(This is growing incredibly long. Last time I'm going to repost this. I'll just edit this post and refer Junior to it when I have updates. So he can dutifully ignore the, now, 50 claims he's made that really need some small shred of actual evidence.)


1) 2

2) 3

3) 3

4) 3

5) 5

6) 5

7) 6

9) 7

10) 7

11) 8

12) 8

13) 9

14) 10

15) 10

16) 12

17) 12

19) 12

20) 13

21) 13

22) 14

23) 14

24) 14

25) 15

26) 16


27) 16

29) 16

30) 16

31) 17

32) 17

33) 17

34) 18

35) 18

35) 18

36) 18

37) 18

39) 19

40) 19

41) 20

42) 20

43) 20

44) 21

45) 21

46) 21

47) 21

49) 22

50) 23

51) 24

52) 24


53) 24

54) 25

55) 25

56) 26

57) 26

[b]58 ) 26

59) 26

60) 26

61) 29

62) 30

63) 30

64) 31

65) 31

66) 32

67) 32

68 ) 32

69) 34

70) 36

71) 37

72) 39

. 39








Have you abandoned your claim no new "information" can be added to the genome? You've not defined information nor assailed the mechanisms I've shown you by which new DNA code can be added to the genome.




[quote]Major genome duplication events are not uncommon. It is believed that the entire yeast genome underwent duplication about 100 million years ago[4]. Plants are the most prolific genome duplicators. For example, wheat is hexaploid (a kind of polyploid), meaning that it has six duplicate copies of its genome.[/quote]


Now here is the problem with your claims about the mathematical improbability of mutations resulting in anything beneficial. It only takes into account [url=]point mutations.[/url] That is merely one kind of mutation. Reproduction, however, can result in whole genes or even whole chromosomes being duplicated. Thats a whole lotta new information being inserted.


Now you cited a paper by Behe (who believes in an old earth) that gene duplication does not result in new functions via mutation. His claim was based on the probability argument. His argument has been shown not to hold water:


In sum, you still need to assail the mechanisms above.


Now you seemed to clarify here:



Paleopolyploidization Once again...a matter of either duplicating/ copying pre-existing DNA: nothing brand new added. or retaining useful genes, or losing genes during diploidissation. Read it for yourself. Granted the cells may increase in size, but they remain the same. What is new or different about a slightly bigger clone?


So your claim now is mistakes in reproduction results in the addition of duplicate genes et al. But they don't mutate? They remain the same forever and never code for new proteins? Contrary to all scientific evidence I've listed regarding gene duplication in question 4 that show gene duplication, mutation, and new function developing per those duplicated genes. You've made another claim to back a claim. But do you have scientific evidence now to back your second claim?


And you still need to define "information"






That creatures have remained exactly the same for millenia.


Where is your scientific evidence to support this view? You showed us a web site with many pretty pictures and someone making a claim "look no change!" But that's a claim. In science, you'd provide actual evidence for the lack of change.


Further, so what? Evolution expects well adapted species to not change unless there's a radical change in their environment. You're merely cataloging examples. Let's examine Gould's testimony in McLean v. Arkansas on this point:





THE COURT: Did you say equilibrium?


GOULD: Equilibrium. I did leave out a point there. [b]That most species, successful species living in large populations, do not change. In fact, are fairly stable in the fossil record and live for a long time. The average duration of marine invertebrate species was five to ten million years. During that time they may fluctuate mildly in morphology, but most of them — I don't say there aren't exceptions — most of them don't change very much. That's what we would expect for large, successful, well-adapted populations.[/b]

 And that's the equilibrium part. By punctuation, we refer to those events of speciation where descendent species rather rapidly in geological perspectives split off from their ancestors. And that's the second point.[/quote]


I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by pointing out a fact of evolution.






variety is decreasing.


Based on what evidence? Most ecological niches only support one or two species. There's a lot of variety when you look at the whole scope of time.




 (claim fails)


none of them contained clear, empirically supported examples of information-gaining, beneficial mutations.


Clear to whom? The author or the peers who reviewed the published article? Fallacy here is equivocation. What's his test for clear, empirical support?


Dispute this:


[quote]1: Trends Genet. 2005 Jan;21(1):46-53.Click here to read Links

    Gene duplication and complex circadian clocks in mammals.

