Making Monkeys Out of Evolutionists

It's back-to-school time. That means school supplies, clothes, packing lunches and the annual battle over what can be taught.

The Cobb County, Ga., School Board voted unanimously Aug. 22 to consider a pluralistic approach to the origin of the human race, rather than the mandated theory of evolution. The board will review a proposal which says the district "believes that discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the origin of the species."

Immediately, pro-evolution forces jumped from their trees and started behaving as if someone had stolen their bananas. Apparently, academic freedom is for other subjects. Godzilla forbid! (This is the closest one may get to mentioning "God" in such a discussion, lest the ACLU intervene, which it has threatened to do in Cobb County, should the school board commit academic freedom. God may be mentioned if His Name modifies "damn." The First Amendment's free speech clause protects such an utterance, we are told by the ACLU. The same First Amendment, according to their twisted logic, allegedly prohibits speaking well of God.)

What do evolutionists fear? If scientific evidence for creation is academically unsound and outrageously untrue, why not present the evidence and allow students to decide which view makes more sense? At the very least, presenting both sides would allow them to better understand the two views. Pro-evolution forces say (and they are saying it again in Cobb County) that no "reputable scientist" believes in the creation model. That is demonstrably untrue. No less a pro-evolution source than Science Digest noted in 1979 that, "scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities . . . Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." (Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin.")

In the last 30 years, there's been a wave of books by scientists who do not hold to a Christian-apologetic view on the origins of humanity but who have examined the underpinnings of evolutionary theory and found them to be increasingly suspect. Those who claim no "reputable scientist" holds to a creation model of the universe must want to strip credentials from such giants as Johann Kepler (1571-1630), the founder of physical astronomy. Kepler wrote, "Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."

Werner Von Braun (1912-1977), the father of space science, wrote: " . . . the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

Who would argue that these and many other scientists were ignorant about science because they believed in God? Contemporary evolutionists who do so are practicing intellectual slander. Anything involving God, or His works, they believe, is to be censored because humankind must only study ideas it comes up with apart from any other influence. Such thinking led to the Holocaust, communism and a host of other evils conjured up by the deceitful and wicked mind of uncontrolled Man.

There are only two models for the origin of humans: evolution and creation. If creation occurred, it did so just once and there will be no "second acts." If evolution occurs, it does so too slowly to be observed. Both theories are accepted on faith by those who believe in them. Neither theory can be tested scientifically because neither model can be observed or repeated.

Why are believers in one model -- evolution -- seeking to impose their faith on those who hold that there is scientific evidence which supports the other model? It's because they fear they will lose their influence and academic power base after a free and open debate. They are like political dictators who oppose democracy, fearing it will rob them of power.

The parallel views should be taught in Cobb County, Ga., and everywhere else, and let the most persuasive evidence win.

Going from genes that express "hair" to lack of genes that express "hair" may be described many ways, but it is NOT evolution. What this IS, is an example of how sloppy the definition of terms is in this whole argument.

Man made selection does the same thing that natural selection does - it selects which genes will be reproduced in the next generation. However, man made selection is done in the interests or at the whim of man, and has nothing to do with survival. Hence it is not suprising if man made dog breeds lack survival ability, which dogs bred by natural selection have. The one thing which man currently cannot do, which nature can, is to change the genes through mutation or other mechanisms. When man can do this (as will happen as genetics are better understood), then man will indeed create not only "breeds" of dogs, but species incapable of interbreeding, if that is desired. BTW, there are plenty of species capable of interbreeding, so the "dog breeds can interbreed" counter-argument holds no water.

Reductionism? Devolution? Breakdown? Simplification? Maybe so, but "Evolution?" Nope.

The same thing applies to the "dog breeds" argument. Dog breeds are developed by eliminating unwanted genetic information, not by creating new info. Therefore, it is not "Evolution." It is merely "change."

Once again the anti-evos play the game of semantics.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
Date: 1622
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
- evo·lu·tion·ari·ly /-sh&-"ner-&-lE/ adverb
- evo·lu·tion·ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective
- evo·lu·tion·ism /-sh&-"ni-z&m/ noun
- evo·lu·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun or adjective

The only deference in this change over time is that dog breeds are selected by man, whereas species in nature go through a process of natural selection. Ability to interbreed is not a bar to speciation. Given enough time, differing species in nature lose the ability to interbreed, as genetic mutation and other changes introduce incompatibilities. Given man's increasing knowledge of genetics, man will also be capable of creating artificial speciation by introduction genetic incompatibilities. The only differences in the two is that one is a natural occurance, and the other is man made. The mechanism is the same for both.

