More conversations with a dumb ass: Evolution edition.

More fun with the SEB mailbag. Got the following email last night:

From: ironman

To: Les Jenkins
Date: 1/4/2006 1:03AM
Subject: Stupid Evil Bastard

Thanks for putting Hovind’s video on your site. We need to spread the truths he speaks.

; )

I sent back the following reply:

The only thing that video has been spreading is howls of laughter. It’s some pretty funny shit.

Les

Figured he was a drive-by evangelist and I probably wouldn’t hear from him again, but I was wrong. Had two emails this afternoon when I checked my inbox so I combined them into a single reply and sent it off. Here’s my reply with his quoted message embedded:

ironman wrote:

    Keep living with your head in the sand.

That’s amusing coming from someone who can’t even set the clock on his PC correctly. Your emails are arriving with a date of 1/4/2006. You’re over a year behind and a dollar short.

    “That video”? God man, there are many videos like that one by different people.

Yes, I’m aware of the other videos as well. Lots of stupid people in this world. No shortage of sources for stupid videos.

    You are not well informed. It comes from living with your head in the sand.

I’m better informed than most. I at least know how to set my PC’s clock properly.

    BTW, if you want to debate evolution, though I doubt that you are up to the task since you think the video in question is the only one of it’s kind, I’d be happy to show you how life never evolved using science and only science.

I never said I thought it was the only one of its kind. You’re making assumptions all over the place here and that doesn’t bode well for your ability to prove much of anything other than your own ignorance.

But I’m game. Let’s take this public and I’ll happily debate Evolution with you. I’ve started a special thread on my blog just for you. It’s titled: More conversations with a dumbass: Evolution edition.

Les

I included the URL to this entry. Let’s see if he’s brave enough to accept the challenge.

56 thoughts on “More conversations with a dumb ass: Evolution edition.

  1. Waaaaait….. the original Email was from over a year ago!?

    Did it really take him that long to come up with such a pathetic response?

    And just when you thought creationists couldn’t get any dumber…

  2. Well, at least this guy isn’t bashful about twisting his opponents words…I interpreted the comment about “that video” for what I assume it was, a reference to a video that was mentioned in the original message, not that it was the only one of it’s kind.  “That” was quite a stretch.

  3. BTW Les, where is this video of which the asshat doth speak?  I don’t remember it.

  4. As far as I’m aware I’ve only linked to one of his video clips previously and it would be this one where he explains the “dangers” of Evolution.

  5. I tried to watch a Kent Hovind video once. Tried in this case really is the operative word. It was only an hour or so, but I just couldn’t make it through his portion of it.

    I used to think that we needed an equivalent, but I don’t want someone lying to help us.

  6. After watching an entire Hovind video (don’t ask me how I made it through) I decided to check out his website. Sorry, this might get long.

    First I set about destroying his denouncement of the Big Bang. Kent used the “logical” argument on many occasions that because the Big Bang did not happen, then evolution is not possible. While I cannot prove the big bang theory is true, I can prove why HE says it is false to be all LIES! Please correct me if I am mistaken; these are theories and not beliefs, therefore are subject to change with evidence.

    Part 1;
    Decades ago, a group of telephone workers discovered a uniform microwave energy emission that came from space. Years later Big Bang theorists began to think that it was a byproduct of the initial explosion. The field was thought to be uniform, all the energy the same density in all places.

    On Kent’s website, he has an article (not by him of course) explaining that a Big Bang could not result in a uniform energy field, that it should be chaotic with areas of compressed energy and less dense energy. And, this is true, so I guess we are in a pickle now… Luckily, now in the 21st century we have the tools which showed that the energy field is indeed not uniform, and has pockets of dense energy as the Big Bang predicts, so Kent is mistaken there.

    Part 2;

    The law of conservation of angular momentum fuels his second argument. He says that if the big bang sent everything off, then everything in our solar system should be spinning the same direction. Well, unfortunately for evolutionists, Venus spins the wrong way. I will try to demonstrate how this is possible; you can try this at home if you like.

    Get a basketball, or any ball of decent size. Spin it one direction, then smack the ball hard to make it spin the other way. I promise it will start spinning the other way. Now imagine that ball is Venus, and your hand is some HUGE chunk of space rock. I hope you can fill in the rest.

    Now, I support the theory of evolution. From looking at the way things grow around here, it seems to be the best explanation of how lifeforms grew over the past billion years. The debate in my mind is the challenge between natural selection and adaptation. I am not yet completely convinced of natural selection because some of the adaptations out there are pretty amazing, granted a billion years is a pretty long time for natural selection to create these adaptations, but it is still a little uncanny for my eye.

    So, I was music major, and I can prove Kent to be false, so there is definately a problem for him.. well that and the prison thing…

  7. I got through exactly 4 minutes and 12 seconds before I had to turn it off.  It’s not even trying to make sense.  I’ve seen this before.  No matter where the argument starts, it ends up at: Evolution is trying to say the bible is wrong.  You can’t be moral without the bible, so everyone who believes in evolution must be immoral or ignorant and can’t lead a good life.

      It bothers me that anyone would believe this, but it makes me sick to think that someone would use this to promote a political agenda (which I am sorry to say is a much more likely scenario)

      I just can’t wrap my mind around the idea that someone even partially educated would refuse to think logically enough to at least tolerate the idea that evolution is the best theory we have that fits what we do know.  I’m convinced the people at the front of this effort (Mr Hovind in particular) knows exactly what is what.  He targets people who don’t know any better and teaches them to ignore evolution proponents.  He does not arm them with unassailable logic.  He simply says “They’re lying.  Don’t listen.”  The equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going “LALALALALALALA!!!” every time someone mentions evolution.  There’s no way to debate these people, and they know what they’re doing.  They are targeting schools.  They want to teach the next generation because the current one already knows too much, so they fight the current generation by saying “It’s only fair to teach our side too” and when they start to teach “their side” they convince the students that evolution is a lie.

      If the ID evangalists were true believers, then they would stick to “Evolution is a lie and this is why you are wrong.”  but they don’t.  They change their argument based on who their opposition is.  Their opening is: “Evolution is wrong and this is why.” because it works on those who don’t know any better.  They have just enough mumbo jumbo to confuse people into thinking that their might be something to this.  When they run up against someone who knows what they’re talking about, the argument changes to “Let us say what we want and let people make up their own minds.”  They’re not trying to convince you.  They’re trying to get you out of their way so they can convince someone else.  If they run up against someone who doesn’t necessarily know what they’re talking about but has constituents or a public process to go through (like a school board) they say “ID is a theory, and evolution is a theory.  We should be able to teach our theory just like the evolutionists do.”

      If they truly believed what they were saying, then they would be trying to convince EVERYONE on scientific grounds.  They would be hiring scientists to do studies on why evolution is wrong and they would expect the results to vindicate them.  They don’t do this.  They’re wrong and they know it, but they don’t keep their pockets full if they say that out loud.  They’d have to go do something more productive with their lives.

      The ones I feel sorry for are the poor schmuck believers who fell for their BS and have closed their minds so firmly, they don’t even hear you when you speak to them.  They retreat to “Evolution is not in the Bible. Therefor it’s not real”  Or they trot out someone like Mr Hovind and say “He’s already proved evolution is wrong, so I don’t have to listen to you.”

      We actually have anti-scam laws in the United States.  It’s too bad no one enforces them on Intelligent Design.  They claim it’s not religious based, so it can’t hide under the church.  If they take money to promote this sorry excuse for a theory, they technically are running a scam.