    Looby P, Loudon AS.


    Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.


    The circadian clock arose early in the evolution of life to enable organisms to adapt to the cycle of day and night. Recently, the extent and importance of circadian regulation of behaviour and physiology has come to be more fully realized. Core molecular cogs of circadian oscillators appear to have been largely conserved between such diverse organisms as Drosophila melanogaster and mammals. However, gene duplication events have produced multiple copies of many clock genes in mammals. Recent studies suggest that genome duplication has lead to increased circadian complexity and local tissue regulation. This has important implications for temporal regulation of behaviour via multiple clocks in the central nervous system, and also extends to the local physiology of major body organs and tissues.


    PMID: 15680514 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE][/quote]


Gene duplicaiton = new information, not a loss. Plus new functionality.


Grab a look here:


Spontaneous mutations in diploid Saccharomyces cerevisiae: more beneficial than expected. Joseph SB, Hall DW. Genetics. 2004 [url=]Dec;168(4):1817-25.[/url]


[quote]We performed a 1012-generation mutation-accumulation (MA) experiment in the yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The MA lines exhibited a significant reduction in mean fitness and a significant increase in variance in fitness. We found that 5.75% of the fitness-altering mutations accumulated were beneficial. This finding contradicts the widely held belief that nearly all fitness-altering mutations are deleterious. The mutation rate was estimated as 6.3 x 10(-5) mutations per haploid genome per generation and the average heterozygous fitness effect of a mutation as 0.061. These estimates are compatible with previous estimates in yeast.[/quote]


The chemokine receptor 5 Delta32 mutation is associated with increased renal survival in patients with IgA nephropathy. Panzer, et al. Kidney Int. [url=]2005 Jan;67(1):75-81. [/url]


Here's a new one:


[quote]Perfeito, L., L. Fernandes, C. Mota, and I. Gordo. 2007. Adaptive mutations in bacteria: high rate and small effects. Science 317: 813-815.


Abstract: Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10–5 per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity.[/quote]


Note the end of the paper:

[quote]Given the estimates for the overall mutation rate in E. coli and its genomic deleterious mutation rate, our estimate of Ua implies that 1 in 150 newly arising mutations is beneficial and that 1 in 10 fitness-affecting mutations increases the fitness of the individual carrying it. Hence, an enterobacterium has an enormous potential for adaptation and may help explain how antibiotic resistance and virulence evolve so quickly.[/quote]


This has been put to you a couple times now and you've not responded. Your claim fails.






Such a complex structure can only function if all its separate parts emerge at the same time and in full working order. Otherwise, it will serve no purpose, and will fall apart over time and disappear.


Again, you've got evolution 100% wrong. Please find one non-hostile source that claims or even intimates evolution works in the way you claim, that complex structures emerge at the same time and in full working order.


Read. Learn. But you won't.


Question: where does the above go wrong?






It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance. This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations, but also by mathematical calculations of probability. In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell.


I asked you for the source of this claim. What scientific paper has argued such? You did not answer and you simply restated your original premise. Only you seem to think that's a good argument.


Let me ask this simply:


You claimed there were experiments. What?

You claimed there were observations. What?


(Remember low question numbers mean this question remains unanswered for a long long time now.)




 (Claim fails)



In fact all evidence shows cells are unchanged since time immerorial. If you tell me certain fossils are X million years old, why do they have identical cells to today?


What do you mean by identical cells? Because a nerve cell isn't really identical to a red blood cell. New cells have certainly appeared according to evolution. Red blood cells, photosensitive cells, cells that can digest nylon.


[quote]Although the cells show some modern traits, they crucially lack others.


"Even in these late-stage embryos, there is no evidence of the formation of a tissue layer," said Dr Donoghue. [/quote]




[quote]The moderate diversity of preservable eukaryotic organisms includes cell walls without surface ornament (but with complex ultrastructure), with regularly distributed surface ornamentation, and with irregularly or regularly arranged processes.[/quote]


What? I thought you said cells haven't changed?


Anyway, your claim fails based on the evidence.