But if Einstein was right...

Einstein hasn't been right much lately; his description of light and the rational for relativity are suffering rather severely.

Einstein was trying to use relativistic time to account for the fact that light does not obey the ordinary additive laws for velocities. This was based on what he called "thought experiments", such as the mirror-clock experiment, rather than upon anything resembling real evidence or real experiments. Thought experiments, it turns out, are not a terribly good basis for physics. Moreover, the basic approach is unsound. Louis Carrol Epstein ("Relativity Envisioned"), uses the following analogy: a carpenter with a house in which everything worked flawlessly other than one door which bound, would usually plane the door until it worked. He COULD, however, purchase a couple of hundred jacks and jack the foundation of the house until the one door worked, and then try to somehow or other make every other door and window in the house work again... Light is the one door in the analogy; distance, time, mass etc., i.e. everything else in the house of physics are the other doors and windows. Epstein assumes that relativity is the one case you will ever find in which that sort of approach is the correct one, nonetheless, common sense tells us it isn't terribly likely.

It turns out there is another way in which one could account for light not obeying additive laws, and that this other way is the correct one. That is to assume that light simply does not have a velocity; that it is an instantaneous force between two points, and that the thing we call the "velocity of light" is the rate of accumulation of some secondary effect.

The story on this one lives HERE

The basic Ralph Sansbury experiment amounts to a 1990s version of the Michelson/Moreley experiment using lasers and nanosecond gates, which Michelson and Moreley did not have. Wallace Thornhill, an Australian physicist, describes it:



>I mentioned a few weeks ago that an epoch making experiment had been
>performed in the realm of fundamental physics which had great
>importance for Velikovskian style catastrophism (and just about
>everything else for that matter). The experiment, performed by Ralph
>Sansbury, is amazingly simple but has amazing consequences.
>
>Sansbury is a quiet spoken physicist from Connecticut.  He is
>associated with the Classical Physics Institute, or CP Institute, of
>New York which publishes the Journal of Classical Physics. In the
>Notes to Contributors we find the focus of the journal: "Marinov's
>experiment, Bell's theorem, and similar works reveal increasing
>discontent with the dogmas of modern physics. Some physicists
>postulate that blackbody radiation, atomic spectra, nuclear reactions,
>electron diffraction, the speed of light and all other phenomena which
>Quantum Wave Mechanics and Relativity were designed to explain will
>require different explanations. It is the viewpoint of this journal
>that the new explanations probably will be consistent with
>Aristotelian logic and Newtonian or Galilean mechanics." Volume 1,
>Part 1, in January 1982 was devoted to an article titled "Electron
>Structure", by Ralph Sansbury. The title itself should raise
>physicist's eyebrows since electrons are considered to have no
>structure. They are treated as being indivisible, along with quarks.
>
>The fallout from Sansbury's idea, if proven, is prodigious. To begin,
>for the first time we have a truly unifying theory where both
>magnetism and gravity become a derived form of instantaneous
>electrostatic force. The Lorentz contraction-dilation of space time
>and mass is unnecessary. Electromagnetic radiation becomes the
>cumulative effect of instantaneous electrostatic forces at a distance
>and the wave/particle (photon) duality disappears. Discontinuous
>absorption/emission of energy in quanta by atoms becomes a continuous
>process. And there is more.
>
>Sansbury's was a thousand dollar experiment using 10 nanosecond long
>pulses of laser light, one pulse every 400 nsec. At some distance from
>the laser was a photodiode detector. But in the light path, directly
>in front of the detector was a high speed electronic shutter (known as
>a Pockel cell) which could be switched to allow the laser light
>through to the detector, or stop it.
>
>Now, light is considered to travel as a wavefront or photon at the
>speed of light. Viewed this way, it covers a distance of about 1 foot
>per nanosecond. So the laser could be regarded as sending out 10ft
>long bursts of light every 400ft, at the speed of light. The
>experiment simply kept the Pockel cell shutter closed during the 400ft
>of no light and opened to allow the 10ft burst through to the detector.
>
>What happened?
>
>The detector saw nothing!!!
>
>It is as if a gun were fired at a target and for the time of flight of
>the bullet a shield were placed over the target. At the last moment,
>the shield is pulled away - and the bullet has disappeared; the target
>is untouched!
>
>What does it mean?
>
>Only that Maxwell's theory of the propagation of electromagnetic waves
>is wrong! Only that Einstein's Special theory of relativity (which was
>to reconcile Maxwell's theory with simple kinematics) is wrong! Only
>that, as a result, the interpretation of most of modern physics is
>wrong!
>
>As another classical physicist using a theoretical approach to the
>same problem succinctly put it:
>
>"... there emerges the outline of an alternative "relativistic"
>physics, quite distinct from that of Maxwell-Einstein, fully as well
>confirmed by the limited observations available to date, and differing
>from it not only in innumerable testable ways but also in basic
>physical concepts and even in definitional or ethnical (sic) premises
>as to the nature of physics. Thus a death struggle is joined that must
>result in the destruction of one world-system or the other: Either
>light is complicated and matter simple, as I think, or matter is
>complicated and light simple, as Einstein thought. I have shown here
>that some elegant mathematics can be put behind my view. It has long
>been known that inordinate amounts of elegant mathematics can be put
>behind Einstein's. Surely the time fast approaches to stop listening
>to mathematical amplifications of our own internal voices and to go
>into the laboratory and listen to what nature has to say." -
>Modifications of Maxwell's Equations, T E Phipps, The Classical
>Journal of Physics, Vol 2, 1, Jan 1983, p. 21.
>
>Ralph Sansbury has now done precisely that!
>
>In simple terms, Sansbury gives the electron a structure by proposing
>a number of charged particles (he calls subtrons) orbiting within the
>classical radius of an electron. A simple calculation gives the
>surprising result that these subtrons are moving at a speed of 2.5
>million light years per second! That is, they could theoretically
>cover the distance from Earth to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy
>in one second. This gives some meaning to the term 'instantaneous
>action at a distance'. (Note that this is a requirement for any new
>theory of gravity). (Also I have always considered it evidence of
>peculiar naivety or arrogance on the part of scientists, such as
>Sagan, who search for extra-terrestrial intelligence (SETI) by using
>radio signals. What superior intelligence would use such a slow, and
>therefore useless, interstellar signalling system?) Such near infinite
>speed requires that there can be no mass increase with velocity. The
>speed of light is not a speed barrier. All of the experiments which
>seem to support Einstein's notion are interpreted by Sansbury in a
>more common-sense fashion. When an electron or other charged particle
>is accelerated in an electromagnetic field, it is distorted from a
>sphere into an ellipsoid. The more electromagnetic energy applied to
>accelerating the particle, the more energy is absorbed by distortion
>of the particle until, ultimately, at the speed of light, there is an
>expulsion of the subtrons. Under such conditions, the particle only
>APPEARS to be gaining mass.
>
>Notably, in the past few months, scientists in Hamburg using the most
>powerful electron microscope have found on about a dozen occasions out
>of 10 million trials, relativistic electrons recoiled more violently
>off protons than had ever been seen before. This may turn out to be
>direct experimental proof of Sansbury's model of the electron having
>structure.
>
>To return to the experiment involving a "chopped" light beam: One of
>the major requirements of the new theory is instantaneous
>electrostatic forces between subtrons. This forms the basis of a
>radical new view of the basis of electromagnetic radiation which is
>now the subject of stunning experimental confirmation. In Sansbury's
>view, a signal from a light source is received instantly by a distant
>detector and the speed of light delay in detecting the signal is due
>to the time taken for the ACCUMULATED RESPONSE of the subtrons in the
>detector to result in a threshold signal at the electron level. This
>is totally at variance with orthodox interpretations which would have
>the light travelling as a discrete photon or wave packet at the speed
>of light.
>
>In terms of the gun and target analogy, it is as if particles of the
>bullet are being absorbed by the shield from the instant of firing, so
>that when the shield is pulled aside there is no bullet left to hit
>the target.
>
>It is not possible to overstate the importance of this work because it
>lends direct support to a new model of the electron in particular, and
>matter in general, which EXPLAINS magnetism, gravity and quantum
>effects without any resort to the kind of metaphysics which allows our
>top physicists to think they can see "God" in their equations.  The
>new classical physicists can mix it with the best of them when it
>comes to the mathematics but they are more prepared to "go into the
>laboratory and listen to what nature has to say."
>
>This work is of crucial importance for Velikovskian re-arrangements of
>the solar system in recent times because astronomers have been able to
>say that such scenarios defy the laws of physics - which is true,
>insofar as they know the laws of physics. To discover that gravity is
>a form of charge polarization within the particles that make up the
>atom, rather than a warp in space (whatever the hell that means),
>gives us a simple mechanism by which the solar system can be rapidly
>stabilised after a period of chaotic motion.
>
>There is an impression, as I reread the work of Sansbury and other
>classical physicists, that what we are facing is something like "Back
>to the Future". And like the movie of that name, the possibilities
>that we encounter will seem like science fiction come true. But it is
>well-known that science fiction writers are better at predicting the
>future of science than experts!

