Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[gore3000]

Proof by Constant Repetition, eh?

Nope. You said that irreducible complexity was not a scientific fact, I corrected your mistatement.

You have a table of all the possible configurations of off-by-one-molecule machines that fail to wiggle a flagellums' tail, however efficiently? No?

You are asking your opponents to prove a negative. You are asking for the impossible and thus claiming victory. Our side, has given postive proof of its assertions, your side, the evolutionist/materialist side has only given rhetoric. The closest they have come to a plausible scientific explanation is the secretory system (which is likely also ID). But that only has half as many genes as the flagellum and leaves the problem unsolved.

Or perhaps you have the proof that demonstrates that genetic machinery can't be built by a process similar to the way the immune system builds phagocytic machines out of a machine shop of generalized parts? Talk about the dog eating the homework.

Yes that system is also very interesting and in my view probably had to be intelligently designed also. Just because something exists does not mean that it exists due to evolution. How does the sytem know what parts to use? This requires decision making, thought and memory. Do rocks have memories? Does carbon or any other chemical have memories? With the immune system you also have a system which is specifically designed for a certain purpose.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

Science is essentially non political, non ideological. The evolutionists, the atheists, the materialists, the leftists have tried to turn it into a tool for their ideologies but as in politics, in science also the truth cannot be repressed.

So true. Once upon a time, some people used the Church to acheive their political goals. Eventually, that abuse of faith failed - and I predict the abuse of science for political gain will likewise surely fail.

[gore3000]

My claim is explicit enough. There is no necessity to the order of DNA just as there is no necessity to the order of letters in a book. This is a scientifically proven fact. To say that a string of DNA at least 250,000 bases long arose by chance is utterly impossible. -me-

Right. That's why no one with any scientific credibility has been saying this, for some time now.

Glad we agree on something! Since you need the DNA arranged in a specific way with the proper genes, with the proper chemical properties, producing the proper proteins needed for life materialists need to first of all surmount this hurdle. Since you agree that it is insurmountable, then an intelligent creator was necessary to put it together as well as to assemble it with a proper cell structure that enabled it to live and reproduce.

at the risk of being repetitive, you cannot concoct a meaningful calculation of the odds against it.

Of course you can. Being that there are 4 different DNA bases possible and you need at least 250,000 of them arranged properly, the chances are 4^250,000. Even if one were to be really generous and say that in any position you could have any of two different bases and still have life arise (and that is a very generous assumption) you still would have odds of 1 chance/2^250,000 - still totally impossible odds.

BTW - we have done enough DNA research already to KNOW that just any arrangement will not work. In fact we have doen enough DNA research to know that the possible variations that will work are quite small indeed.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Could you show which recent textbook claims Piltdown Man as other than a fraud? Piltdown was shown to be a fraud before the 1920s. Only British scientists really supported Piltdown in the first place. Most American and Continental scientists rejected Piltdown because the Piltdown skeleton didn't conform to evolutionary theory. Carbon dating later established that the bones were not of the same age.

[gore3000]

I see--and since universal gravity can only be demonstrated by looking at light that's millions of years old--

Whether the light is old or not we can see it in real time and thus we can test the laws of gravity in our own time. Also, most of the testing of the theory of gravity and relativity has been done using what we see from our own solar system, so that statement is false to a great extent. Evolution claims it is totally untestable in the present - although it should be testable if it were true. We certainly should be seeing, at the minimum, species in different stages of developing greater complexity. We do not see even that.

[gore3000]

Evolution is a theory, it is the closest theory that fits the facts at hand.

What facts? There are no facts at hand that give evidence for the transformation of species into more highly complex species. Neither the bones (which are far insufficient anyway as evidence) nor the science of biology provide such evidence. Evolutionists just keep repeating this same nonsense and when asked to give us the facts they are speaking of run away or start attacking religion. Let's see those incontrovertible facts.

[gore3000]

However, let me point out that one of the things elementary textbooks ought to strive for is simplicity of presentation.

No, the most important thing they must strive for is the truth. Further, one should never talk down to kids. They are quite smart.

[gore3000]

Your cited article says nothing of anyone hiding their beliefs.