  8. Since Im here, I think Ill keep going one more…
    I know this stuff is obvious to most people, but it is still fun to put in writing. I mean.. Kent says this stuff… out loud…

    Part 3: 7000 year old Earth;

    The Earth, according to Hovind, is about 7000 years old. If you add the ages in the bible of the line of Adam this is roughly the time you get for the age of the universe back to the first week, when it was made.

    Here is the problem. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second. We KNOW this to be true. We measure very large distances in a light year, or, the distance light travels in a year (roughly 5.8 trillion miles). Thus, if a star is 4 light years away, like our closest neighbor, the light that we see when we look at it is light from 4 years ago, because the light took 4 years to get here.

    So here is the problem. We have images of other galaxies. The light from that galaxy reached one of our telescopes (probably hubble) and we created an image using that light. The Andromeda Galaxy is 2.2 million light years away. So, in order for us to even know it exists and see it (see the light it gives off) we would have to wait 2.2 million years. The light we see is 2.2 million years old, which by my math is a little more than 7000. Kent would probably say that technology is lies, so…

    The naked human eye can see the triangulum galaxy, 3.14 million light years away. The clock keeps going back. The hubble takes images up to a billion light years away. That light is a billion years old, wayyyyy more than 7000.

    End Part 3

  9. The reason Intelligent design is not taught in schools is because it is not science. I am not saying it is not necessarily true, I am saying it is not science.

    Science is the examination of empirical data based on observation, experimentation, and mathematical predictions. Good science is the result of experimentation of an objective hypothesis. An experiment is not a failure if the hypothesis is wrong. The result is all that matters. If they are right… cool; if they are wrong… cool. Only truth and discovery matter.

    Intelligent design cannot be science because it is failed if the hypothesis is wrong. Therefore it is not scientific method. Once intelligent design theorists come up with a way to teach their theory using the scientific method (doing research and experiments objectively that result in evidence of ID) and using a scientific empirical mind they will have the right to teach their theory in a science class, and if they can pull that off, I’ll have no problem letting them. (Don’t worry guys, it won’t happen)

    PS… Evolution can be an intelligent design too… A really good programmer (God for instance) could simply write a code to make evolution happen as it will… math and dna for example…

  10. Intelligent design cannot be science because it is failed if the hypothesis is wrong. Therefore it is not scientific method. Once intelligent design theorists come up with a way to teach their theory using the scientific method (doing research and experiments objectively that result in evidence of ID) and using a scientific empirical mind they will have the right to teach their theory in a science class, and if they can pull that off, I’ll have no problem letting them. (Don’t worry guys, it won’t happen)

    PS… Evolution can be an intelligent design too… A really good programmer (God for instance) could simply write a code to make evolution happen as it will… math and dna for example…

    I’m up way past my bedtime, so this will be another long one.

    That is where ID becomes pointless.  Which would you rather believe in, a god who created the universe in six days, or a god that has the skill to set up everything so the universe is created without him having to lift a finger in less than a minute?  An omnipotent god wouldn’t have to create the world in six literal days the way it is today.  He could just think up a couple of simple laws of physics that get the whole thing rolling.  It would take an instant and just one big bang.  Some people look at the leaf of a tree and see the wonder of God.  How much more wonderful to think that God created that tree first as a single-celled organism in the sea millions of years ago, knowing that it would someday be the tree you can see and touch today?

    All these people that insist that evolution denies God are very insecure.  Evolution only says that certain things in the bible aren’t written right.  That’s nothing new.  Should we still keep slaves?  That’s in the bible.  Should we bring back stoning for unbelief?  That’s in the bible.  Should we allow people to kill adulterers?  That’s in the bible too.  The bible was written by men.  No matter how inspired by the word of God, it is natural that they didn’t get everything right.  They are continually telling us that God cannont be fully understood, so why is Genesis so important to get exactly right and for us to change our observable facts to fit it, especially when parts of the bible itself contradicts the events in Genesis?

    In short, why is ID so important that it should take precidence over what we see in the geologic record?  The only answer that makes sense is “control”  Evolution touches on so many things that the church would rather they be the last word on, especially now when we’re starting to do genetic engineering on an industrial scale.  I think it started with abortion.  What is human was the churches territory.  No one really knew what a soul was, but everyone pretty much believed that there was one, and at what point the soul inhabited the body was the church’s perrogative.  Now here were these scientists saying things like choice and fetus instead of God’s law and child.  How dare they?  Now it is a lot of other things.  If man is the way God intended right now, then it would be sacrilage to change us, even to make us better.  If we are constantly evolving, than right now is only one stage of our existence and if we can improve it, then we might want to do that.

      More than anything else, religious rules seem to enforce the notion that we are flawed, that we must not mess with God’s plan, and since we can’t know God’s plan, we shouldn’t mess with anything, except we can do anything we want to the animals and plants on the planet because God put them here for us.  This is the idea that got us Global Warming and a prudish society, both of which have proven oh so fun to have to deal with.  It gave us marriage, which we now deny to a segment of our population because they do not follow what we think Gods plan is.  It gave us a curious revulsion to science that borders on a phobia, all because excercising control on our environment is considered “God’s territory” that has crossed over from religion.  Genetically modified foods are not opposed because they might be unsafe.  They are opposed because they are unnatural…. different.  Never mind that we have been “genetically engineering” crops for decades.  We just haven’t been doing it using such a fast process and playing at the level of gene combinations.

    I can abide ignorance.  The only thing you need to dispel it is knowledge.  I can even abide stupidity.  Everyone can learn by experience.  What I can’t abide is willfull ignorance, where someone doesn’t WANT to know what’s going on and doesn’t want you to either, and deliberate manipulation of the ignorant to take advantage of them, which is what I am certain at least the leaders of the ID movement are doing.

    Dispite all this, I don’t hate religion, and I don’t want to interfere with someone coming up with their own set of morals, but we live in a society, and a society has to have common rules, and they can’t be religious rules.  If you can’t convince me of something without resorting to “It’s in the bible” or “God said it should be this way.”  Then respectfully, I must ask you to sit down.  You are part of a church and that’s fine, but you are trying to tell me I must be too, and that is wrong.

    Pardon my possible mispellings.  I’m tired.

  11. [Editor’s Note: I’m posting this on “ironman’s” behalf seeing as he wasn’t smart enough to figure out how to come here and do it himself, but sent it to me in an email. Enjoy. – Les]

    Alright then. Let’s understand some things about the evolution theory. We must understand exactly what we are discussing.

    For the sake of discourse, let’s suppose that we are not talking about the origins of life, but instead simply evolution, at least for a moment.
    The Theory of Evolution asserts that life makes a transformation from one kind of animal or plant into another through a series of changes. The most proposed such event is the transition from fishes to amphibians and on to mammals. Then also is the proposed transition of land animals to flying mammals. It would follow then that the transformation from ape to man, from proto-horse to horse, from plankton to mites, etc. This supposed transition causes one kind of animal to become another kind. Fish and amphibians are not the same kind. Nor are amphibians and land-dwelling mammals. Birds are not the same kind as land animals.

    Dismissing the evidence that the seperation of kinds is built into the DNA of organisms for the sake of discourse, upon examining the DNA molecule and it’s known functions (ofcourse it is still largely a mystery) we do know that the DNA sequences of codons generate a language which is transcribed by the cell for the synthesis of protein molecules and cell regulatory functions. The molecule defines, at the organisms inception, precicely what it will be. It determins it’s kind, it’s morphology (what animal shape it will assume – snake, bug, dog, man etc.), and it’s abilities.

