omniscient entity? An omnipotent entity would, by definition, have infinite power (an capacity to do infinite work over infinite time). How could we observe that an entity is capable of performing infinite work? Power is expressed in units of (mass*space^2)/(time^3). It follows then, that if the mass, space, and time of the universe is finite, infinite power cannot be observed in the universe. It is mathematically impossible for the multiplication or division of a finite number of finite quantities to give the result of an infinite quantity. This could be specifically expressed as I!=(M*S^2)/(T^3) where I is infinity, and M, S, and T are any finite quantities. Moreover, it would be impossible to observe an expression of infinite power in a finite period of time (to disprove this, demonstrate a method by which a human being could observe an infinite quantity of matter, space, or time in a finite period of time). Since we can't prove the existance of an omnipotent entity, it is an unscientific concept, by your definition of science. It is also an unscientific concept by more popular definitions of science, as it is unfalsifiable.

Omniscience is similarly problematic. How could someone establish that an entity is omniscient without being omniscient themselves? A non-omniscient individual could only establish that the entity in question knows everything that the individual knows. If another person demonstrated that they knew everything I knew, it would not follow that that person must be omniscient. The same applies to you, unless you are omniscient yourself. If you are not omniscient, I wonder how you are capable of discerning absolute truth, which forms the basis of your version of science.

What aspects of modern science, if any, do you accept as being proven "absolutely", which seems to be your criteria? We already know that evolution is out. You can't believe in either quantum mechanics or relativity since both deny the possibilty of attaining absolute knowledge. Once these two theories go, we're back to "classical physics". But there have been many observed violations of "classical physics", so that can't be the absolute truth either (if you don't believe this, I challenge you to explain how transistors work without quantum mechanics). So what's left?

---

Response from Tim Wallace:

Feinder:

I see nothing in the second law of thermodynamics that prevents local decreases in entropy...

Wallace:

Your assertion (which has already been both articulated and answered more than once on the TrueOrigin website) entirely misses the point.  At issue is not at all whether or not “Earth can experience a decrease in entropy without violating the 2nd law”.  Localized decreases in thermal entropy, which you hasten to affirm, have little (if anything) to do with the significant and sustained decreases in logical or informational entropy required by evolution.  Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution postulates huge volumes of new, useful information being created, but has failed to produce an empirically viable mechanism by which that phenomenon may be said to have taken place.  (The standard Neo-Darwinian “mechanism” is wholly inadequate, since mutations don’t produce information, having been empirically demonstrated only to degrade it, and natural selection only selects from what already exists.) So it is of questionable value to point out that local decreases in thermal entropy are not prohibited by the second law, when it is not thermal entropy, but logical or informational entropy, that raises the greatest challenge to evolutionary theory.

Feinder:

I am also intrested [sic] in the scientific theory of God...

Wallace:

There was a time (when I believed in evolution and equivocated between atheism and agnosticism), when I would have heartily endorsed the sophomoric hypotheses you’ve presented.  We might have patted each other on the back for being so “intellectual” and “scientific“—stiff-arming the law of cause and effect as we did so, willfully ignoring the fact that in the full spectrum of its scale, the incredibly complex, intricate, and systematic nature of our habitat points to a Cause of even greater magnitude and nature. To my knowledge, no one has seriously postulated a “scientific theory of God” or suggested one exists, and you don’t impress me as one who would be qualified to do so, even if such a thing seemed truly called for.  If in fact the Creator has spoken (and I am fully convinced that He has), a creature such as yourself may or may not hear, listen and obey—but pretending to have a right to either knowledge or proof concerning the Creator (beyond what He has been pleased to reveal) is an act of presumptuous arrogance.

Feinder:

...How could we observe that an entity is capable of performing infinite work?...

Wallace:

Indeed, exactly what makes you think you could come face to face with your Creator and survive—let alone “observe” Him as if He were the willing subject of your dubious hypothesis?