Aaah, the rhetorical half truth which is a complete lie. The guy was made an example of to scare others into hiding their beliefs. Let us let the readers decide by showing them the article which you are clearly misrepresenting:

Danger: Indoctrination
A Scopes Trial for the '90s

The Wall Street Journal, December 6, 1993

 

Stephen C. Meyer

When most of us think of the controversy over evolution in the public schools, we are likely to think of fundamentalists pulling teachers from their classrooms and placing them in the dock. Images from the infamous Scopes "monkey" trial of 1925 come to mind. Unfortunately, intolerance of this sort has shown itself in California in the 1990s as a result of students complaining about a biology instructor. Unlike the original Scopes case, however, thiscase involves a distinguished biology professor at a major university -- indeed, an acknowledged expert on evolutionary theory. Also unlike Scopes, the teacher was forbidden to teach his course not because he taught evolutionary theory (which he did) but because he offered a critical assessment of it.

The controversy first emerged last fall after Dean Kenyon, a biology professor at San Francisco State University, was ordered not to teach "creationism" by John Hafernik, the chairman of his biology department. Mr. Kenyon, who included three lectures in biological origins in his introductory course, had for many years made a practice of exposing students to both evolutionary theory and evidence uncongenial to it. He also discussed the philosophical controversies raised by the issue and his own view that living systems display evidence of intelligent design -- a view not incompatible with some forms of evolutionary thinking.

Mr. Hafernik accused Mr. Kenyon of teaching what he characterized as biblical creationism and ordered him to stop.

After Mr. Hafernik's decree, Mr. Kenyon asked for clarification. He wrote the dean, Jim Kelley, asking what exactly he could not discuss. Was he "forbidden to mention to students that there are important disputes among scientists about whether or not chemical evolution could have taken place on the ancient earth?"

Mr. Kelley replied by insisting that Mr. Kenyon "teach the dominant scientific view," not the religious view of "special creation on a young earth." Mr. Kenyon replied again (I paraphrase): I do teach the dominant view. But I also discuss problems with the dominant view and that some biologists see evidence of intelligent design.

He received no reply. Instead, he was yanked from teaching introductory biology and reassigned to labs.

There are several disturbing aspects to this story:

First, Mr. Kenyon is an authority on chemical evolutionary theory and the scientific study of the origin of life. He has a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford and is the co-author of a seminal theoretical work titled "Biochemical Predestination" (1969). The
book articulated what was arguably the most plausible evolutionary account of how a living cell might have organized itself from chemicals in the "primordial soup."

Mr. Kenyon's subsequent work resulted in numerous scientific publications on the origin-of-life problem. But by the late 1970s, Mr. Kenyon began to question some of his own earlier ideas. Experiments (some performed by Mr. Kenyon himself) increasingly contradicted the dominant view in his field. Laboratory work suggested that simple chemicals do not arrange themselves into complex information-bearing molecules such as DNA -- without, that is, "guidance" from human experimenters.

To Mr. Kenyon and others, such results raised important questions about how "naturalistic" the origin of life really was. If undirected chemical processes cannot produce the coded strands of information found in even the simplest cells, could perhaps a directing intelligence have played a role? By the 1980s, Mr. Kenyon had adopted the second view.

That a man of Mr. Kenyon's stature should now be forced to lobby
for the right to teach introductory biology, whatever his current view of origins, is absurdly comic. Mr. Kenyon knows perhaps as much as anyone in the world about a problem that has stymied an entire generation of research scientists. Yet he now finds that he may not report the negative results of research or give students his candid assessment of it.

What is more, the simplistic labeling of Mr. Kenyon's statements as "religion" and the strictly materialistic view as "scientific" seems entirely unwarranted, especially given the philosophical overtones of much origins theory. Biology texts routinely recapitulate Darwinian arguments against intelligent design. Yet if arguments against intelligent design are philosophically neutral and strictly scientific, why are Mr. Kenyon's arguments for intelligent design inherently unscientific and religiously charged? In seeking the best explanation for evidence, Mr. Kenyon has employed the same method of reasoning as before he changed his view. His conclusions, not his methods, have changed.

The problem is that in biological origins theory, dominant players currently insist on a rigidly materialistic mode of explanation -- even when, as Mr. Kenyon maintains, explanation of the evidence requires more than the limited powers of brute matter. Such intellectual strictures reflect the very essence of political correctness: the suppression of critical discourse by enforced rules of thought.

Fortunately, San Francisco State University's Academic Freedom Committee has come to a similar conclusion, ruling decisively this summer in Mr. Kenyon's favor. The committee determined that, according to university guidelines, a clear breach of academic freedom had occurred.

Apparently, however, Mr. Hafernik and Mr. Kelley disagree. Mr. Hafernik has emphatically rejected the committee's recommendation to reinstate Mr. Kenyon, citing his own freedom to determine scientifically appropriate curriculum. In response, the American Association of University Professors informed the university last month that they expect Mr. Kenyon's mistreatment to be rectified. Meanwhile, as SFSU considers its response, a worldclass scientist waits -- yet another casualty of America's peculiar academic fundamentalism.