    For evolution to occur which causes an animal to have some new morphological feature (such as new bones in a fin, or larger pelvic girdles, or a longer tongue, or any other morphological change which causes the animal to resemble a different kind of animal), there must be new information imparted to it’s DNA by some process. If there were no new information imparted to the DNA, the DNA of the parent will reporduce after it’s kind, and no new feature is to be had. An organism’s morphology is defined by it’s DNA. This is true of all living things. Therefore, for evolution to have occurred, there must be a mechanism which imparts the new information for defining the new feature in the germline DNA of the parent – the change must be in the egg or sperm cell to be passed on to offspring. If you breed a fish, you only get a fish. The only exception to the germline rule is bacteria, which have been shown to exchange and share DNA strings. However, we are concerned with complex organisms, and since all bacteria are germline organisms because they are single-celled, our attention turns to complex organisms, such as plankton, or mites, fish, and humans, which have more than one cell. It is ofcourse innacurate to call bacteria simple organisms, because studies since 2000 have shown that bacteria are stupifyingly complex. So we must seek a way for the coding of the DNA molecule in an organism to become the new information which defines the new feature. If a fish gets a new set of bones in it’s fin, this is reflected in the DNA of the fish, because it is the DNA which defines the organism’s morphology.

    Evolutionist scientists propose that mutation generates this new information and thereby causes the morphological change from one kind into another. For evolution to happen, for one animal kind such as a fish to transform into another kind, such as an amphibian, there must be a sequence of code in the DNA which defines the new feature. Animals do not grow features that are not defined in their DNA. However, it has never been demonstrated to have happened thatnre information is imparted to the DNA of any living thing by mutation or any other cause. In fact, whether it be a point mutation, or one which causes an overlapping of the codons, or an insertion mutation. or a duplication mutation, there is no known mechanism which could generate the information needed to create a new morphological change in an organism. DNA recombining is not capable of generating this new information either.

    Let’s not forget what we are talking about here. The information in the DNA is that which is transcribed by the cell. It is the coding of language created by the sequencing of four nucleotids. A DNA molecule adhere’s to Jipf’s Law of linguistics from one end to the other and from points to points within it. If the double-helix of the DNA were unravelled it would be @ 2 meters long. It contains enough digits as represented by nucleotides to fill a stack of 85-90 phone books for one of the larger cities in the United States, such as Houston or Miami. All of the DNA molecules in your body, if unwound, would reach to the moon and back numerous times. The DNA molecule is wound as it is coded and formed by the cell and continues to twist as it lengthens eventually coiling into a small compact form to save space within the cell because it is so incredibly long. This process gives it countless knots, which are repaired by machines which consist of only a few molecules which dash to the rescue to break the DNA molecule, move one part of it behind the other to repair a knot, then reattach the ends of the molecule. The coding of nucleotides in the DNA molecule define evrything physical about an organism.

    This molecule contains sequences which define all of the features of an organism. They represent a great many nucleotides. This constitutes a great deal of information. The sequences in the DNA molecule comprise lengthly, encoded, highly organized information. It’s precision has testimony in the accuracy of it’s production of features. Billions of people have noses, and they all look like noses with the exception of the rare deformity caused by mutation to the DNA molecule.

    There is no known process by which mutation or any other mechanism that new information which is lengthly, encoded, highly organized, and adheres to linguistics law is ever imparted to the germline DNA of any living organism that is complex. Mutations are proven to provide duplicates, but nothing more, in the DNA which could be expressed in the organism as a morphological feature. Most mutations cause the generation of jibberish in the DNA, which is either reparied by recoding using a backup of the grandparent’s DNA sequence. Hoever, DNA sequncing does not impart new physiological information in the DNA either. It is proposed by evolutionists now, as rather a last resort to find a mechanism for evolution, that duplicate mutations are acted upon by subsequent mutations until it consists of highly organized, lengthly, language controlled information which can then be expressed in an organism. This is not possible, and this is why it has not been demonstrated to have ocurred. To add to the imposibility of it, a seperate mutation would be required to cause the sequence to become readable code and thereby expressed. Without proper coding to begin transcription and stop transcription the sequence is ignored. Furthermore, DNA recombining, which on the rarest of occasions causes mutation itself, repairs virtually all errors in the DNA accurrately. In fact, so accurately that every single kind of animal always reproduces after it’s kind only, and it is not possible to interbreed one kind with any other. Many animals within their kind are not capable of interbreeding as well.

    Should you wish to prove that evolution has happened, it must be shown how new information which defines a new feature is imparted to the germline DNA or a complex organism. Otherwise, evolution cannot occur. Since there is no known mechanism by which this kind of information is ever imparted to the DNA, it is not possible for evolution to have occured.

    Ooops. I forgot for a moment. There actually is an example of the mixing of kinds on earth, but that’s another subject.

  12. The appearance of a new feature within a generation would falsify evolution, dumbass.

    That being said, go read this.

  13. Ah, THAT video … the one with the Tosser McVeigh look-alike doing the intro.

    Yo! Ironman! Am I correct in assuming what your spiel translates to is that you can’t see how evolution works so therefore you have decided it can not have happened?

    Have you let Richard Dawkins and Ken Miller know what you know?
    I’m sure they’ll be thrilled as well as suitably impressed.

  14. Hmm, sixteen references to information.  Five references to complex.  Anthropomorphizing cellular activity.  Referring to cellular functions as machines.  Mentioning Zipf (even if it were Jipf). Do we have an honest to God Intelligent Designer in the house or is Ironman a creationist utilizing a sciencey sounding spiel?  In either case, two things popped into my mind immediately.

    1.  There are many ways in which DNA is modified so that new information arises.  These changes have all been well documented in any college level genetics textbook you would care to peruse.  Alternatively, references are dropped all over this great big thing we call the Internet.

    And yes, duplication is a valid way of introducing new information no matter how many times IDers and creationists say otherwise.  Spend a little time googling Hox genes.  Search Pubmed for gene duplication.  Google langur monkeys and enzymes.  Ponder what could possibly happen when duplication is followed by generations of point mutations.  Toss in insertions, translocations, transcription errors, and virus insertions and one is overwhelmed by the multitude of ways novel genetic information can be added.

    2. In which it was said…

    Since there is no known mechanism by which this kind of information is ever imparted to the DNA, it is not possible for evolution to have occured.

    God.  Of.  The.  Gaps.  Do you really wish to put your god into the gaps?  The gaps are getting smaller.  What does that imply about your god?

    Let us ignore everything that mankind has learned about genetics.  Ignore every single method of increasing genetic information.  We still can not arbitrarily declare evolution to be an impossibility for lack of a mechanism.  Until mankind can claim perfect and complete knowledge of the entire universe and all it contains, not knowing something is not evidence.  And at the risk of sounding repetitive, we do know something.  We do know many ways in which genetic information increases.  We have seen increased genetic variety.  We have seen increased genetic content.  We have seen novel genetic information.  We have seen novel genetic information expressed.

    Let me try another angle.  Did no one fall down before that darned Newton started pondering gravity?  Wait, aren’t gravitons still only a theoretical particle?  Technically, I suppose “there is no known mechanism by which this force is ever imparted to our bodies.”  Does that sound like a credible argument against gravity?  Why does one think a similar argument is a deathblow to evolution?

    (written while typoproofing the previous)  Oh wait, wait, now I know why this all sounds familiar.  The Discovery Institute has been parading a Dr. Engor around for the past couple months as a supposedly credible voice again evolution.  He seems to be remarkably ignorant concerning the past few decades of genetic research and has been making these same ‘information claims’.  Go read Panda’s Thumb for a good number of Egnor takedowns.  There is a reason ‘egnorance’ is entering common usage in some circles.

  15. “1.  There are many ways in which DNA is modified so that new information arises.  These changes have all been well documented in any college level genetics textbook you would care to peruse.  Alternatively, references are dropped all over this great big thing we call the Internet. “

    There are no instances when the DNA of any complex organism aquires new information which defines a new morphological feature. Perhaps you did not understand what I asked for. I asked for proof that this new information is imparted to the DNA, not speculation. If there are the results of tests which have been performed by scientists which prove this has occured in nature post it here. Thus far you have claimed the proof exists, which itself proves nothing.

