Starting back with Ironman’s original reply we’ve got two and a half paragraphs worth of hot air before he attempts

to dismiss an entire category of life in the form of bacteria because he apparently thinks that Evolution at the single cell

level somehow doesn’t apply to the argument.

You don’t understand what we are talking about, though I’ve tried explaining it in simple terms. Evolution contends that life evolved from single-celled organisms to complex multi-celled organsisms, from one kind into another kind, from fish to lizard, to mammal, etc. This is a proposed change in morphology. The ability of bacteria to become resistent by mutation does not cauise morphological change. The morphology of bacteria has not changed due to mutation. Bacteria are still single-celled, they are still bacteria. Likewise, fish are still fish.

You seem to have forgotten the various inheritable genetic defects every life form can suffer from. The fact that it’s possible to inherit a genetic defect proves your claim false.

Genetic defects are removed from the DNA by DNA recombining. If you believe otherwise, show us an example of a life form which has developed new morphological features which remain in the species. There are none.

You laugh in ignorance. There are no examoples of animals developing new orphological features which remain in the species. Why not stop the blather and show us an example of what you claim happens instead of just claiming it does.

It’s true that most mutations cause the generation of gibberish, but not all mutations do. You then go on to offer an “either/or” statement without the “or” part. Though I’d love to hear where the “backup of the grandparent’s DNA sequence” is stored. It’s clear your understanding of how DNA repair is accomplished is lacking.

You need to read about DNA repeair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair

You seem to have forgotten the various inheritable genetic defects every life form can suffer from. The fact that it’s possible to inherit a genetic defect proves your claim false.

Nonsence. You do not realize that genetic defects which change an animal’s morphology or shape are weeded out by the DNA and do not remain in the species. There are no examples of permanent morphological change to a scies due to
mutation or any means. I’ve told you this, but you keep carrying on about the biochemical effects of mutation, such as immunity and such. These do not represent morphological change and are not evidence of evolution from one kind
into another kind because they are not changes to the morphology of the species.

The physical defects caused by mutation are negative because they cause weakness and unfitness by removing information from the DNA and are weeded out by DNA repair.

If you breed doves so that you have all gray doves and then introduce a black one to the coup, you will have some black doves born. However, if you breed the offspring of black doves with the population, over the next few generations there are no more black doves and there are only gray doves again! This is becuase DNA resists change, and it is why one kind cannot morphologically transform over time into another kind. DNA itself prevents evolution by maintaining the integrity of it’s information regarding the animal’s kind!

The University of Connecticut:

“Proofreading new DNA: When new DNA is synthesized, occasional errors in base pairing occur. If not corrected, could lead to mutations, loss of functions, loss of competitiveness, evolutionary weeding out. Proofreading carried out by DNA polymerases III and I; if base mismatch spotted, cut out new bases (keep track of which is template strand and which is new strand during replication), resynthesize copy strand from that neighborhood of template. Repairing single-strand damage. One of the most common types of damage is due to ultraviolet light (UV). Wherever two
pyrimidine bases are adjacent to each other in DNA (e.g. TT), UV can cause bases to link together covalently, forming a dimer (e.g. a thymine dimer). These bases can no longer be correctly read by DNA replication enzymes (nor by transcription enzymes). If not corrected, can cause problems for cell. Same machinery as described above is used to cut out defective bases, insert new bases to repair damage. See diagram of DNA repair. ("protected" image.) Why is this protected?

Repairing double-stranded damage. Double-stranded breaks can occur during replication if a single-stranded gap is not sealed before passing a replication fork. Also in as a result of ionizing radiation, powerful oxidizing agents, and other causes. Most bacteria can repair this damage using homologous recombination system. requires special set of enzymes: recA, recB, etc. requires a second molecule of homologous DNA. Replicating cells often contain 2 copies (preparing for division). Some cells can take up DNA from environment.
2 homologoues are temporarily paired in small region, and single strands are cut open and “swapped” with strand from other molecule. See (diagram part 1 and diagram part 2) ("protected" image.) Why is this protected?
Homologous recombination can have other effects, such as introducing antibiotic resistant gene from foreign cell into a previously sensitive cell. See text.”

http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~terry/229sp03/lectures/genetics1.html

“Faithful maintenance of the genome is crucial to the individual and to species. DNA damage arises from both endogenous sources such as water and oxygen and exogenous sources such as sunlight and tobacco smoke. In human cells, base
alterations are generally removed by excision repair pathways that counteract the mutagenic effects of DNA lesions. This serves to maintain the integrity of the genetic information, although not all of the pathways are absolutely error-free. In some cases, DNA damage is not repaired but is instead bypassed by specialized DNA polymerases.