[Aric2000]

OK, then tell me oh blueman, what do you think happened?

What do you think explains fossil remains that are remarkably similar to modern creatures that are alive today. What to you explains the closeness of DNA between the great apes and humans? What explains the fact that birds have the same bone structure as some dinosaurs?

Come on, tell me your scientific theory that answers ALL of these questions amd more.

Tell me a SCIENTIFIC theory, NOT ID, not creationism, I want to hear a REAL scientifically accepted theory.

Then answer me this, do you believe in the theory of relativity?

[Aric2000]

There is no misrepresntation of that article at all.

The man started spouting nonscientific BS in a science class.

If it had been a philosophy or religion class, great.

He was spouting religious nonsense in a science class, not only should he have been suspended, he should have been fired and then blacklisted from ever teaching a science class again, ANYWHERE!!

[gore3000]

You never tire of lying do you. Here is an article showing your statement to be an absolute lie:

A Breed Apart
DNA Tests: Humans Not Descended from Neanderthals

By Kenneth Chang
ABCNEWS.com

March 28 — DNA from the bones of a Neanderthal baby who died 29,000 years ago offers further evidence that Neanderthals are cousins rather than ancestors of modern humans.

Writing in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature, William Goodwin of the University of Glasgow in Scotland, along with collaborators from Russia and Sweden, report that the baby’s DNA is much more similar to another Neanderthal DNA sequence reported in 1997 than to that of modern humans.

Evolution or Replacement?
Some anthropologists have argued that people evolved at least partly from the Neanderthals. The opposing theory is that modern humans evolved in Africa, then spread outward, overwhelming earlier hominids including Neanderthals. The short, squat Neanderthals inhabited much of Europe from about 100,000 years ago until dying out about 28,000 years ago.

“Neanderthal DNA is distinct from modern humans,” Goodwin says, “and there are no examples of humans having Neanderthal-type DNA.”

The shaded area indicates the known range of Neanderthals. Mezmaiskaya is the location where the baby Neanderthal whose DNA was sequenced was found. An earlier Neanderthal DNA sequence was determined from bones found in Feldhofer Cave in Germany. (ABCNEWS.com/ Magellan Geographix)

The researchers isolated segments of DNA from the baby’s mitochondria — small, energy-producing bodies that contain their own genetic code separate from the main DNA strand in the nucleus of the cell. Mitochondrial DNA is easier to study, because each cell contains about 1,000 mitochondria, meaning there are about 1,000 times more DNA strands to extract. Unlike cell DNA, mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the mother.

Not Human Enough

The baby’s mitochondrial DNA differed from that of the other Neanderthal in 3.5 percent of the locations tested, while the divergence of the Neanderthal DNA from humans was twice as great: 7 percent. Scientists consider that to be a substantial gap.

Based on the number of differences, and the expected rate of change, Neanderthals and humans last shared a common ancestor about 500,000 years ago, the researchers say.

The Neanderthal DNA was also no more similar to the DNA of Europeans than people elsewhere, which might have been expected if Neanderthals had mated in large numbers with their human neighbors in Europe.

The baby, found in Russia’s Caucasus Mountains, has been estimated in age at somewhere between an unborn 7-month-old fetus and a newborn of a couple of months. Molecular biologist Matthias Hoss, an expert in ancient remains now working at the Swiss Institute for Cancer Research, said the research appears to support the theory that Neanderthals were an evolutionary dead end.

“This adds quite a lot of confidence that the Neanderthal didn’t contribute to modern populations,” he said.
From: ABC NEWS

In addition, a third find confirmed the above in Molecular Analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the Northern Caucasus. So no, man did not descend from Neanderthal and a personal page from some evolutionist known only at home at dinnertime (the guy who wrote your link) does not refute the statements of real scientists who examined the evidence.

[AndrewC]

He was spouting religious nonsense in a science class, not only should he have been suspended, he should have been fired and then blacklisted from ever teaching a science class again, ANYWHERE!!

Trained in the Soviet Union I see.

[gore3000]

This throws down all the nonsense mentioned by evolutionists about the finches and shows quite well the dishonesty of evolutionists who continue to use this as an example of evolution even after it has been comletely disproven.-me-

So all that effort I put into explaining to you that speciation isn't a cut-and-dried separation event was for nought?