[b]8 )[/b]


What is your current position on "there are no positive mutations?" Because although you seem to indicate your position is (a) you keep cut 'n' pasting claims that accept (a), (b), (c).


a) There are no positive mutations.


b) There are positive mutations but none that add "information". All mutations mean a loss in DNA code.


c) There are positive mutations that add "information" but none that can add new features/morphological changes.


d) There are positive mutations that add "information" and can add new features/morphological changes but there are no accumulation of positive mutations that can result in macro changes.




I noticed even your creationwiki states there are positive mutations. Check out its lists of arguments creationists shouldn't use:


[quote]There are no beneficial mutations


    Some information-losing mutations can be beneficial in the right circumstances. [/quote]


So creationwiki supports A but not B, C, D. Do you agree?






Once again, science should be based on evidence, not theory.


Do you believe theory in science is not based on evidence? Do you believe science calls things "theories" without significant lines of evidence?


I think you clarified this with:



Any other theory is subjected to the utmost scrutiny..with evolution any new idea is rubber stamped and fed to the masses on a whim. "God .is .dead, God. is .dead' is the zombie mantra you've been subliminally fed since birth.


In other words, evolutionary theory is not subject to scrutiny by science while some other undefined science is. First, give me an example of a science you believe is sufficiently scrutinized. I would gather the vast majority of astronomy isn't, in your opinion, as it claims the universe is 14 billion years old, not 6,000. Nuclear physics is likewise out as it directly claims radiometric decay indicates rocks are millions of years old, again contrary to your belief the universe is 6,000 years old. Since evolution is at the core of modern biology and genetics I guess you also toss those out as unscrutinized science.


Also, many of the top journals like Nature and Science publish a range of the BEST papers from many fields of science. So are Nature and Science totally crap? Or do they apply a different level of scrutiny to evolution?


Also, you fault evolution for making claims, not subjecting them to rigor, and then simply fed to the masses. However, when creationists make claims and don't back them up with similar scrutiny (ie, Castenedolo and Calaveras remains), you're more than happy to feed this to us as evidence. You see no double standard here?





Do you believe your creation scientists are doing real science? If so, where is their published, peer reviewed research? Where is, at least, their published, peer reviewed criticism of the various lines of evidence of evolution? Do they only take their arguments to the public via web pages? Or do they take their arguments to science via the system of science?


You claimed:


"You think creationists aren't committed scientists? that test and conduct research?"


Being a scientist doesn't mean their claim is correct. They need to test those claims and then submit them for inspection by their peers and allow such tests to be repeated. So I'm sure you can provide me with links to the real claim testing that's going on.


The earth is 6,000 years old. If science claimed a date for the earth, they would do hard research to support that claim. 6,000 years old is a huge whopping claim and one that BEGS REALLY GOOD SCIENCE FROM YOUR COMMITTED SCIENTISTS. So where is it? Are they so freakin' lazy they can't do a hair of actual research on this huge boner of a claim?




 You asked for evidence for macro evolution


Pick one. What's the problems you see? No hand waving now or hand waving by proxy. Your first response was, unfortunately, hand waving. I'm particular curious about the molecular evidence and where you think that line of evidence goes wrong. Humans, apes, and other species share certain genetic errors that could not have come about via random chance. More recent their common ancestor, more shared errors. You waved your hand and claimed these errors came about after "the fall". Errr. That still doesn't explain how human and apes have shared errors unless they had a common ancestor. Please explain the origin of these errors. Because evolution does. And it's the only theory on the table that does.




Here is your hand waving:


a) how many involve the development of new structures? 0


What do you mean by new structures? And so what?


b) how many involve a new function by losing information/ malfunction? most


Give me an example and the scientific evidence.


c) how many could account for massive evolutionary change across all species as proposed by evolutionary theory? 0


Alone? No. But that's what a scientific theory is. It is multiple lines of evidence (29 in this case). No single line may be sufficient.


d) how many involve bacterial variations falling within the limited expression of existing traits? Most


Give me an example and the scientific evidence.


You claimed you did "research" but you never showed me the research. I note your previous research claimed evidence for man/dino tracks but the research, when we evolutionists actually bothered to hit the page down button, found out it was just about hominid tracks. Research? Show me. Don't tell me. This one is still firmly in the hand waving category.






if you think about it.. most environmental changes have been rapid.


Really? Because those glaciers just popped out of nowhere. What evidence do you have to support that claim?