    “And yes, duplication is a valid way of introducing new information no matter how many times”

    Absolutely not. There are no known instances of duplication mutations being mutated into the information to define a new morphological feature in an organism. 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? This is why a child born with six fingers or toes does not have children who have six fingers or toes. Yes my friend, the resistance to change of the DNA is amazing. But if you think there is scientific proof from experiments which result in knowing how mutation can cause the creation of the information which results in morphological change, post it here. Until then you have only “I say so.” and speculation.

    “IDers and creationists say otherwise.  Spend a little time googling Hox genes.  Search Pubmed for gene duplication.  Google langur monkeys and enzymes.”

    Hox genes do not cause information, but instead cause the replication of existing information. All mutations result in a loss of information, friend. Every one of them. Wikipeadia:

    “Hox genes function in patterning the body axis. Thus, by providing the identity of particular body regions, Hox genes determine where limbs and other body segments will grow in a developing fetus or larva.

    Mutations in any one of these genes can lead to the growth of extra, typically non-functional body parts in invertebrates, for example antennapedia complex in Drosophila, which results in a leg growing from the head in place of an antenna and is due to a defect in a single gene.

    Mutation in vertebrate Hox genes usually results in miscarriage.”

    The langur monkeys do not change morphologically. Let me restate the question that has to be answered to prove evolution theory:

    How does new information which defines a new morphological feature of an organism become imparted to it’s DNA?

    Notice I said ‘morphological’. Look that up. There are no mechanisms by which information which changes the morphology of an animal, such as a plankton to a mite, a fish into an amphibian, an amphibian into a lizard etc, no matter whether by 1 million mutations or by only 10. Evolution contends that life became diverse by branching life forms which change from one animal kind into another kind. There is no evidence or proof that this can occur in nature either by natural reproduction, breeding, or by mutations in the DNA. If you think there is one, get to looking for it. No test has ever been performed which proves that the DNA molecule is capable of changing in this manner in any organism so that it results in any permanent morphological feature to appear. Animals adapt. We are not looking for a mechanism for adaptations. We are looking for morphological change – one animal kind into another animal kind, such as horses having a new permanent leg, or a fish species having new fins become permanent in it’s species. This has never been demonstrated to have ever happened. In fact, the DNA shows us that it cannot happen. It shows this limit because of the inability of new features to remain, such as deformities, weaknesses, and unfitness to the environment. But it does not show us that DNA has ever been able to aquire sequrences in a line of animals, whether fossil or living, which is permanent to the species.

    I saw someone mention natural selection. Natural selection selects. It does not impart changes to animals. NS is the continued survival of animals which are fit for their environment. Those which are weeded out do not survive. Those who survive do so without change made to their DNA by NS, because NA does nothing. It is the understanding that fit animals continue to survive and nothing more. If you want to prove that one kind of animal gave rise to a new kind of animal, you’d better be looking for a mechanism elsewhere.

    “2. In which it was said…

    Since there is no known mechanism by which this kind of information is ever imparted to the DNA, it is not possible for evolution to have occured.

    God.  Of.  The.  Gaps.  Do you really wish to put your god into the gaps?  The gaps are getting smaller.  What does that imply about your god?”

    God is not the gaps. God is all things. The subatomic particles that you percieve make you up do not exist. They are nothing more than the perception of a field of energy. String Theory says this energy might actually be strings or rings. Study of that may one day result in believing that the strings are comprosed of yet smaller unknown forces. The only force that creates the perception of everything is the energy of God himself.

    “Let us ignore everything that mankind has learned about genetics.  Ignore every single method of increasing genetic information.  We still can not arbitrarily declare evolution to be an impossibility for lack of a mechanism.  Until mankind can claim perfect and complete knowledge of the entire universe and all it contains, not knowing something is not evidence.”

    By your own philosophy, not knowing how evolution could occur is not proof that it has.

    “And at the risk of sounding repetitive, we do know something.  We do know many ways in which genetic information increases.  We have seen increased genetic variety.  We have seen increased genetic content.”

    We have seen adaptation, but we have not seen macroevolution. Adaptation however, does not give animals new morphological features. It might improve a specific immunity, but it does not result inmotphological change! Microevolution, what you are adressing and proposing is evidence of macroevolution, is no such evidence at all. There must be proof that morphologigal changes bevome permanent in a species as the result of new information in the DNA. This does not and cannot happen. Mutation does not do it, nor has it been demonstrated that mutation could do it.

    “We have seen novel genetic information.”

    We have not seen new information which results in the changing of an animal into another kind in the DNA.

    “We have seen novel genetic information expressed.”

    Morphologically, we have only seen deformity when duplicates are expressed which pertain to the morphology of an animal.

    “Let me try another angle.  Did no one fall down before that darned Newton started pondering gravity?  Wait, aren’t gravitons still only a theoretical particle?  Technically, I suppose “there is no known mechanism by which this force is ever imparted to our bodies.” Does that sound like a credible argument against gravity?  Why does one think a similar argument is a deathblow to evolution? “

    Supposing something can occur does not mean that it will.

    You are I think like many who are confused by the variety within kinds of animals. You see two fishes that are similar, one with less bones, one with more, and you assume that one kind transformed into another over time. However, this does not occur. The DNA restricts changes to the genes which govern the morphology of an organism.

    “(written while typoproofing the previous) Oh wait, wait, now I know why this all sounds familiar.  The Discovery Institute has been parading a Dr. Engor around for the past couple months as a supposedly credible voice again evolution.  He seems to be remarkably ignorant concerning the past few decades of genetic research and has been making these same ‘information claims’.  Go read Panda’s Thumb for a good number of Egnor takedowns.  There is a reason ‘egnorance’ is entering common usage in some circles.”

    Whatever. I guess you don’t know that the poster boy for godlessness and inner fish hugging, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University looks like a big asshat now. he was asked how new information that changes an organism’s kind enterd the DNA. He paused for 11 seconds, and after realizing he was unable to either provide ann answer or skirt the question intelligently, he skirted it like a dumbass and said that we would not expect to see any transitional forms on earth today. LOL! What a dumbass. How does he go to work now? He knows as well as anyone who has researched creationism and evolution theory that transitional forms, if evolution were true, would dominate the fossil record. Nice work Richard!

    Evolution is the peagan Darwinism Religion. It is put forth by scientists who cannot explain the process of evolution, because there is no evidence of evolution occuring in steps. The hedgemony of the public is propagated by the followers of this religion backed by the finances of secret societies, member-ruled corporations, and trade associations. Thier religion is published in “scientific” magazines, such as Scientific American and many others, in scientific journals, and through the media in the form of slanted news items and programs designed for the purpose of doing nothing more than attempting to cause the public to doubt the existance of God or creation.

    An exmple of their hedgemony is in the news blurbs such as “New Fossil Fills the Gap in Evolution, so says Scientific American” or “Bone Chips Found in Ethiopia are From New Evolutionary Step, according to Time Magazine”. These are the most ambiguous such attempts. The more intensive come in the form of TV programs like, “The Legend of Santa Claus” wherein they attempt to cause the public to question that Christianity has any basis in history at all. Another example might be a TV progam such as “Aliens: Could they have brought life to earth?” Such a program as that attempts to cause the public to doubt creation by asserting that perhaps aliens (created by themselves presumably) brought life to earth as spores which were created (?) by aliens whom appearently were created (?) by other intelligences who were created (?) by other intelligences…

    The perposterousness of this theory is obvious, yet it plays a part in the hedgemony put forth to the public beacuse it is fuel for the engine of causeing people to question God and creation.