Feinder:

...Since we can't prove the existance [sic] of an omnipotent entity, it is an unscientific concept...

Wallace:

Like I said, to my knowledge, no one has postulated a “scientific theory of God” or suggested one exists, and pretending to have a right to either knowledge or proof concerning the Creator (beyond what He has been pleased to reveal) is an act of presumptuous arrogance.  Science is a tool for learning about the creation, not the Creator.  To think that the intellect and means with which we have been endowed must somehow be capable of comprehending the Creator, and that He is somehow required to be of such a nature as to be subject to discovery and comprehension according to the demands of human will, is pure presumption.

Feinder:

Omniscience is similarly problematic...

Wallace:

Only for a creature who—being anything but omniscient—thinks its within his intellectual means to bring his Creator’s omniscience in to question simply by observing that he and his fellow creatures are not omniscient.  The fact that we have limited knowledge isn’t anything close to a logical basis for concluding that God’s nature is not what He says it is.

Feinder:

...If you are not omniscient, I wonder how you are capable of discerning absolute truth, which forms the basis of your version of science.

Wallace:

It appears that your reading comprehension skills need sharpening.  With more careful examination, I don’t think you’ll find that I have stated that absolute truth “forms the basis of” any “version” of science.  And I don’t think you’ll find that I invoke a “version” of science that is somehow unorthodox or a departure from genuine science.  Nor will you find that I claim to have an innate ability to discern absolute truth. It’s poor form to project onto another individual such arbitrary and erroneous assumptions about him, drawn from what could only have been a hasty and prejudiced reading of his writings.

Feinder:

What aspects of modern science, if any, do you accept as being proven "absolutely", which seems to be your criteria [sic]?

Wallace:

Again, you are projecting your erroneous presumption—this time presuming to “know” that I require a hypothesis to be “proven ‘absolutely’” in order to be acceptable.  I don’t believe you will find anything I’ve written indicating that as my criterion. Like anyone else who both recognizes the limitations of science and understands the way basic scientific methodology operates, I have no problem accepting most conclusions, the hypotheses of which have survived rigorous examination vis-à-vis the available empirical data, and are not strongly contested by alternative hypotheses that have been similarly tested with similar or better results.

Feinder:

...We already know that evolution is out.

Wallace:

Yep (if you mean Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution, the qualification of which as an “aspect of modern science” depends largely on what you mean by “aspect”).

Feinder:

You can't believe in either quantum mechanics or relativity...

Wallace:

I can’t?  Since when are fields of scientific study things to be believed in?

Feinder:

...since both deny the possibilty [sic] of attaining absolute knowledge.

Wallace:

They do? Exactly how? I don’t know whether quantum mechanics or relativity deny the possibility of attaining absolute knowledge, but I would sure be surprised to find ANY field of scientific study credited with affirming “the possibility of attaining absolute knowledge”.  In my understanding, by definition, that is not within the domain of science. Should you ever have an earnest desire to enjoy the relationship our Creator offers, I would advise you to pursue the requisite humility to recognize that it can only be obtained on His terms, and will not be merely a product of human effort and capability (thank God!).  For now, however, you appear to be avoiding such a course, and invoking your facilities as best as you are able in that endeavor, which may well be your prerogative, I suppose.

 

Initial posting from E. Keever:

“Evolution has never been observed.”

It has. Specication occurs on a daily basis. Microevolution occurs. Micro and Macro are the same thing, thus...

“Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”

No. Earth is in no way a closed system. It is bathed in energy from the sun. Every increase in oder here is counteracted by a decrease in ordr on the sun. A strawman attack.

“There are no transitional fossils.”

How about LIVE Anacondas with the remains of their legs?

“The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.”

Another false strawman attack. It may have originated by semichance, but evolution is not in any way random. But then again, evolution and abiogenesis have nothing to do with eachother. Evolution is directed by the enviroment.

“Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.”