Imperial Cancer Research Fund, Clare Hall Laboratories, South Mimms, Herts, EN6 3LD, UK. “

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/286/5446/1897

Evolutionists are confused by the variety of kinds. They think that similarity means evolution. But it does not. Humans are said to have evolved from apes. We are supposedly 99% or a bit less the same in our DNA. But we are not the same kind after all. Our designs are of two seperate and incompatible kinds. Humans never evolved from apes because the points of recombining in the DNA of apes and humans are completely different. In fact, the recombining spots of the DNA of all species is different, and each species is defined uniquely from every other. Even from one kind of fish to another. This is because each animal species was created, not evolved.

University of Oxford:

‘The findings also tell us something else important: that the recombination landscape must be evolving extremely quickly. In humans and chimpanzees, the genome as a whole is very similar but the recombination hotspots totally different – so hotspots must be evolving much, much faster than the rest of the genome. That adds extra mystery to what drives these hotspots: why do they evolve so quickly?’

http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/050214.shtml

Speciation is a natural result of Evolution in action and there have been laboratory experiments using fruit flies that shows how easy it can come about:

Diane Dodd was also able to show allopatric speciation by reproductive isolation in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose. Dodd’s experiment has been easy for many others to replicate, including with other kinds of fruit flies and foods. How do you explain the above experiment without Evolution? Did God decide to reach down at some point during the experiment and change one or both groups of flies to make them unable to interbreed? Eight generations is the blink of an eye compared to the scales of time evolution works over.”

You have been told evolution is true, and you believe that by faith. Genetic mutations do not cause the morphological change of one kind into aniother! When people have six fingers, the family line does not retain this genetic defect. Don’t believe me? look at pictures of the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of such people. They will have 5 fingers. This process has already been explained to you. It is not evolutionary. Here’s what plant physiologis David Catchpoole, B.Ag.Sc. (Hons), Ph.D. says about the diversity you describe:

“In all of these instances, the speedy changes have nothing to do with the production of any new genes by mutation (the imagined mechanism of molecules-to-man evolution), but result mostly from selection of genes that already exist. Here we have real, observed evidence that (downhill) adaptive formation of new forms and species from the one created kind can take place rapidly. It doesn’t need millions of years.

Shouldn’t evolutionists rejoice, and creationists despair, at all this observed change? Hardly. Informed creationists have long stressed that natural selection can easily cause major variation in short time periods, by acting on the created genetic information already present. But this does not support the idea of evolution in the molecules-to-man sense, because no new information has been added.

Selection by itself gets rid of information, and of all observed mutations which have some effect on survival or function,15 so far even the rare ‘beneficial’ ones are also losses of information. The late-maturing, larger guppies resulted simply from a re-shuffling of existing genetic material.16 Such variation can even be sufficient to prevent two groups from interbreeding with each other any more, thus forming new ‘species’ by definition, without involving any new information. “

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/speciation.asp

DNA isn’t particularly resistant to change at all. ”

Nonsence. The opposite of what you say is true, as you have learned.

Mutations to homeobox genes can produce easily visible phenotypic changes.”

Again you misunderstand. These defects are not permanent in the species. Please read about DNA recombining for your own good.

“Two examples of homeobox mutations in the above-mentioned fruit fly are legs where the antennae should be (Antennapedia), and a second pair of wings.”

This is not new information or a new feature. It is the expression of information that already exists in the DNA. It is not a new feature. It is an old one in the wrong place. Such mutated insects cannot fly poperly, and the additional legs dissapear in the species because they are not permanent due to DNA recombining! All you have described is deformity.