Aaah, when all else is lost then comes the semantic excuse - what is the meaning of 'is', what is the meaning of 'alone'. A species is a group of individuals that can procreate and produce viable young. That is the only legitimate scientific definition of species. The finches can procreate and the evolutionists lied and continue to lie about the finches being an example of speciation and also an example of evolution. This has been shown to be false, period, paragraph, end of story.

Furthermore the evolutionists never bothered to check their facts and look to see if the finches actually mated and reproduced with each other. This shows them not to be scientists at all and that evolution is not science.

[gore3000]

The vast majority of scientists would agree with me that evolution is a fact and a theory.

That is all you evolutionists know how to do - repeat endlessly that evolution is a fact. Well it is not. No one has ever seen a species transform itself into a more complex species. No one has even seen a species in the process of transforming itself into a more complex species. No one has seen a mutation which provides an organism with greater complexity. Evolutionists have absolutely no evidence for how evolution happens.

What the evidence does show though is that organisms are very complex and could not have arisen by stochastic methods. What the evidence does show is that the process of development from conception to birth is a program. What the evidence does show is that there are numerous species which could not have evolved from any ancestor such as euglena and the platypus. What the evidence does show is that there are no intermediate fossils as there would have to be if evolution were true. What the evidence does show, everyday, is that the progeny are like the parents.

[Aric2000]

Trained in the Soviet Union I see.

No, trained in science, science is what belongs in a science class. If he wished to teach ID, or creationism, he should have taught a religion class or a philosophy class.

Science does NOT use god, god cannot be proven nor disproven, so ANY theory that uses a god to explain things is therefore NOT scientific by definition.

If you can prove that GOD exists, or does not exist, then we will talk about theories that use him, as science.

When a scientist uses god in a theory it is because he is lazy. "I can't figure this out, therefore, god must have done it." This is laziness, and therefore any scientist that uses it, is NO longer a scientist, but a philosopher.

[Tribune7]

When a scientist uses god in a theory it is because he is lazy.

When a scientist claims a naturalistic begining to the universe he stops being a scientist.

[gore3000]

What do you think explains fossil remains that are remarkably similar to modern creatures that are alive today. What to you explains the closeness of DNA between the great apes and humans? What explains the fact that birds have the same bone structure as some dinosaurs?

Bones do not prove evolution or intelligent design. Bones do not provide sufficient data for making any kind of decision as to the origin of life. Bones leave out 99% of what is important about a species. For example we would never have been able to know that the platypus laid eggs if we did not have living example of it. In fact before it was discovered it was thought that all mammals were live bearing. There are many other features that bones cannot tell us. One of the most important is the mode of reproduction. To a great extent, the mode of reproduction is the most important feature as to how we classify species and this cannot be gathered from bones. In addition, the mode of reproduction affects directly the contentions of evolution about descent. How can one say that bones prove descent when the most basic part of descent is the mode of reproduction of a species and bones tell us nothing about it?????

As to monkeys, and humans and DNA the claim is false and it is typical of the kind of claims supporting evolution. That claim was made over a dozen years ago and neither the genomes of humans nor the genomes of any apes had been sequenced (indeed, the genomes of apes have not yet been sequenced) so the claim is false, it did not take into consideration the whole genome, only a small sample of it and we cannot tell if the part chosen was representative or not. In fact, the 'scientist' that made the 98% claim has since said it was wrong. Now he says we are only some 95% like chimps. However, an organism is not reducible to a count of the DNA bases. It is the functionality and abilities and interconnectedness of all of them that makes an organism work and that cannot be ascertained by mere counting of DNA bases. Can monkeys sing Opera? Can they write Hamlet? Can they paint the Sistine Chapel? Can they make cars, planes and ships? Don't think so. They are far removed from man in everything that gives life meaning - the claims of the charlatan Darwin notwithstanding.

[gore3000]

The man started spouting nonscientific BS in a science class.

No, he was giving SCIENTIFIC evidence against evolution. That is why he was harassed. The guy is an eminent scientist, he was not telling lies and it shows again that the only arguments you folk have against those who tell the truth is lies, misrepresentations and ad hominems:

Mr. Kenyon, who included three lectures in biological origins in his introductory course, had for many years made a practice of exposing students to both evolutionary theory and evidence uncongenial to it. He also discussed the philosophical controversies raised by the issue and his own view that living systems display evidence of intelligent design

[gore3000]

trained in science,

You, trained in science??????????

Ok Mr. Scientist, give us the exact scientific definition of evolution.

[AndrewC]

No, trained in science,

What scientific discipline has blacklists?