Of course, you are aware of the difference between the easily demonstrated FACT of evolution and the THEORY of evolution, which explains the observed facts of evolution?

---

Resulting dialogue with Tim Wallace:

Wallace:

We don’t know what drug you’re using, but it’s not science:

Keever:

PERSONAL ATTACK: I don't use drugs...

Wallace:

Like many evolutionists, you also demonstrate an inability to distinguish the difference between a figure of speech and a “personal attack”.

Keever:

...I use logical reasoning to reach my claims, which you do not...

Wallace:

This falsehood is betrayed in the balance of your content [throughout this dialogue].

Keever:

...I observe the facts and form a hypothesis .You already have an "answer" and try to draw facts to support it. That is not science. Creationism is unscientific: You are trying to prove a preconceived notion.

Wallace:

Please name a hypothesis that you have personally formed from observing facts. Please substantiate your inference that, unlike what you accuse me of, you do not “already have an ‘answer’ and try to draw facts to support it” and are not “trying to prove a preconceived notion”. [Note: Keever never substantiated her claims as requested above.] Simply saying these things doesn’t make them true, and if in fact you “use logical reasoning to reach [your] claims” I’m sure you’ll be only too happy to explain in detail the sound, logical reasoning by which you arrived at them.

---

Keever:

“Evolution has never been observed.” It has. Specication [sic] occurs on a daily basis. Microevolution occurs. Micro and Macro are the same thing, thus...

Wallace:

To substantiate your claim, kindly document a case of empirically verified speciation for each of the last 30 days.  Otherwise, confess to your arrogant dishonesty and retract the claim.

Keever:

AD HOMINEM: OK. This has definitely defined what type of creationist you are. The type who insults people who disagrees from the beginning. I should prepare for more Ad Hominems and Personal Attacks.

Wallace:

It’s only an ad hominem if it’s not true.  A brazen falsehood is no substitute for a rational, empirically based argument.  If you can’t back up your claim with substantiation, then you are guilty as charged, and crying ‘ad hominem’ does nothing to absolve you of your conduct.

Keever:

Anyway, 95% or so of earth's species have not been discovered yet...

Wallace:

What does that have to do with taking responsibility for your claim?  Your claim (in case you forgot) was that: “Specication [sic] occurs on a daily basis.” Either the claim is true, or it is false.  You have claimed that it is true, and that you “observe the facts” and use “logical reasoning” to arrive at your claims.  It is not unreasonable, then, to ask you to: Please substantiate this allegedly fact-based, logically-reached claim [i.e., that at least one unequivocal speciation event occurs each day] by citing the empirical data and sequence of logic that supports your claim. While we’re on the subject, how exactly to you purport to know that “95% or so of earth's species have not been discovered yet” if in fact they have not been discovered yet? Please substantiate your claim [i.e., to know that roughly 95% of earth’s species remain unknown to man]. [Note: Keever never substantiated her claims as requested above.]

Keever:

...And anyway, how am I supposed to give specific examples of something that occurs over the timespan of millions of years?...

Wallace:

Maybe you should have thought of that before you made the claim.  But now you have made the claim, and are being held accountable for your words.  If you wish to disprove my assertion that your claim is more “arrogant dishonesty” than empirical fact, it is your responsibility to substantiate it. To be able to make such a claim [“Specication [sic] occurs on a daily basis”] in honesty, you must have at your disposal empirical data that supports it.  That is, you must have data showing that at least one true instance of empirically verifiable speciation occurs every day.  The question is, will you produce the substantiation or won’t you?  If you will, I will happily retract my description of your claim as “arrogant dishonesty”.  If you won’t, then it is your moral responsibility to retract your claim and acknowledge that it was indeed a dishonest assertion, and that you were indeed arrogantly assuming the right to invoke a falsehood in place of a valid argument, in your vain effort to defend your beliefs. [Note: Keever consistently declined to take responsibility for her words by either substantiating these, or any of her claims, or retracting them.]