    One of these secret societies, and the largest and most wealthy and influencial, and most evil, is the Illuminat, or the organization to which they belong, the Freemasons. The sole purpose of this organization is to take away the public’s ability to think for themselves and over a slow time process, induce so much hedgemony upon the world that millions of people give-in to a the New World Order concept, and freely join into a one government world. As we speak, the Freemasons control the world’s banking and finances, the European Union, The United Nations, an numerous world governments. Many of the members of these secret societies are completely unaware of the true goals and methods of the organizations, and are but sheep within them who help to fund it and add to it’s membership.

    Thier symbols are raised everywhere (Egyptian oblisques) and thier architectural credos are seen everywhere. They derive their “holy” derivitives based upon the 13 steps of king Solomon’s Temple. In every regional office of the Freemasons, the number 13 is used as a base in their architecture. There might be 13 columns, 13 steps, 13 degrees of measure from one object to another, 13 chairs, 13 blocks, etc. In the US capitol of Washington DC, the central offices of the Feemasons is 13 blocks from the US Capital Building. Thus, we see in the symbol for the United Nations is comprised of a globe depicting “13 degrees of light” and surrounded by plam branches with 13 leaves.

    The control that Freemasons and the scientific community exert over the public in promoting evolution as the truth is based upon hedgemony. It’s cornerstone is the doctrine that has been pounded into the public’s head for 100+ years: that “if scientists say it’s true, then it is unquestionable”.

    The true purpose of this secret society and others, are to seperate man from God and control the world through a single government. They do this by having members who are the leaders of nations and international organizations, promoting the theory (religion) of evolution, promoting scientists who follow their dogmas, and demoralizing scientists who do not.

    However, evolution is not truth. Evolution has not and cannot be explained by “evolution in small steps” as scientists would have you believe. In the 1970’s, this concept began to come under public scrutiny and scientists who did not doggedly adhere to the religion of Darwinism questioned the missing facts that supposedly proved evolution. Subsequently, the followers of the peagn religion of Darwinism came up with a solution: Evolution in Leaps (Punctuated Equalibria – Steven jay Gould). This new explaination attempted to sideline the missing proof of evolution by claiming that evolution could occur in leaps, whereby a new species could be created by the simultaneous adoption of numerous mutations. The scientists who questioned even this were given professional death sentences. They were excluded from organizations, given menial jobs, not allowed to view critical documentation, terminated from their jobs, or attacked outright to have their credibility harmed. The peagan religion of Darwinism faught back against anyone questioning their faith by pointing out that evolution cannot occur in small steps, much less leaps.

    How Hedgemony has brainwashed many in the public to believe the peagan religion of Darminism:

    The Mimar Sinan journal published by “Turkish Great Freemasonry Lodge” discloses the success achieved in spreading the theory. Yet, the desired result has not been achieved yet:

    “Today, the only valid scientific theory accepted both by most civilised countries and underdeveloped ones remains to be Darwinism. However, neither the church nor other religions have collapsed yet. “The legend of Adam and Eve” is still being taught as religious teachings in holy books.”
    In brief, media that is under the control of secular forces and academic sources completely maintain an evolutionist point of view and accordingly influence the public. This influence is so strong that in time, it turned the theory into a taboo. Denying the theory of evolution, is presented as contradiction to science and rejection of concrete facts. For this reason, especially since 1950s, despite the fact that many unexplained points of theory of evolution were disclosed and they were overtly proclaimed by evolutionist scientists, today scientific publications and press organs say not a word criticising the theory.

    Douglas Dewar, a former evolutionist, concluded in his detailed research on Indian birds that species can not transform into each other. He, also, explains the strong relation between evolution and media:

    “Only, a minority of people could conceive why it is important for evolutionists to have control over media. Today you see not many articles in journals opposing evolution. Furthermore, most of the religious journals are controlled by modernists accepting the “ape-like ancestors” story … In general terms, editors of all newspapers, perceive evolution as a proved fact and call those rejecting evolution to be ignorant and crazy. Journals are published by evolutionists who avoid to publish an article even if it slightly criticizes evolution … Publishing houses do not publish a book opposing a popular theory since it will attract objections from various sections of the society.”
    Even if the writer pays for the publication, they assume that the company will lose credit. Therefore people are informed just from one point of view. A normal person, assume that theory of evolution is a proven fact.

    Evolutionist very well take advantage of the brain-washing programs provided by media. The majority of the people are almost thoroughly convinced of the validity of the theory. Therefore questions like “how” and “why” about the theory are never raised by the public which makes it maintain its credibility.
    For instance even in the most “scientific” books about evolution, the stage of “transition from water to land” – one of the unexplainable points of evolution- is given in such simplicity that they do not prove to be believable even for children. According to evolution, life began in water and the first developed animals on earth were fish. According to the story- one day fish species developed the ability to climb out of water and moved on land! The theory continues that fish which chose to live on land had foot instead of fins and lungs instead of gills!

    In most of the books about evolution, nobody explains “why” transition occurred. Even in the most “scientific” sources, writers suddenly jump to conclusions like “and transition from water to land occurred” without providing a satisfactory answer regarding how the process worked.

    Yet, how did this transformation occur? It is obvious that a fish can not survive out of water for more than one or two minutes. If, we assume that a drought really existed as claimed by evolutionists, and fish were, for some reason, drawn to lands then what would happen to fish even if this process lasts for ten millions of years? The answer is straight: Fish leaving the water would inevitably die in a few moments. Even if this process lasted for ten millions of years, the answer would still be the same; All fish would die one by one. Nobody would dare to say: “May be after 4 million years some of the fish suddenly acquired lungs while they were trying to survive. This would no doubt be an illogical assertion!

    However that is what evolutionist exactly claim: “The transition from water to land”, ” transition from land to air” and millions of other so-called “transitions” are explained by nonsense assertions. The question of how ears, eyes and other complex organs came into existence are never mentioned by evolutionists.

    Nevertheless it is quite easy to heavily influence ignorant people with just calling these lies to be “scientific”: The only thing to do is to draw imaginary pictures representing the “transition from water to land” and to coin and give Latin names to the “grandson” living on land and the “intermediary creature” -which is in most of the cases an imaginary animals-. Then comes the time to tell the lie: “Eusthenopteron, transformed into Rhipitistion Crossopterygian, and then to Ichthyostega after a long process of evolution”. If these words are told by a serious-looking “scientist” with black framed glasses, the assertions become absolutely convincing on the majority of people. The media heralds this great invention (!) to millions of people all over the world, fulfilling its Masonic duty with a great excitement. For most of the people who have no other opinion other than the one dictated by media, this ” strong evidence” becomes a highly satisfactory one.

    Another type of lie are the “reconstruction” drawings made by evolutionists. When we take a look at evolutionist publications we find half human-half ape creatures, pictured in their family circles.

    For instance the fossil shown as the skull of Australopithecus (Ardepithecus) is in fact the fossil of a Homo Erectus discovered in Koobi Fora in 1975. These creatures having stooping posture, hairy bodies and: half-ape half human faces were drawn by evolutionists based on the fossils alleged to be found.

    However these drawings are not reliable since a fossil can only give information pertaining to the structure of bones. A scientist can never estimate how hairy a body is based on its fossil. In the same way, such fossils do not reveal any information about nose, ears, lips and hair. However evolutionists especially emphasize the half human- half ape noses, ears and lips in their illustrations.