Interestingly, there is one insect family, the xyelid sawflies, in which both the antennae and mouthparts are remarkably leg-like in structure. This is not uncommon in arthropods as all arthropod appendages are homologous.”

Confused by the similarity and variety of kinds? Yes, you are. My foot is remarkably hand-like too. But that does not make my hand a foot or the results of a foot gone bad. lol

“The above is exactly the sort of morphological evidence you asked for and it is intellectually dishonest of you to try and dismiss it. It would also help your argument if your citations actually supported it. ”

Oh for crying out loud. I just showed you how your assertions are incorrect using science. Move on.

“Secondly, even Darwin managed to show how adaptation changed morphology in his original writings. The morphological differences in Darwin’s finches are significant enough that he initially didn’t realize they were all finches, but thought they were a wide variety of birds. You add those sorts of morphological changes up over eons and you’ll end up with quite a different animal.”

The finches you mention are all of the same kind of animal: Finch. The variety of the size of their beaks is not a bew morphological feature. You’re way behind in your evolution research if you think the finches of Madagascar are evidence of evolution. You’re 150 years behind on that one. This kind of variety has been misrepresented as evidence of evolution.

I’ll let Dr. Georgia Purdom explain this to you:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/evolution-finch-beaks-again

“Please provide a source for that account. Otherwise you’re just doing more “I told you so.”

There is no “I told you so” in anything I am telling you. However, per your request:

http://s8int.com/dawkinspause.html

Background info here:

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9099157729559176067&hl=en

“We’ll skip over your “living fossils” paragraph, because it’s late and I’m sore from laughing at your nonsense so far, and we’ll skip right over to the part where you expose the true extent of your ignorance: ”

Ahhh life with your head in the sand. I am begining to think you are as ignorant as you are stupid and evil. But then, trying to bypass science which disproves evolution is the method of evos. You’ve done it 3 or 4 times already.

“In fact if it were possible that a fish could just spontaneously produce a dog or that you could breed any two organisms together and get an offspring that would disprove evolution because it’s the exact opposite of what evolution predicts. Anyone with even a basic understanding of evolution can recognize the idiocy of your argument.”

The DNA of all kinds is seperate. Evolution theory contends that life evolved from the simplest to the most complex and that all life is related on a “family tree”. If that were so, then it could be shown my examining DNA that one kind is transcribed the same way as the other kind. But this is not the case. Even the mutation points of kinds are different. Evos always try to make microbiology seem much simpler than it is and to distance themselves from the fact that evolution theory claims that the kinds are related ewhenever their ass gets in a crack.

Like all of the indoctrinated, your faith in speculation has you believing that evolution occured. You are confused by the similarity and variety of the kinds. But when we study the science of life, we see that evolution has not and could not have occurred! The biggest stumbling block evos have to seeing the truth in the science that is rgiht before their eyes is thier deep conviction that God either does not exist or did not create life by design. Since God didn’t do it, obviously it happened by natural causes and evolved on it’s own. But life tells us a different story.

BTW, since I see you have trouble applying philosophy to this subject as well, here’s something to bounce around in your can: if evolution occurred and one animal had broken the barrier of kind and represented the first animal which is truly another species, and was like life shows us today unable anymore to breed with it’s ancestors, that animal becomes extinct immeditely. It becomes extinct because it cannot reproduce with it’s former kind and there are none of it’s kind to reproduce with.

You have a lot of thinking and reading to do. You keep quoting bits that have been shown not to be evidence of evolution by dozens of scientists, a few of which I’ve quoted from to help you understand. Do you believe in evolution because you have seen the proof of it or because you ahve been told and believe those who say it is so?

Even Darwin himself acknowledged that the fossil record does not support his theory. Many other evolutionist scientists have admitted this as well. You must break free from the hedgemony to see the truth.

Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick.

He doesn’t even bother to change his arguments between iidb and here.

He’s STILL using the word ‘kind’ without defining what a ‘kind’ is, he’s -still- claiming that bacteria don’t undergo morphological change, even though he’s already been pointed at the nylon-eating bacteria, he’s -still- making generic assertion about ‘information,’ although he can’t qualify or explain what -type- of information he’s talking about,

IronY-man’s only talent -so far- is producing prodigious piles of shit.  Seriously, he’s really, really, good at producing MASSIVE amounts of specious logic, quote mines, outright lies, etc.  Another example of the -bury them in bullshit- approach.