Keever:

Microevolution occurs...

Wallace:

(Nothing like stating the obvious to garner credibility for your foundering belief system!)

Keever:

AD HOMINEM: Again, mudslinging. I'm so hurt.

Wallace:

(Sure you are.)  It’s amazing how ultra-sensitive (and humorless) evolutionists get when they have no legitimate, science-based arguments.  It’s a common practice to either hide behind their own barrage of ad hominems, hide behind an endless flurry of ad hominem accusations against their counterparts, or both.

Keever:

Woa: "Belief System?" Don't tell me that you think evolution is a religon [sic] !!

Wallace:

Well I sure don’t think it’s science, and you have produced absolutely nothing that might compel me to start thinking otherwise again.  You obviously believe in evolution, and I obviously don’t.  It’s part of your belief system—your worldview, not mine.  If it had a compelling empirical foundation, I might even consider it a legitimate option, but years of study (and dialogues with people like you) have convinced me otherwise.

Keever:

...Micro and Macro are the same thing, thus...

Wallace:

Oh? Even evolutionary scientists seem to differ with you on this simplistic, pseudo-intellectual fallacy: “...Experimental evolution deals of necessity with only the simplest levels of the evolutionary process, sometimes called microevolution.” — Dobzhansky, Theodosius, “On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology” (Part I-Biology), American Scientist (December 1957), p. 388. “As a Darwinian, I wish to defend Goldschmidt’s postulate that macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated...” — Gould, Stephen Jay, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, vol. 86 (June/July 1977), p. 24 “Macroevolution is, as Stanley argues, decoupled from microevolution.” — Gould, Stephen Jay, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” Paleobiology, vol. 6 (Winter 1980), p. 126. “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution could be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution.  At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting the answer can be given as a clear, No.” — Lewin, Roger, “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire,” Science, vol. 210 (November 21, 1980), p. 883.

Keever:

PERSONAL ATTACK: Abusive remarks as opposed to Au' Contraire [sic] evidence.

Wallace:

Unfortunately for you, the shoe fits rather well... And you’re hardly one to start talking about evidence.  You have produced nothing but hollow assertions.  And you have completely failed to address the evolutionary scientists whom I have shown to disagree with this particular hollow assertion of yours.  Are you also accusing them of “Abusive remarks as opposed to Au' Contraire [sic] evidence”?  If not, you should at least: Please explain why your claim [i.e., that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same thing”] is true and exactly why these respected evolutionist scientists are wrong. Otherwise—again—you must take responsibility for your words by acknowledging and retracting the false claim. [Note: Keever never substantiated her claim as requested above.]

Keever:

1957? That's before the "moon dust" argument was debunked. It's before the argument itself. 1977? 1980? 1980? Is it just me or are these a little out of date? A lot can happen in such a fast developing area in 2 decades, and certainly in 43 years. Have a recent article? Or preferably original thinking?

Wallace:

The so-called “moon dust” argument has nothing to do with this—and neither do the publication dates of the scientists’ statements.  Being twenty years old doesn’t automatically invalidate them.  If they have been shown to be erroneous, it is your job to show how this has happened and (therefore) why your conflicting claims are true.

Keever:

I am referring to the fact that both micro and macro evolution are driven by the same thing: Not all members of the species are identical, and some are more suited to survive than others. This is undeniable and proven easily. This becomes evolution when selective pressure is put on the species. Evolution occurs, not open to debate...

Wallace:

But there is no such fact [i.e., that “both micro and macro evolution are driven by the same thing”].  Micro-evolution refers to changes that take place within a population of organisms, and are known to result from genetic recombination—the ebb and flow of recessive and dominant gene patterns (i.e., various existing portions genetic information becoming manifest at varying levels within the population over time).  Micro-evolution is another word for these small changes within the organism population, due in part to the effect of natural selection. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, refers to large changes in organism physiology, in which components, systems, organs, and organisms are alleged to undergo complete transformations as a consequence of entirely new genetic information.  These large-scale changes, the essence of Neo-Darwinian theory, are attributed to mutation and natural selection. This, in fact, is why the likes of Dobzhansky, Gould, and Lewin (and others) have said things like, “macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated” and “the central question...was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. ...the answer can be given as a clear No.”