    This is the way for evolutionists to draw imaginary transition forms actually.
    Evolutionists even draw different types of faces for a single skull. Australopithecus robustus (zinjanthropus) is a well-known example for such illustrations; it has three reconstruction drawings totally different from each other. As mentioned in the first chapter of the book, the imaginary Nebraska man who is drawn in his family circle is an example of the boundaries of the imagination of evolutionists.

    Apart from imaginary illustrations there is an indirect way of making evolution propaganda. Stories told for decades about “aliens” are typical of such propaganda.

    You can come across with hundreds of films, thousands of book s and ten thousands of news on media regarding “aliens”. Up until now no concrete information was gathered about the existence of such creatures. Yet the legend of “aliens” are insistently injected to the minds of people.

    One of the most important messages of the propaganda made about “aliens” are their appearances. The illustrations always depict aliens with fantastic bodies; some have a single eye, some have three heads and antennas. There are also those aliens in these depictions that are like octopuses or look like a disgusting ball of meat.

    When one makes a careful evolution of the propaganda, he would easily see that the illustrations made about aliens indoctrinate the idea of evolution into the minds of people. That is because what “aliens” represent! Some living things which has evolved casually under different conditions of a planet in a remote part of the world. These creatures had gone through a different evolution process under different casual conditions and ended up in totally different bodies.

    News about UFO which are nothing but fantasies have been very popular both in the western and local media for decades probably because of the interest people show to mysterious issues. However the reason why media especially and insistently allocates considerable space to “aliens” can not be explained with the sole interest of public in mysterious issues. That is because Jinns (or demons) which are also metaphysical creatures referred in the Holy Books have also a “mysterious nature” for human beings. Yet they are mostly not preferred as a theme for films, news or articles. It is always the aliens that are kept on the agenda. The existence of Jinns always brings mind the Creation since we know their existence from Holy Books only. Aliens, on the other hand, have a certain attachment to evolution.

    There are many other evolutionary messages indirectly given by the stories of aliens. Therefore it is easy to understand the underlying reasons of efforts given by evolutionist scientists who try to prove the existence of “aliens”. Their efforts, however, consist of just engaging in speculations since they can not base their arguments on evidence.

    On the other hand, it is interesting that humanist messages are given through some films and books about “aliens”. Humanist ideology which foresees that human beings are not created by a Creator, is the basic message of the scenarios about ” the struggle people make against invader ‘aliens’”!

    All the direct and indirect propaganda techniques of evolutionists – be it imaginary schemes, reconstructions , stories about UFO etc.,- are becoming popular by the propaganda engaged in by these “scientists”. People adhere to scientists assuming that they are the authorities in this subject and they have the best of knowledge about it!

    Nevertheless the “scientists” in question generate such lies and invent all other so-called evidences of evolution, do it with the pride of fulfilling a “sacred duty”.

    That is because they are the believers of a “Darwinist Religion”.

    http://www.ummah.net/harunyahya/evol/ebk2-4.html

    Sorry gentmen, but evolution has not and cannot happen. The DNA itself prevents change to an animal’s kind. I’m afraid to say that your creator does in fact have his hands on the wheel.

  16. Hmm, what a staggering amount of nonsense. Apparently this is what happens when someone without the intellectual ability to understand science simply assumes that he does understand it.

    I’m not going to point by point this because, well, honestly, I have more important things to do them waste hours on somebody who simply won’t get it anyway.

    However, allow me to point out a basic flaw in your ability to think things through, Ironman.

    Since there is no known mechanism by which this kind of information is ever imparted to the DNA, it is not possible for evolution to have occured.

    Not knowing does not equal not possible. To make that jump is just fucking stupid. 200 years ago we did not know how to put a man on the moon. Luckily, we didn’t subscribe to your not know = impossible theory.

  17. KPatrickGlover, studies of DNA have shown that mutations do not give rise to information for creating change of kind. My question was for someone to provide an example, and none were. You offered none either. You offered rhetoric as most evoluitionists do to avoid not having the answer to how evolution actually has happened microbiologically.

    Sequencing of the DNA (tests run to examine it) confirm that the portions of the DNA which define the morphology (in the Hox genes) do not change by any number of nucleotides which could be considered information.

    I’ll help you though. Imagine a triangle, a square, a hexagon, and a circle sitting in a row. These are animal morphologies, such as skeletal structure, number of toes, type of eye, location of limbs, and all other things that make an animal a particular kind, such as a horse or a dog. Using the shapes as metaphors, triangles do not generate hexagons over time. None of these shapes, if they were animal kinds, can ever change into the other. The places in the DNA which describe the morphology are never seen to change over time.

    Uh oh. You know what that means. That means living things do not change by aquiring new morphological features over time.

    You might find reading about “living fossils” interesting, since they prove evolution has not ofccurred. You see, the mutagen responsible for the overwhelming majority of mutations that have ever occurred to life on the earth is the sun, which pours many tons of particles upon the earth daily. This bombardment upon the DNA is responsible for the vast majority of all mutations to have opccurred before man began poluting the earth. The sun’s radiation penetrates the surface of the eath. Mutations have never stopped. The continued radiation insures that mutations to all life will occur. This means that if there is a species of animal which we have in a 250 million year old fossil and this species remains living today unchanged, then evolution does not occur. It does not occur because mutations do not stop for any line of living things but continue for another. There are thousands of living fossils, unchanged. Some fossils which have living examples are 400 million years old. All of that time the sun has been irradiating them in the oceans. All of that time mutations have not changed a shrimp or any number of animals into another kind. Since mutation occurs to virtually all animals because the sun radiates virtually them all, those which survive in the seas are getting just as much radiation as they were 400 million years ago. In fact, more. But mutations have not caused morphological change to shrimp. 

    1 million mutations cannot change an animal into another kind. 1 billion cannot. Neither can 1 trillion. This is proven because the DNA is shown to never have new information relating to morphology.

    When you breed any two kinds of life, you get the same. You do not get anything which is part of another kind, even slightly. Breeding between kinds always results in no organism being born. The DNA does not allow this new information.

    I’m afraid your debating evolution is mute. Unless you can land on Mount hernon and build a bio lab and do it yourself. But then, if anyone actually created life in a laboratory, it would only prove that it takes intelligence to create life, thus disproving evolution theory in a new way.

    The next time someone makes the asserting that mutation causes evolution I’ll provide you with some articles by PhD scientists who explain how mutation cannot cause evolution. I mean, that is if you chose to ignore the facts I’ve already provided.

  18. It seems he can figure out how to find this thread after all and he sure does seem to like to make up in quantity what his argument lacks in quality. Let’s see what we can wade through here.

    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. Finally, in the next paragraph, he gets around to making his first long-winded claim:

    However, it has never been demonstrated to have happened thatnre information is imparted to the DNA of any living thing by mutation or any other cause. In fact, whether it be a point mutation, or one which causes an overlapping of the codons, or an insertion mutation. or a duplication mutation, there is no known mechanism which could generate the information needed to create a new morphological change in an organism. DNA recombining is not capable of generating this new information either.

    You’ve already been provided with the rebuttal to that claim which you went on to handily ignore. Additionally, biologist PZ Myers addressed this claim in a recent blog posting.

    Your above claim is patently false. Moving on we get into the next paragraph in which you say…

    A DNA molecule adhere’s to Jipf’s Law of linguistics from one end to the other and from points to points within it.

    I’m assuming you meant to say Zipf’s Law of Linguistics in that sentence. Not sure what bearing that has on the issue seeing as Zipfian distributions are quite common and can even be the result of randomly generated processes.

    From there you go into a lot of trivia about the length of DNA when unraveled that has nothing really to do with the discussion at hand and appears to be nothing more than an attempt to make yourself look impressive.