He also has a bad habit of quoting the beginning of a paragraph, where some authority posits a conundrum, but -failing- to quote the material at the end of the paper or paragraph, where the apparent conundrum is resolved.  Pretty damn dishonest.

He’s being absolutely spanked on internet infidels, so I guess he’s decided to target some other poor board.

Just one of his many piles of doo

Oh.  Right.  It isn’t the same guy.  The -name- is slightly different.

[/sarcasm]

This has all the trappings of a classic thread right here. I shall be watching it with interest.

By the way, Iron Man, are you alive or dead? Have you thoughts within your head?

Allow me to repeat myself…

Do you not know that if a mutation to a parent’s germ cell occurs and is passed along to it’s offspring that the offpsing’s DNA recombining in it’s germ cells will repair it so that it will not be passed along to the offspring’s offspring?

Umm.  Hmm.  Say what?  Could you back this claim up with perhaps a link or direct quote? 

While you are answering one question, how about we pin you down on a couple other points so we have a common frame of reference?  What is the age of the Earth within ten percent?  Is microevolution possible?  Is it separate from macroevolution?  What are fossils?

Ironyman writes…

You don’t understand what we are talking about,

It’s clear to pretty much everyone here that the only person who doesn’t know what he’s talking about is you. Reading your latest reply only reinforces that fact. I’ve been reading your threads over on the Internet Infidels forums and quite enjoying the spanking you’re taking there.

So there’s really no need to bother addressing you further here. We’ve put the lie to your claims and all you can do is sputter back with the same tired argument as before. It wasn’t correct the first time and it’s not correct now.

Irony-man: Like all of the indoctrinated, your faith in speculation has you believing that evolution occured.

Like all of the indoctrinated, your faith in The Scam has you believing that creation occurred.

Irony-man: Do you believe in evolution because you have seen the proof of it or because you ahve been told and believe those who say it is so?

Do you believe in The Scam because you have seen the proof of it or because you have been told and believe those who say it is so?

You see Irony-man, most here don’t buy into your God Delusion; we don’t need the invisible man to keep us safe and warm at night.
We know that when we die THAT’S IT. The End.

So, Instead of putting your cut ‘n paste ‘knowledge’ out for all to see why don’t you do a wonderful thing for yourself?
Do some serious self analysis to find out why the fuck you NEED an invisible friend.
Gods do NOT exist no matter how much you want him/them to.
As Richard Dawkins said: A universe with a God would be very different to one without.

And just cos I love it, another Richard Dawkins quote from The God Delusion: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pesilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

I think he was just a cunt … but that’s just me.
I also think I was wasting my time putting all that together.

I like IIBD’s comment saying he posted here afterwards, and got a second kicking.

I still cant believe Les responded with that much. Dude.. how? How did you do that?

Lots of time to sit and write. I’m not an evolutionary biologist so I don’t have all of that stuff memorized, but I know enough to know where to find the proper answers and to evaluate the claims being made. All you need after that is time to research and write.

nowiser said:

He’s STILL using the word ‘kind’ without defining what a ‘kind’ is, he’s -still- claiming that bacteria don’t undergo morphological change, even though he’s already been pointed at the nylon-eating bacteria,

Evidence against the evolutionary explanation of nylon digesting bacteria includes:

There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under stress.

All five transposable elements are identical, with 764 base pairs (bp) each. This comprises over eight percent of the plasmid. How could random mutations produce three new catalytic/degradative genes (coding for EI, EII and EIII) without at least some changes being made to the transposable elements? Negoro speculated that the transposable elements must have been a ‘late addition’ to the plasmids to not have changed. But there is no evidence for this, other than the circular reasoning that supposedly random mutations generated the three enzymes and so they would have changed the transposase genes if they had been in the plasmid all along. Furthermore, the adaptation to nylon digestion does not take very long (see point 5 below), so the addition of the transposable elements afterwards cannot be seriously entertained.