Keever:

It's like walking along (time) on a road. A hundred steps will take you a little way (microevolution), but a million steps will take you out of the country (macroevolution). But it's still one step after the other...

Wallace:

The “observed facts” and “logical reasoning” which you claim are behind your position are conspicuously missing from this attempt at analogous illustration.  You have done absolutely nothing to defend your position or explain why the position held by such highly respected evolutionists as Dobzhansky, Gould, and Lewin is wrong and obsolete.  In place of a logical, empirically-based argument, you have substituted evasion and “just-so” storytelling. And so, once again, I must insist that you either produce valid substantiation for your otherwise vain assertion, or else take responsibility for your words by acknowledging and retracting yet another false claim. [Note: Keever consistently declined to take responsibility for her words by either substantiating her claim or retracting it.]

---

Keever:

“Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.” No. Earth is in no way a closed system. It is bathed in energy from the sun. Every increase in oder here is counteracted by a decrease in ordr on the sun. A strawman attack.

Wallace:

Don’t read much actual science, do you?  Again, evolutionist scientists (far more qualified than yourself) disagree with your sophomoric parroting of the empirically bankrupt party line: “[I]n a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures.  This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions.  Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.” — I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972) “The thermodynamics immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that ... biological systems are open, and exchange both energy and matter.  The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue.  Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.” — C. J. Smith, Biosystems 1:259 (1975)

Keever:

PERSONAL ATTACK: In today's episode, "Evidence VS Abusive Remarks".

Wallace:

I’m beginning to see a pattern:  Every time I point out a fallacy among your claims (which is just about every one of them), it is a “personal attack” against you.  You evidently want me to “grow up”—and yet you don’t seem averse to using infantile fibs to cushion your beliefs from the hard reality of science, refusing to take responsibility for your own words, and crying ‘foul’ when your behavior is plainly pointed out. Furthermore, your suggestion that you are somehow on the side of “evidence” is laughable in light of the complete absence of any references to empirical evidence or documentation in anything you have said.  You may think it’s an act of abuse to expose the fallacies and falsehoods proffered by another, but I find it a far worse act of abuse to so repeatedly and brazenly invoke such deceptions as you have introduced here, and then either “defend” them with more of the same or simply ignore the fact that they have been exposed as such.

Keever:

Any recent articles? Less than 15 years old? I didn't think so.

Wallace:

Am I to understand that responses like this are your idea of “observed facts” and “logical reasoning”? Please provide a viable, empirically-based refutation of the documentation I cited.  (Feel free to use more current sources, as long as they are recognized scientists in this field.) [Note: Keever never substantiated her claim as requested above.] You give the appearance that you think whole scientific principles are typically laid to waste every few decades, and that you are therefore entitled to invoke obfuscation and petty complaints concerning the age of peer-reviewed scientific papers, to which your mathematical wizardry has assigned ages which appear to more accurately reflect your own maturity level.  (For the record, where I learned math, the papers which I cited are more like 25 years than your “15 years old”.)

---

Keever:

“There are no transitional fossils.” How about LIVE Anacondas with the remains of their legs?

Wallace:

Well, let’s see ... a “LIVE Anaconda” is not a fossil (so you’ve completely avoided the subject).  But if you’d care to document an empirically authenticated case of an Anaconda with unequivocal “leg remains”—that would be of some interest here!

Keever:

The anaconda has the last spigots of legs from its ancestors...

Wallace:

Please substantiate this claim (i.e., that “the anaconda has the last spigots of legs from its ancestors”), preferably with unequivocal empirical data, or else retract it as yet another of your vacuous pretenses. [Note: Keever never substantiated her claim as requested above.]