Then why have one set of virial DNA incorporated into the non-coding DNA of gorillas, chimps, and humans and another set of viral DNA incorporated into the non-coding DNA of chimps and humans, each in the same place in the genome?

The above is the equivalent of an evolutionist "urban legend". It's just plain is not true at all. Neither chimps nor humans can produce vitamin c. However, the devil is in the details:

It is interesting to note that most animals produce their own vitamin C. Man, primates (apes, chimps, etc.) and guinea pigs have lost this ability.
From: How Stuff Works

Hmm, your sources did not mention the guinea pigs did they? Guess man and chimp descended from guinea pigs? Are guinea pigs the missing link? Seems evo 'scientists' are very selective. They only 'remember' what serves their purposes. But wait, it gets better:

Actually, the LGGLO pseudogene (an inactivated Vitamin C synthesis gene) has been found in one human so far and no apes, according to Edward Max, but in his essay he predicts that it should be found in apes, too.
From: Shared Errors in DNA

So, it seems someone claims that this is not true, and cites an evolutionist as saying that this claim is an assumption not fact. So while to me, this might be credible enough, to you an assertion by a Christian alone would not be. So, we must dig a little deeper:

if primates closely related to humans have the SAME crippling mutations in their LGGLO pseudogenes as we see in the human pseudogenes, this finding would support the evolutionary model. As I pointed out, the data on this question are not yet available for the LGGLO pseudogenes, but in other shared pseudogenes identical crippling mutations clearly favor evolution
From: Response to Plaisted

So it seems that the evolutionists have been found lying again (and by this I do not mean you or anyone else here - this garbage is all over the internet). Max in his original article, while not outright saying that men and chimps shared the exact same mutation in the exact same pseudogene went into a long and very contrived discussion which to most laymen would indicate that such was a proven fact. In other words, he clearly was trying to deceive and clearly deceived many. (the original article is here ). So much for vitamin c. Another evolutionist snow job disproven.

BTW this whole nonsense started - as usual - in that fountain of evolutionist disinformation - TalkOrigins

>To return to the experiment involving a "chopped" light beam: One of >the major requirements of the new theory is instantaneous >electrostatic forces between subtrons. This forms the basis of a >radical new view of the basis of electromagnetic radiation which is >now the subject of stunning experimental confirmation. In Sansbury's >view, a signal from a light source is received instantly by a distant >detector and the speed of light delay in detecting the signal is due >to the time taken for the ACCUMULATED RESPONSE of the subtrons in the >detector to result in a threshold signal at the electron level. This >is totally at variance with orthodox interpretations which would have >the light travelling as a discrete photon or wave packet at the speed >of light.

I critiqued this theory before and you never responded.

1st criticism: Why would a stream of subtrons that hits a nearby detector coalesce quickly, while a stream of subtrons that hits a far away detector at essentially the same instant take longer to coalesce? You'd think it'd be the opposite - the collection would lose energy and "precipitate out" into the electron quicker if it traveled farther.

Or, if there is no energy lost during its near-instantaneous travel, then it shouldn't take any more or less time to coalesce at the near vs. far detector.

2nd criticism: During its near-instantaneous journey, how does the stream of subtrons know exactly where the detector will be when it finally coalesces long after this near-instantaneous journey is over?

In 8 minutes I will walk out of here into the sunlight and raise my eyes to the Sun. At that moment, the stream of subtrons that have just now left the Sun towards the Earth will coalesce into electrons, which my retinas will detect. So, by Sansbury's theory, the point in space which in 8 minutes will be filled by my retinas is at this moment being bombarded by a collection of subtrons. But where will they cool their heels in the intervening 8 minutes??? How will they know to coalesce exactly there and not 10 feet higher in the air or 5 1/2 feet lower to warm the grass blades?

Soon afterwards, I will drop to the ground and look up at the Sun again. Now the stream of subtrons which is emanating from the Sun as I type this will coalesce about a foot off the ground instead of the previous point in space 5 1/2 feet off the ground. So this second subtron stream is cooling its heels right now at a point 1 foot above the ground, and will continue to do so for the next 8 minutes from now. How does it know to do that?

And of course, in the intervening 8 minutes, there will be a constant stream of subtrons streaming along in basically the same trajectory, each one cooling their heels in various places in anticipation of where I will move my "detector" 8 minutes from now, all undetectable in the meantime.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.