All three types of nylon degrading genes appear on plasmids and only on plasmids. None appear on the main bacterial chromosomes of either Flavobacterium or Pseudomonas. This does not look like some random origin of these genes—the chance of this happening is low. If the genome of Flavobacterium is about two million bp, and the pOAD2 plasmid comprises 45,519 bp, and if there were say 5 pOAD2 plasmids per cell (~10% of the total chromosomal DNA), then the chance of getting all three of the genes on the pOAD2 plasmid would be about 0.0015. If we add the probability of the nylon degrading genes of Pseudomonas also only being on plasmids, the probability falls to 2.3 x 10-6. If the enzymes developed in the independent laboratory-controlled adaptation experiments (see point 5, below) also resulted in enzyme activity on plasmids (almost certainly, but not yet determined), then attributing the development of the adaptive enzymes purely to chance mutations becomes even more implausible.

The antisense DNA strand of the four nylon genes investigated in Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas lacks any stop codons.8 This is most remarkable in a total of 1,535 bases. The probability of this happening by chance in all four antisense sequences is about 1 in 1012. Furthermore, the EIII gene in Pseudomonas is clearly not phylogenetically related to the EII genes of Flavobacterium, so the lack of stop codons in the antisense strands of all genes cannot be due to any commonality in the genes themselves (or in their ancestry). Also, the wild-type pOAD2 plasmid is not necessary for the normal growth of Flavobacterium, so functionality in the wild-type parent DNA sequences would appear not to be a factor in keeping the reading frames open in the genes themselves, let alone the antisense strands.

Some statements by Yomo et al., express their consternation:

‘These results imply that there may be some unknown mechanism behind the evolution of these genes for nylon oligomer-degrading enzymes.

‘The presence of a long NSF (non-stop frame) in the antisense strand seems to be a rare case, but it may be due to the unusual characteristics of the genes or plasmids for nylon oligomer degradation.

‘Accordingly, the actual existence of these NSFs leads us to speculate that some special mechanism exists in the regions of these genes.’

It looks like recombination of codons (base pair triplets), not single base pairs, has occurred between the start and stop codons for each sequence. This would be about the simplest way that the antisense strand could be protected from stop codon generation. The mechanism for such a recombination is unknown, but it is highly likely that the transposase genes are involved.

Interestingly, Yomo et al. also show that it is highly unlikely that any of these genes arose through a frame shift mutation, because such mutations (forward or reverse) would have generated lots of stop codons. This nullifies the claim of Thwaites that a functional gene arose from a purely random process (an accident).

The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers. This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection.

The researchers have not been able to ascertain any putative ancestral gene to the nylon-degrading genes. They represent a new gene family. This seems to rule out gene duplications as a source of the raw material for the new genes.

Oh well.

Genetics is the science of biological inheritance. Geneticists study the chromosomes of organisms, the location of particular genes on the chromosomes, and changes (mutations) and rearrangements in the chromosomes and their genes which are transmitted by inheritance to succeeding generations. Genetics relates the chromosomes and their genes to the inherited characteristics of organisms. This is what we have termed “classical genetics.” The new “molecular genetics” which is a part of molecular biology is a study of the chromosomes and the genes in the chromosomes at the level of their molecular structure and the actual arrangement of the atoms in the genes. We have already shown in Creation Essays 4 and 29 that molecular genetics thus far provides no testable scientific theory for the evolution of anything new (other than limited modifications of what already exists). But has classical genetics already solved these problems?
Evidence from Plant and Animal Breeding

For thousands of years intelligent humans have selectively bred both plants and animals to obtain varieties which meet the needs or desires of humans. Some scientists believe that in Mexico and Central America ancient Indian peoples may have selectively bred and crossed teosinte and other types of maize. The ultimate result was the modern maize or corn, with its many varieties grown for particular purposes. The domestic dog, Canis familiaris, with some 200 modern varieties, has been developed by intelligent humans. So we have police dogs, retrievers, poodles, and Russian wolfhounds. But their species classification, Canis familiaris, has not changed. Unlimited selective breeding of a particular variety invariably leads to dogs with abnormalities and deficiencies which render them weaker, less able to survive. Selective plant and animal breeding has produced varieties which yield more and better fruit, vegetables and grain, longer cotton fibers, beautiful new varieties of roses, superior wool, and higher quality beef and milk.