Keever:

...[Live Anacondas with the remains of their legs] is more viable than a fossil, for sure.

Wallace:

The subject is transitional fossils.  A living organism is not a fossil—let alone a transitional fossil.  Let’s not play games with subject categories:  If you have nothing to say about transitional fossils, then just say so.  But don’t try and confuse the issue with a reference to “live Anacondas with the remains of their legs” as a substitute for explaining the absence of unequivocal transitional forms in a fossil record that allegedly tells the story of many millions of years of evolution. Now, as far as Anacondas with so-called “remains of their legs” are concerned, please note that dwindling legs are not evolution.  They represents a loss of genetic data, not a gain.  The evolutionary myth calls for organisms gaining new appendages and organs, not losing them, and gaining unequivocally new and meaningful genetic information, not losing it.  Anacondas with what you call “remains of their legs” fail to defend evolution not only on a paleontological level, but in the realm of biology as well.

Keever:

UNREASONABLE EXPECTATIONS: Fossilization is rare, as something usually only becomes one after being cut off from oxygen and quickly buried...

Wallace:

(Yeah, like in a worldwide flood.)  Rare?  There are literally billions of fossils—all of them buried in rock layers laid down by water, all over the earth—just like you would expect as the aftermath of a cataclysmic global flood.  The occurrence is rare today, because the flood was a one-time event. And there’s nothing “unreasonable” about “expecting” the billions of fossils to contain a fair quantity of transitional forms.  You’ve argued yourself that evolution “occurs over the timespan of millions of years” so the fossil record should be peppered with unambiguous examples of the many, many gradual changes—but it isn’t. Are these evolutionist scientists also guilty of having “unreasonable expectations”?: “the Cambrian strata of rocks...are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups.  And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear.  It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.” — Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987) p. 229 “Unfortunately not a single specimen of an appropriate reptilian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles.  The absence of such ancestral forms leaves many problems of the amphibian-reptilian transition unanswered.” — Carroll, Lewis L., “Problems of the Origin of Reptiles,” Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. 44 (1969). p. 393 “We have no intermediate fossils between rhipidistian fish and early amphibians” — Carroll, Robert L., Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1988), p. 138 “No specific derived characters have been demonstrated as being uniquely shared between early primates and the early members of any other order.” — Carroll, Robert L., Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1988), p. 467 “We still lack any precise information concerning the presumed aquatic ancestors from which land plants evolved... ” — Gensel, Patricia G., and Henry N. Andrews, “The Evolution of Early Land Plants,” American Scientist, vol. 75 (Sept/Oct 1987), p. 481. “There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record.  In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...  The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.” — George, T. Neville, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,” Science Progress, vol. 48 (January 1960). p.1-3 “In spite of the immense amount of the paleontological material and the existence of long series of intact stratigraphic sequences with perfect records for the lower categories, transitions between the higher categories are missing” — Goldschmidt, Richard B., “Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist, vol. 40 (January 1952), p. 98 “Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.  and it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors.  In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.” — Raup, David M., “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50 (January 1979), pp. 23 “There are too many places where the fossil record is complete enough that we ought to see transitions occurring.  Even in these cases we see very few good examples of higher taxa evolving by gradual change.  There may be a few examples here and there, but by and large we just don’t see the steps.” — Stanley, Steven M., “Resetting the Evolutionary Timetable,” interview by Neil A. Campbell, Bioscience, vol. 36 (December 1986), p. 725 “I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.” - Gould, Stephen Jay, “The Ediacaran Experiment,” Natural History, vol. 93 (February 1984), p. 23.

Keever:

Also, after being set of on a "path," evolution (like taller necks), proceeds quite rapidly...