    Then, while waxing eloquent on the wonders of DNA, you shoot yourself in the foot:

    This molecule contains sequences which define all of the features of an organism. They represent a great many nucleotides. This constitutes a great deal of information. The sequences in the DNA molecule comprise lengthly, encoded, highly organized information. It’s precision has testimony in the accuracy of it’s production of features. Billions of people have noses, and they all look like noses with the exception of the rare deformity caused by mutation to the DNA molecule.

    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.

    Finally we get to the second claim of your original response:

    There is no known process by which mutation or any other mechanism that new information which is lengthly, encoded, highly organized, and adheres to linguistics law is ever imparted to the germline DNA of any living organism that is complex.

    This is the second time you’ve made this claim and it is still incorrect.

    Then we get this:

    Mutations are proven to provide duplicates, but nothing more, in the DNA which could be expressed in the organism as a morphological feature.

    Which sounds to me like you just rebutted your own argument. It made me laugh out loud.

    Then you say something that’s almost right:

    Most mutations cause the generation of jibberish in the DNA, which is either reparied by recoding using a backup of the grandparent’s DNA sequence.

    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.

    Hoever, DNA sequncing does not impart new physiological information in the DNA either.

    Of course it doesn’t. DNA sequencing is used to figure out the exact order of the nucleotide bases in a given DNA.

    It is proposed by evolutionists now, as rather a last resort to find a mechanism for evolution, that duplicate mutations are acted upon by subsequent mutations until it consists of highly organized, lengthly, language controlled information which can then be expressed in an organism.

    No last resort in that theory. It’s been around for a long time. Makes perfect sense too. Mutation is only one such mechanism, however, the other two are genetic drift and non-random natural selection.

    This is not possible, and this is why it has not been demonstrated to have ocurred.

    Sorry, you’re wrong. It is possible and has been demonstrated to occur.

    Furthermore, DNA recombining, which on the rarest of occasions causes mutation itself, repairs virtually all errors in the DNA accurrately.

    It’s clear your understanding of genetic recombination is pretty poor as well.

    In fact, so accurately that every single kind of animal always reproduces after it’s kind only, and it is not possible to interbreed one kind with any other. Many animals within their kind are not capable of interbreeding as well.

    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.

    Should you wish to prove that evolution has happened, it must be shown how new information which defines a new feature is imparted to the germline DNA or a complex organism. Otherwise, evolution cannot occur. Since there is no known mechanism by which this kind of information is ever imparted to the DNA, it is not possible for evolution to have occured.

    You claim is incorrect as has been shown already.

    Moving on to your second lengthy reply…

    There are no instances when the DNA of any complex organism aquires new information which defines a new morphological feature. Perhaps you did not understand what I asked for. I asked for proof that this new information is imparted to the DNA, not speculation. If there are the results of tests which have been performed by scientists which prove this has occured in nature post it here. Thus far you have claimed the proof exists, which itself proves nothing.

    Repeating the same claim doesn’t make it true. You’ve been given examples and points of reference, simply because you refuse to accept them doesn’t mean the theory is wrong. Just that you are.

    There are no known instances of duplication mutations being mutated into the information to define a new morphological feature in an organism. 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?

    Please cite your support for such a claim. This will come as shocking news to the numerous people who suffer from inherited genetic defects.

    This is why a child born with six fingers or toes does not have children who have six fingers or toes.

    Bzzzt. Try again. That’s called “Polydactyly” and it’s usually — though not always as there can be other causes— genetically inherited as an autosomal dominant trait and there’s a 1 in 2 (50%) chance of passing that gene to a particular offspring. In short, if you have six fingers or toes then there’s a 50/50 chance any of your offspring will also have six fingers or toes. It’s most common among African-Americans, but also crops up often among the Amish due to the Founder Effect. It’s reported in about 1 in every 500 kids born.

    Yes my friend, the resistance to change of the DNA is amazing. But if you think there is scientific proof from experiments which result in knowing how mutation can cause the creation of the information which results in morphological change, post it here.

    DNA isn’t particularly resistant to change at all. Heritable mutation rates vary among the different genes, but the overall mutation rate is estimated to be right around 1 x 10e-6 per gene per generation or a 1 in 10 chance that each offspring carries a new mutation somewhere in the genome. Most of those are recessive, of course, but not all of them. That means there’s a 1 in 10 chance that you have a mutation that can be passed on to your offspring. DNA changes all the damned time.

    Until then you have only “I say so.” and speculation.

    This is highly ironic coming from someone who has made a shit load of claims so far, most of them wrong, without providing a single bit of supporting evidence.

    Hox genes do not cause information, but instead cause the replication of existing information. All mutations result in a loss of information, friend.

    That is incorrect. What’s particularly amusing is that you then go on to cite a Wikipedia entry that disproves your own claim. I’ll note that you opted to leave out the section which does so. It reads as follows:

      Mutations to homeobox genes can produce easily visible phenotypic changes.

      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.

      Duplication of homeobox genes can produce new body segments, and such duplications are likely to have been important in the evolution of segmented animals.

      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.

    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.

    The langur monkeys do not change morphologically. Let me restate the question that has to be answered to prove evolution theory:

    How does new information which defines a new morphological feature of an organism become imparted to it’s DNA?

    This has already been explained and citations provided for you. The fact that you continue to ignore them doesn’t make them any less true.

    Your next paragraph is just a repetition of the same claims that have already been demonstrated to be false so there’s no point in addressing it yet again.

    God is not the gaps. God is all things. The subatomic particles that you percieve make you up do not exist. They are nothing more than the perception of a field of energy. String Theory says this energy might actually be strings or rings. Study of that may one day result in believing that the strings are comprosed of yet smaller unknown forces. The only force that creates the perception of everything is the energy of God himself.

    That was amusing, but of no import to the discussion at hand. I’ll give you credit for tying String Theory into the notion of God, though. That was original.

    We have seen adaptation, but we have not seen macroevolution. Adaptation however, does not give animals new morphological features. It might improve a specific immunity, but it does not result inmotphological change!

    Bzzt. Try again.

    First off allow me to present the Talk.Origins 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. I doubt you’ll actually bother to read any of it, let alone all of it, but that’s immaterial to the fact that you are incorrect in your claim.

    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.

    Microevolution, what you are adressing and proposing is evidence of macroevolution, is no such evidence at all.

    You are again incorrect. We have seen in microevolution that small changes accumulate and there are no known barriers to large change so as a result microevolution implies macroevolution.

    There must be proof that morphologigal changes bevome permanent in a species as the result of new information in the DNA. This does not and cannot happen.

    You’ve yet to demonstrate that it does not or can not happen. You’ve made a lot of claims, but provided nothing to back them up so far.

    You are I think like many who are confused by the variety within kinds of animals. You see two fishes that are similar, one with less bones, one with more, and you assume that one kind transformed into another over time. However, this does not occur. The DNA restricts changes to the genes which govern the morphology of an organism.

    Another claim you provide no support for.

    Whatever. I guess you don’t know that the poster boy for godlessness and inner fish hugging, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University looks like a big asshat now. he was asked how new information that changes an organism’s kind enterd the DNA. He paused for 11 seconds, and after realizing he was unable to either provide ann answer or skirt the question intelligently, he skirted it like a dumbass and said that we would not expect to see any transitional forms on earth today. LOL! What a dumbass. How does he go to work now? He knows as well as anyone who has researched creationism and evolution theory that transitional forms, if evolution were true, would dominate the fossil record. Nice work Richard!

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

    The rest of your second comment consists of the same old tired “Evolution is a religion” nonsense and conspiracy theories that are just as laughable now as the first time we’ve heard them.