Could these be examples of evolution in action? The answer to this question is NO. Evolution supposedly changed one kind of plant or animal into another kind. But plant and animal breeding produces only limited changes within the boundaries of particular kinds of plants and animals. Dogs can be bred only to be just so small or so large, and they never become cats or some other kind of animals. Plums can be bred as large and peaches, but not the size of cantaloupes. The sugar content of sugar beets long ago reached 17 percent, but no more. Selection carried too far invariably leads to degeneration and sterility. In contrast, evolution has supposedly produced virtually unlimited change over periods of many millions of years. Thus evolution allegedly changed slime into university professors, and it only took three billion years!

No, the barriers to unlimited change found by plant and animal breeders point not to common descent of all species by evolution from one original living cell, but to separate creation of the kinds, just as the Bible reports. And genetics offers other supports for this conclusion.

Consider, for example, modern breeds of cattle such as Guernseys, Holsteins and Jerseys. Are these the products of evolution? Dr. Heck, director of the Munich Zoo asked this question in about 1940. He undertook a complex experiment in which he selectively crossbred the various modern breeds of cattle, thus mixing their genes together. In just a few years he obtained what appeared to be a primitive type of cattle called the Aurochs. What is the Aurochs? It is the ancient wild type of European cattle extinct for centuries. The modern breeds were developed from the Aurochs by animal husbandry. So has evolution been reversed? No, for one of the “laws” of evolution, Dollo’s Law, states that evolution is an irreversible process. Why? Because evolution assertedly occurs by mutations which change genes. But genes are so complex that the probability of the random, chance restoration of a number of mutated genes to their original state by precisely reversed mutations is essentially zero.

We must conclude, therefore, that the “resurrection” of the Aurochs was not evolution at all, for the genes did not actually change. The “gene pool” of the Aurochs population was complex, containing several slightly different forms of many of the genes in the chromosomes of the individual animals. Selective breeding exercised for centuries by intelligent humans separated the genes in the gene pool of the Aurochs population into several different gene pools corresponding to herds isolated by fences to prevent interbreeding. In this way the different breeds were produced, such as Guernseys, Holsteins, etc., with their characteristic sets of characters. What did Dr. Heck do? He simply did what would horrify most farmers. He remixed the gene pools of the modern breeds. The result was to “recreate” the ancient Aurochs which possesses all of the alleles of the now extinct population of Aurochs. Dr. Heck did not stop at this. He proceeded to do the same thing with horses and apparently “recreated” the Tarpan, the ancient wild horse breed which also has been extinct for centuries. Thus we can see that much of what is called evolution is not evolution at all. It is merely variation within the boundaries of the created kinds of plants and animals.

The tiny common fruit fly, Drosophila, has been the laboratory work horse for geneticists since early in this century. Some seventy years ago it was discovered that X-radiation could speed up the mutation rate of fruit flies by a factor of about 140. Thousands of mutations have since been observed in fruit flies. But one scientist observed that if it were possible to stuff all of these thousands of mutations into single fly, it would still be fruit fly. And you may be sure that it would indeed be a miserable fly, for essentially all of the observed mutations are either deleterious or deadly. So though the fruit fly is genetically plastic, the science of genetics reveals that this fly is separated by an uncrossable boundary from other kinds of flies. It appears that God created fruit flies separate from other kinds of animals, but with the capacity to vary enough to be able to adapt to changing environments. So we see that the science of genetics supports the creation model, rather than the evolution model of origins.

But what about the famous peppered moths in England? Didn’t they evolve: Over a century ago the population of the moth, Biston betularia, had two color phases, light and dark. Prior to the industrial revolution the bark of the trees on which the moths rested was clean, light colored. The dark moths resting on the tree trunks were more easily seen and eaten by birds. Therefore, the dark phase genes were continually removed from the population gene pool. Thus most of the population were light phase moths. But the tree trunks gradually became dirtier, darker, and the light colored lichens on the bark died off. Now the light phase moths became more visible, so the birds began to remove more of the light phase genes from the gene pool of the population. Today the population is mostly the dark phase moths. thus natural selection has changed the genetic composition of this moth population.