Wallace:

Please substantiate this claim [i.e., that “after being set of on a ‘path,’ evolution (like taller necks), proceeds quite rapidly”], preferably with unequivocal empirical data, or else retract it as one more in your growing list of hollow assertions. [Note: Keever never substantiated her claim as requested above.]

Keever:

But you won't accept anything less than 1,000,000 fossils per new species and that will not happen.

Wallace:

Please describe in detail “logical reasoning” and “observed facts” supportive of your claim to know that I “won’t accept anything less than 1,000,000 fossils per new species”. [Note: Keever never substantiated her claim as requested above.]

---

Keever:

“The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.” Another false strawman attack. It may have originated by semichance, but evolution is not in any way random. But then again, evolution and abiogenesis have nothing to do with eachother. Evolution is directed by the enviroment.

Wallace:

Please define (for our science scholars out there) “semichance”. Please substantiate your claim (preferably with empirical data) that “evolution is not in any way random”. [Note: Keever never substantiated her claims as requested above.]

Keever:

"Semichance" is the idea that while it did come by chance, the odds were preferable. I should restrict my vocabulary to simple words...

Wallace:

Very interesting.  But neither my Random House College Dictionary, nor my Webster’s New World Dictionary, nor Webster’s online dictionary , nor a search at www.altavisa.com turned up any definition of or reference to a word “semichance” at all, let alone a definition that concurred with your claim. So... Please provide documentation of the existence and definition of the word “semichance”, as well as documentation of recognized scientific non-fiction authors who apply the term “semichance” to evolutionary theory in support of the argument you have proposed. [Note: Keever consistently declined to take responsibility for her words by either substantiating her claim (above) or retracting it.]

Keever:

Once the right chemicals were in place, a lightning strike fused them in to more complex molecules and the first simplistic self-replicator began...

Wallace:

Please substantiate this claim [i.e., that “once the right chemicals were in place, a lightning strike fused them in to more complex molecules and the first simplistic self-replicator began”], preferably with unequivocal empirical data, or else retract it as yet another case of your substituting storytelling for science. [Note: Keever never substantiated her claim as requested above.]

Keever:

Demonstrating that evolution is not random is easy. You're an early giraffe that has a slightly longer neck. This makes it easier to reach leaves and you have more offspring than others, which have increasingly longer necks. Was it just chance that you survived, or direction by the environment? DUH!

Wallace:

Please substantiate this claim [i.e., that organisms change their genetic code by their behavior, and pass the changes on to their offspring], preferably with unequivocal empirical data, or else retract it as yet another case of your substituting storytelling for science. [Note: Keever never substantiated her claim as requested above.]

Keever:

But then again, evolution and abiogenesis have nothing to do with each other...

Wallace:

Then why oh why, in your explanation as to why “evolution is not in any way random” do you bother to assert that “Once the right chemicals were in place, a lightning strike fused them in to more complex molecules and the first simplistic self-replicator began”??  You yourself hasten to blur the distinction between the two in your own defense of evolution!  If they “have nothing to do with each other”, why do so many pseudo-intellectuals like yourself fail to differentiate between them as they parrot all the tired, science-free, “just-so” stories?

Keever:

Evolution is directed by the enviroment [sic].

Wallace:

And abiogenesis isn’t? Please explain why this is (preferably with supportive empirical data). Kindly provide one empirically verified case of Neo-Darwinian macroevolution that has been shown to be unequivocally “directed by the environment”. [Note: Keever never substantiated her claims as requested above.]

Keever:

ABIOGENESIS is the formation of primitive self-replicators, which was only directed by mathematical permutations.

Wallace:

Directed? Please explain in precise detail how “mathematical permutations” have been shown unequivocally to have “directed the formation of primitive self-replicators”—or else retract this bit of pseudo-scientific mythology. [Note: Keever never substantiated her claim as requested above.]

Keever:

Please set singular and reasonable standards. If only empirical evidence is acceptable, then we have no "proof" of any dynamite explosions.

