15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense [THE FINAL DEBUNKING]

Scientific American ^ | 17 June 2002 | John Rennie

[AndrewC]

You can learn something by replacing certain regulatory genes in, say, fruit flies with those from shrimp, resulting in flies with a more generalize arthropod body plan (more legs). That's not all that's fun in this area. Jonathan Wells can learn a bit on the subject, too.

Show me the flies(with more legs). Here is a rebuttal from Wells and others

Shrimp and Fruit Fly Cocktails

So the UCSD researchers did not produce a mutant shrimp. Apparently, they didn’t even produce a mutant fruit fly - they merely showed that a shrimp protein enabled a fruit fly embryo to form leg rudiments where they would have formed normally. The results are interesting, but they fall far short of demonstrating how an aquatic crustacean might have evolved into a terrestrial insect.

[Physicist]

No one can explain the addition of code.

Where do you get that? There are several known mechanisms by which new genes are created.

[Nebullis]

Apparently, they didn’t even produce a mutant fruit fly - they merely showed that a shrimp protein enabled a fruit fly embryo to form leg rudiments where they would have formed normally.

Wells is deliberately lawyering in this statement. They produced mutant fruit flies with suppressed limb development where limbs would have developed normally. As people would read it he's wrong, and you, knowing the material presented are wrong in perpetuating this misrepresentation. (Twice on this thread. You're on a roll!)

[AndrewC]

Wells is deliberately lawyering in this statement. They produced mutant fruit flies with suppressed limb development where limbs would have developed normally. As people would read it he's wrong, and you, knowing the material presented are wrong in perpetuating this misrepresentation. (Twice on this thread. You're on a roll!)

Thanks for the Ad Hominem. I tend to give people credit for using their minds.

ru·di·ment   Pronunciation Key  (rd-mnt)
n.

1. A fundamental element, principle, or skill, as of a field of learning. Often used in the plural.
2. Something in an incipient or undeveloped form. Often used in the plural: the rudiments of social behavior in children; the rudiments of a plan of action.
3. Biology. An imperfectly or incompletely developed organ or part.

[AndrewC]

Wells is deliberately lawyering in this statement.

I wonder where you get the impression that lawyering is a logical fallacy? If anything the charge itself is Ad Hominem.

[Nebullis]

Wells states: "Apparently, they didn’t even produce a mutant fruit fly ..."

He's wrong. They did produce a mutant fly.

I suppose it's not the mutant Wells wanted which may have been a fly that tastes like shrimp. Apparently, it's also not the mutant you wanted: "Show me the flies(with more legs)."

[F16Fighter]

"Now that you've read the erroneous creationist claim, take the time to read te article's rebuttal. Or would you rather not?"

With all due respect to an "interesting" thread, what's to "rebut"??

Must everyone to cheer for science's mammoth discovery that animals change colors to reflect their environment? No it's more than that. They wanted to kick things up a notch or two and try and float some pseudo-scientific theories about the beginning of life itself, but bit off more than they cold chew.

Having been accused of "Swiss-Cheese Logic, the Evolutionists' dog and pony show has back-peddled and re-tooled for a new strategy. The author now plays witch-hunt victim while attempting to chastise the Creationist for ridiculing EACH AND EVERY lame theory the Evolutionist can cook up and deservedly so.

It wasn't long ago when the reverse was true, but now that Johnson, Behe and others can't live with fantasyland of Darwinism any longer, the house of cards is tumbling down. It's much easier to do the math...

[VadeRetro]

Why are you tap-dancing around the question of how the whole bone-reading community can't tell a whale from something furry with teeth?

Like Pakicetus?
</AndrewC_mode>

[AndrewC]

Like Pakicetus?

Or their skulls

[AndrewC]

He's wrong. They did produce a mutant fly.

If you do not allow people to state things in their own way, yes, he's wrong. But I think people can communicate the message in more ways than you allow. So he can state

they merely showed that a shrimp protein enabled a fruit fly embryo to form leg rudiments where they would have formed normally.

unless you show me the flies with wings and malformed legs. Embryos were mentioned. I don't remember flies.

[VadeRetro]

Hardison would not have achieved those results had he simply removed all the designed software and firmware from his computer and just let it run randomly. No, he had to write a program. Having spent over 10-years in the past as a professional programmer, I know that programs do not come about via naturalistic processes and for the author to cite this particular example is specious at best. Who wrote evolution's program?

This kind of thing gets really dumb. It's the creationist's Desperation Last Defense. Anything a human does in the area of research can be argued to be designed. Pointing that out doesn't overthrow the result of the research. Too bad.

[f.Christian]

Evolution, being science, requires no faith at all, just observation of data and the application of reason.

420 posted on 6/17/02 11:09 AM Pacific by PatrickHenry

Evolution, being the opposite of science, requires no faith---intelligence at all, just fabrication--observation of non-existant data and the application of made up/rationalization-reason.

[VadeRetro]

Indeed, I misread/misremembered. They suppressed in the thorax, where legs should be, rather than added post-thorax where legs should not be.

Which actually helps you about as much as pointing out that this University of California Museum of Paleontology exhibit is a replica. (But that didn't stop you then, either. If you don't have evidence, make noise!)

[F16Fighter]

Creationism stands tall my friend. Many molecular biologists, now not fearing a very political scientific community, are becoming overwhelmed at the complexity of mere single cells which can mean only one thing -- HIS handy work. We can either accept that OR the trite ol' theory that a trillion chimps banging away at typewriters for trillions of years = Shakespeare.

As for the bludgeoning of evolutionists' sledgehammers upon the rest of us with junk food scientific theories, they are as you say -- "quasi" in nature, but yet ironically enough, religious in their fervor to "convince" the rest of us...

[VadeRetro]

Embryos were mentioned. I don't remember flies.

If lawyering isn't a fallacy, it should be.

[yendu bwam]

What's so imperfect about that? I have no doubt it's perfect for what he wanted it to accomplish; your aesthetic preferences notwithstanding.

How do you define the perfection that you believe has been created?

[yendu bwam]

Yes. Subtle is the Lord.

Yes, but the question is how did all those things arise from your mathematical God?

[yendu bwam]

Many send money to Nigerians and televangelists on the basis of inferred faith. Well, some inferrences are better than others, just as in science. Most who infer God's existence don't send money to televangelists!

[F16Fighter]

The Simpson's Nuclear Bomb/Mutant episode is one of my son's favorites...

[AndrewC]

Which actually helps you about as much as pointing out that this University of California Museum of Paleontology exhibit is a replica. (But that didn't stop you then, either. If you don't have evidence, make noise!)

As if Ad Hominem helps your argument. You are the one making mistakes. Evidence has been posted, you ignore it. So what. It won't go away. Evidence is what caused you to change from mesonychus to pakicetus. Pakicetus is hanging on by a thread. When they find the Hippo/whale link you can kiss him goodbye as a whale. What will they call him then? Pakihoaxus?