Prof. Kettlewell who carefully observed this weeding out process in isolated localities in England several decades ago said, “If Darwin could have seen this he would have seen evolution in action.” our response to this is “Hogwash.” Not even the species name has changed. There is no question that natural selection has occurred. The effect of the environment (birds seeing and eating more light moths than dark) has changed the composition of the gene pool. But now the trees are getting cleaner and lighter again, and the moth population in some localities is also shifting to increase the proportion of light phase moths.

This is mere variation with the created kind. No new complex biological design was produced by mutation and natural selection. The total effect was to increase the proportion of “brunettes to blondes” in the population. No new kind of moth was produced. There is absolutely no scientific justification in concluding from this observation of very limited variation in moths that mutation and natural selection could and did transform slime into amoebas into university professors, even in 3 billion years.

Classical genetics supports separate creation of the kinds, not evolution. Both classical and molecular genetics agree with the creation model of origins.

So Stupid Evil Bastard nods out of the debate on evolution. You see, your assumed science for evolution is actually science which proves that evolution has not occured. Evolutionist scientists make assumptions and pass it off as fact and stupid evil bastards believe it because they dislike having to answer to God.

Tough shit. Evolution is imagination coated with science, that when investigated, proves evolution is not responsible for life on earth. At least someone caused a crack in your noodle. Maybe some sunlight will find it’s way inside and will begin to see that science, like everything else observable about life, shows us that it has not evolved.

Enjoy yourselves. Take care now. Bye bye.

Back to blowing a lot of hot air that doesn’t really say anything I see.

So Stupid Evil Bastard nods out of the debate on evolution.

There’s nothing here to debate. You’re just repeating the same tired claims endlessly, at least when you’re not fabricating nonsense out of whole cloth.

Enjoy yourselves. Take care now. Bye bye.

Don’t let the door knob hit you in the ass.....

Dude.

What makes you think that I’m actually going to read that prodigious pile of crap?

I’ve already read your crap elsewhere.  It’s crap.  It’s not going to stop being crap because you suddenly transfer to a different board.

I actually have better things to do with my time.  As do many other people here.  I owe the members of this board some allegiance, as they are generally good and kind people, who sometimes make me laugh out loud (so far, this is the -only- point of commonality between you and them).  For this reason, I cued them in to your other identity, and your habit of producing -crap-. 

Now, if they --choose-- to engage you, it’s an informed decision on their part.  They can spend their time however they want to, and some of them quite enjoy sparring with the mentally handicapped. 

I, however, do not.  It’s about as productive as following around a diarrhetic idiot, mopping the floor behind them. 

Oh, and -this- board doesn’t have moderation rules that prevent me from calling you a fuck-wit, you fuck-wit.  You’re better off going back to iidb, where the rules of engagement -compel- reasonable people to actually address the dross you try to pass off as argument.  HERE, people are free to dismiss you as the psycho fucknut you are.

So you can take your long-winded screed, print it out on a piece of 8 X 16 posterboard, fold it until it’s all sharp edges, and shove it right back where it came from.  In or out, I’m not going to waste any time looking at any more of your drivel

(Ahhhhh.  I feel all sunshiny now!)

The freedom to express how you really feel. Just one more of the fine services we offer here at SEB.

I figured I might as well amuse myself and pick a name dropped by our most recent creationist and google for it. So, Kettlewell.

Does this look familiar?

Does Genetics Support Creation or Evolution?

Hmmmm.

If you look at the bottom of that page, you’ll find a copyright notice and unless IM has permission by the copyright holder, he committed a copyright violation and Les should delete his posts outright or replace the drivel with a link to the source.

Also, unless IM is the original author, his extensive, unattributed, and literal copying of somebody else’s work is usually called plagiarism, isn’t it?

Nowiser, thanks for the link to IIDB.