Wallace:

You fly in the face of genuine science.  Science does not consist of the ad nauseum parroting your favorite baseless myths, couched in scientific-sounding terminology.  Empirical data is central to determining what is a reliable hypothesis and what is not.  Your dynamite fantasy is a case in point:  A dynamite explosion can be subjected to the scientific method—both it and its outcome can be repeated, measured, and observed.  Your evolutionary belief system, on the other hand, fails to avail itself to any such inspection.  It can’t be repeated, measured or observed—only hypothesized.  Your aversion to empirical evidence betrays your preference for myths and “just-so” storytelling as a cheap substitute for the scientific method.  But these are not the things that make for genuine science.

---

Keever:

“Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.” Of course, you are aware of the difference between the easily demonstrated FACT of evolution and the THEORY of evolution, which explains the observed facts of evolution?

Wallace:

No, as a matter of fact, we are not.  Perhaps you would like to provide the specific details empirically substantiating the “demonstrated FACT of evolution” to which you refer.  (I’m quite sure that the evolutionary scientists would be most appreciative of your assistance in this matter.)

Keever:

First of all, you apparently don't understand science to begin with. It relies on Weight Of Evidence. The more evidence that supports or doesn't refute something, the more likely that it is considered to be correct. Right now, there is so much evidence behind evolution that most scientists consider it to have been proven.

Wallace:

What you need is unequivocal evidence, and you don’t have it.  Finding ways to “fit” a lot of empirical data to your belief system is a waste of time if you’re not open-minded enough to see how much of the same empirical data fits another model/theory.  Your problem is that you are woefully ignorant of the creationary model and how much of the exact same empirical data has been shown to fit the creationary model more easily and with more consistency. It is a typical evolutionist tendency to talk about “overwhelming evidence” and how evolution is “proven”—but most of the same people (like yourself) are unwilling to investigate the work that has been done on the creationary alternative.  Instead of having an informed, balanced view, they prefer to remain full of willful ignorance.

Keever:

To scientists, "proven" means that something is so well supported that it is of little use to further investigate.

Wallace:

Right.  Once your mind is made up, why bother dealing with any facts?

Wallace:

We look forward to the substantiations of your claims.

Keever:

Of course, these requirements are double standards. I have to explain absolutely everything perfectly with not so much as a quantum string particle out of place. I must have absolute perfection, which is unattainable.

Wallace:

Nothing like “absolute perfection” has been asked of you—only that you take responsibility for your several highly questionable assertions, by providing some reference, documentation or description of empirical support for those claims.  You have consistently failed to do so, prefering instead to produce more of the same kinds of claims, along with diversionary accusations. You have clearly demonstrated a merely superficial understanding of evolution, a negligible understanding of creation, and what should be an embarrassing standard of moral integrity.  If you had studied both origins models, and how each of them measures up to the empirical data, I seriously doubt you would be so cavalier and confident in your shallow assertions, and in fact you would not have made most of them, because you would have known better.  Instead, you have chosen to act and speak with the boldness of a fool in the absence of knowledge, for if you were truly and objectively familiar with the creationary literature, you wouldn’t have blustered into TrueOrigin’s in-box with such sophomoric arguments and claims. Cited here are seventeen (17) singular and reasonable requests that you take responsibility for your words, and demonstrate that they are something more than the empty claims of an arrogant poseur.  If you are truly as knowledgeable as you pretend to be, and your claims are not the brazen falsehoods I maintain that they are, then kindly furnish the full and complete answers [“perfection” is not a requirement] to the seventeen requests—or else admit that they are erroneous and/or falsehoods—and so demonstrate that you are willing and able to take responsibility for your own words. If you are not willing to so take responsibility for your own words, then the least you can do is to refrain from sending any more of them in our direction. [Note: Ms. Keever failed to substantiate even one of her many dubious claims.  Nor did she prove willing to honor the last request, but persisted in sending more unsubstantiated assertions, expecting them to be received as facts of science.]