    For someone who claimed he was going to scientifically prove Evolution isn’t possible you’re spending an awful lot of time talking about “secrets societies” and other nonsense that has no bearing on the issue of whether or not Evolution is true. All that does is make you sound crazy as well as ignorant. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

    I’ve noted, by the way, that a lot of this silliness is stuff you cut and pasted from similar threads on other message forums. Been a busy little beaver spreading your nonsense, eh?

    Moving on to your third and briefer attempt at a reply you start off by making the following claim:

    KPatrickGlover, studies of DNA have shown that mutations do not give rise to information for creating change of kind.

    What studies would that be then? Another claim with nothing to back it up.

    My question was for someone to provide an example, and none were. You offered none either.

    Examples were provided, you just chose to ignore them.

    You offered rhetoric as most evoluitionists do to avoid not having the answer to how evolution actually has happened microbiologically.

    Careful or you’ll break my irony meter. You offered up some 34 paragraphs of rhetoric about conspiracy theories and free masons and *giggle* the “Illuminati” that had no bearing on the truth or falseness of evolution. The fact that you’d bitch about others offering much smaller bits of rhetoric is almost too funny to bear.

    Sequencing of the DNA (tests run to examine it) confirm that the portions of the DNA which define the morphology (in the Hox genes) do not change by any number of nucleotides which could be considered information.

    Yet another claim with nothing to back it up. Prove it.

    I’ll help you though. Imagine a triangle, a square, a hexagon, and a circle sitting in a row. These are animal morphologies, such as skeletal structure, number of toes, type of eye, location of limbs, and all other things that make an animal a particular kind, such as a horse or a dog. Using the shapes as metaphors, triangles do not generate hexagons over time. None of these shapes, if they were animal kinds, can ever change into the other. The places in the DNA which describe the morphology are never seen to change over time.

    Uh oh. You know what that means. That means living things do not change by aquiring new morphological features over time.

    No, it means you can only come up with a crappy analogy that doesn’t represent reality. All you’ve proven is that you have a clue what the hell you’re talking about.

    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:

    When you breed any two kinds of life, you get the same. You do not get anything which is part of another kind, even slightly. Breeding between kinds always results in no organism being born. The DNA does not allow this new information.

    This is a complicated way of saying “I’ve never seen a fish give birth to a dog” and it’s an idiotic argument that reveals a lack of understanding of how evolution works.

    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.

    I’m afraid your debating evolution is mute. Unless you can land on Mount hernon and build a bio lab and do it yourself. But then, if anyone actually created life in a laboratory, it would only prove that it takes intelligence to create life, thus disproving evolution theory in a new way.

    That was laughable on so many levels.

    The next time someone makes the asserting that mutation causes evolution I’ll provide you with some articles by PhD scientists who explain how mutation cannot cause evolution. I mean, that is if you chose to ignore the facts I’ve already provided.

    You’ve not provided any facts at all. You’ve made a lot of unsubstantiated claims which have been refuted by others as well as myself. Frankly your argument thus far has been the same tired old nonsense we’ve heard before.

  19. Me: Am I correct in assuming what your spiel translates to is that you can’t see how evolution works so therefore you have decided it can not have happened?

    Yes.  LOL

  20. Ironman –

    So are you a creationist, an Intelligent Design proponent (without being a biblical creationist, otherwise you are a creationist), or something else?  You obviously feel strongly about evolution and your belief that it is a lie, but I’d really like to know what your real take on the whole thing is. 

    I assume since you seem so focused on science and logic (from your words I assume this) even if you may be wrong (I am not going to judge because I’m too lazy to look anything up myself); so I also assume your beliefs on life and origins of species, origins of life, etc, are well defined and scientifically supported?  Surely your use of the term “kind” as opposed to species must signify something of your beliefs, but I am ininterested in hearing your explanations.  And don’t take this to be mocking, I really would like to know; in short, please sum up what your opposition explanations to evolution, abiogenesis and big bang theory are. I personally would like to hear your own words, not links to essays by others.

    I know what I think as opposed to believe (evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang are the best logical explanations we have), but I do not base my world view or personal morality on it.  So, what do YOU believe?

  21. Les, I admire your patience. I skimmed the posts and tuned out when I encountered the term “kind”, because it invariably leads to a straw man argument you have dismissed thusly:

    This is a complicated way of saying “I’ve never seen a fish give birth to a dog” and it’s an idiotic argument that reveals a lack of understanding of how evolution works.

    In fact, that much was already apparent within the first few paragraphs. Just one additional comment

    (ironman) some articles by PhD scientists who explain how mutation cannot cause evolution

    You can find PhD scientists that support anything from pathological science, junk science, and pseudoscience, particularly if the price is right, personal buttons are pushed, and they comment on a field other than their own.

  22. ironman:

    The next time someone makes the asserting that mutation causes evolution I’ll provide you with some articles by PhD scientists who explain how mutation cannot cause evolution. I mean, that is if you chose to ignore the facts I’ve already provided.

    It’s not the fact that you might have PhD scientists supporting your viewpoint.  As has been said, anyone can get a PhD to support their cock-eyed theories.  It is whether that viewpoint has been peer-reviewed, whether other scientists have been able to refute or support the viewpoint and how and why that counts.  The aspects of evolution have been independently supported by experiments and observation from other scientists.  Do you have THAT sir?

    The scientist can be the smartest individual in the universe.  If he’s not peer reviewed, his views are not accepted as science, and rightly so.  Even if he’s right, because if he IS right, then his experiments and observations can be verified.

    Invariably, with criticism of evolution, I hear people talk about any number of scientists that ‘support’ their theories, but these scientists turn out to be those that are widely refuted by other scientists, or these scientists turn out to have credentials not in biology or genetic research but in things like mathematics, or engineering, or worse we are not told what field they specialize in, or the scientists turn out to have ditched their PhDs long ago in favor of a largely religious career and are no longer up to date on the current research.

    Which are yours?

  23. It’s not the fact that you might have PhD scientists supporting your viewpoint.

    It’s not the fact that this is the argument from authority, either.

  24. Holy crap, that may very well have been the best written version of a Gish Gallop I have ever seen.  Take several metric tons of dung, toss it against a wall and see what sticks.

    Honestly, I stopped reading fairly early on.  I compliment you, Les, for your tenacity and patience.  I started hitting egregious errors in the first couple paragraphs and lost interest.

    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? 

    A mutation to an egg, sperm or embryonic precursor *is* a heritable change and *is* present in future descendants.  Off the top of my head, the thousands of endogenous retroviruses you are carrying around in each of your cells is evidence for that.  Hell, a mutation in a germline as opposed to a somatic cell is pretty much the bloody definition of a heritable mutation.

    This is why a child born with six fingers or toes does not have children who have six fingers or toes.

    Umm again.  Polydactyl children have very good odds of passing the trait on once they grow up and start making short people of their own.  It is dominant trait, meaning one parent with extra digits has a fifty-fifty shot of passing it on each time a member of the next generation pops out.

    But if you think there is scientific proof from experiments which result in knowing how mutation can cause the creation of the information which results in morphological change, post it here. Until then you have only “I say so.” and speculation.

    Can do.  First you need to provide an adequate definition for ‘morphological’.  What scale are you thinking of?  An complete limb appearing or disappearing?  Change in plumage patterns?  A thickening of a cell wall?  An enlargement of the kidneys?

    Considering the time frames available to scientists in comparison with those available to nature, please do not expect grand telegenic changes in morphology.  Pardon me for being cynical, but a couple decades of sparring with creationists leads me to believe you will handwave away anything short of a moo cow giving birth to a calf with an elephant trunk.

    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?

  25. 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.

  26. 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]

  27. 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?

  28. 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?

  29. 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.

  30. 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. LOL

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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!)

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

  36. 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.

  37. 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?

  38. 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 wink

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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?

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.