Because the moths didn’t get a new name, evolution doesn’t exist

Evolution doesn’t depend on the name- rather the otherway round.  The moths do show natural selection though

There are mosquitoes that live in the London Underground. These are mosquitoes that became trapped after the Underground was built.  they are now different enough genetically not to be able to breed with the overground moths.  This has happened in about 150 years.  It couldn’t have happened before as there were no tunnels then.  These mossies are only found din the Underground.

If nature is designed, then why are things designed so badly?

nowiser, I’m sure this quote from IIDB didn’t escape your attention:

Debating with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon: it knocks the pieces over, craps all over the board and then flies back to its flock claiming victory.

Just in case it wasn’t mentioned here before

Ah so we have another cut-and-paste creationist, eh?  Why does this not surprise me at all? A lot of that hot air was starting to look familiar.

What is it with creationists that when they say they’re up for debate all they do is cut and paste large swaths of someone else’s work? At least I cited my sources and provided links instead of just claiming it as my own.

Maybe it’s because creationists believe only a superior being can create something....

I’d posit that they are good at stemming creativity and counter-intuition. Creative minds question and challenge. It would go a long way to explain why Christians rarely produce anything new in their PR and almost always tail onto an idea once it becomes forgettably mainstream.

There were, and are, plenty of Christian ‘thinkers.’ But we’re not talking about Christians here, we’re talking about zealots.  There are plenty of Christians who refer, for guidance, to portions of the Bible that you and I might actually find reasonable or appealing.  There are plenty of Christians who ignore some of the more unpalatable or outright dangerous portions of the text.  In other words, like every other human on the planet, there are plenty of Christians who adopt (and realize that this is what they’re doing) a relatively arbitrary mythology on which to ‘hang’ certain moral and ethical beliefs that are cross-cultural and, most likely, evolved.

That these mythologies are not -objectively- true does not render them valueless.

It’s when the wackjobs start insisting that these mythologies are -in themselves- universal truths, rather than analogic ‘containers’ for universal truths, that they start creeping me out.  And making me grouchy too.  Don’t forget grouchy.

Les, cut and paste indeed.

Picking another phrase at random: “All five transposable elements are identical” leads to this post on talk.origins post of the month archive, which in turn refers back to AiG.

If I had more time and motivation, I’d take his posts apart and figure out how much is original content and how much is plagiarized. My guess is the insults and arrogance are his, the rest is copied. He almost certainly matches keywords in the responses he gets with creationist articles to be dumped without attribution. On IIDB the issue of quote mining has come up and I believe he’s been caught here, as well.

Also note how steadfastly he refuses to define kind over at IIDB. Well, even if he’s back for more, it’s a waste of time to even engage in meta-commentary.

The instant I see the word “kinds” it screams “creationist cut and paste”. I admire you guy’s (guys’s?) patience to actually read and respond to this.

Somewhat OT:

It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment—Galileo

Rationalists often consider Galileo the poster boy for religion sponsored science suppression. But I believe it was Galileo ( and I’m quite possibly wrong about this) who scoffed at Kepler’s theory of elliptical planetary orbits on the grounds that “God would not create in the heavens anything with less perfection than a circle”. For all his vexation he didn’t seem to be able to break free of the blinders imposed by his own faith.

There were, and are, plenty of Christian ‘thinkers.’ But we’re not talking about Christians here, we’re talking about zealots.  There are plenty of Christians who refer, for guidance, to portions of the Bible that you and I might actually find reasonable or appealing.  There are plenty of Christians who ignore some of the more unpalatable or outright dangerous portions of the text.  In other words, like every other human on the planet, there are plenty of Christians who adopt (and realize that this is what they’re doing) a relatively arbitrary mythology on which to ‘hang’ certain moral and ethical beliefs that are cross-cultural and, most likely, evolved.

That these mythologies are not -objectively- true does not render them valueless.

It’s when the wackjobs start insisting that these mythologies are -in themselves- universal truths, rather than analogic ‘containers’ for universal truths, that they start creeping me out.  And making me grouchy too.  Don’t forget grouchy.

My feelings 110%. Damn, that was good, Nowiser! Got a cigarette?

Would you prefer one of my Don Diego cigars? They’ve got a wonderful flavor.