Another user put it to you: what rapid environmental change killed off the dinosaurs in Cambodia? Or was it over hunting? If hunting, why have no dino hunter ever kept a trophy. All hunters keep trophies, no? Especially of impressive beasts. Why no scale coats, teeth, bones, etc?


According to Hovind:


"After the flood they were hunted to the point of extinction in most parts of the world by man."


So all this hunting all over the world and not a single trophy kept anywhere? Why have dino bones been found in middens? Why are no mighty hunters buried with dino trophies? Why do we only find animal bones contemporary with the hunters of the day? Why no trilobite necklaces?


You did not that the Sahara became a desert in the space of 300 years. I'd agree that's rapid. But you stated "most". One example is not most. No one says rapid change is not impossible.





Do you really think creationwiki is a valid scientific source? If it references no actual scientific research, is this good evidence? Your one source on mutations references the watchtower. Is that a scientific journal with peer review? Do you believe the watchtower offers correct biblical interpretations? If not, then why do you assume they will provide objective science?


You keep repeating this Watchtower claim about no positive mutations but where's your evidence?'t_produce_new_features


It's a nice little fantasy and it lists two sources:



* Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. [b]1985[/b]

. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 103.

* Morris, Henry M. [b]1985[/b]

. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 51.


Leaving aside these sources are not scientific sources (you really believe what the Jehovah's Witnesses have to say?), [b]how do sources from 1985 counter papers published and cited as evidence from the 1990s and the start of this century?[/b]


Again, pretty, pretty claims but where's the evidence?






Do you believe DNA can survive 50 million years? how about soft tissue? or bacteria? because all of this has lasted apparently much longer than scientists allow. Because the earth is much younger than thought.


What is your dating method for arriving at the young age of these so called items? Going to invoke "common knowledge" again? Sorry, personal incredulity is not evidence. Another fallacy you keep making. Maybe the DNA isn't 25 million years old but 3 million years old. Or 800,000 years old. What is your scientific justification for YOUR date?




 (claim fails)



There is no way around it, the variation or changes cannot become massive if all it does is re-arrange the existing DNA, it is severely limited to that.


What is your evidence for this? I've shown already that a small change in a single gene can result in a tangible morphological change. You had no counter argument.  Such changes over time lead to new species. And you're also ignoring the other half of the mutation mechanism where whole new blocks of DNA are added via errors in replication. Mutation is not merely shuffling the existing deck. It's also adding whole new cards and sometimes whole new decks. I outlined this in regards to item 1.


What evidence do you have the above does not occur?


Dispute gene/morphology changes:


You might also want to familiarize yourself with homeobox dna as we'll probably get into that regarding simple mutations and morphological change:


A few to chew on when you're up to speed:


Dlx5 drives Runx2 expression and osteogenic differentiation in developing cranial suture mesenchyme.

Holleville N, Matéos S, Bontoux M, Bollerot K, Monsoro-Burq AH.


CNRS UMR 7128, Institut d'Embryologie Cellulaire et Moléculaire, 94736 Nogent-sur-Marne, France.


Craniofacial bones derive from cephalic neural crest, by endochondral or intramembranous ossification. Here, we address the role of the homeobox transcription factor Dlx5 during the initial steps of calvaria membranous differentiation and we show that Dlx5 elicits Runx2 induction and full osteoblast differentiation in embryonic suture mesenchyme grown "in vitro". First, we compare Dlx5 expression to bone-related gene expression in the developing skull and mandibular bones. We classify genes into three groups related to consecutive steps of ossification. Secondly, we study Dlx5 activity in osteoblast precursors, by transfecting Dlx5 into skull mesenchyme dissected prior to the onset of either Dlx5 and Runx2 expression or osteogenesis. We find that Dlx5 does not modify the proliferation rate or the expression of suture markers in the immature calvaria cells. Rather, Dlx5 initiates a complete osteogenic differentiation in these early primary cells, by triggering Runx2, osteopontin, alkaline phosphatase, and other gene expression according to the sequential temporal sequence observed during skull osteogenesis "in vivo". Thirdly, we show that BMP signaling activates Dlx5, Runx2, and alkaline phosphatase in those primary cultures and that a dominant-negative Dlx factor interferes with the ability of the BMP pathway to activate Runx2 expression. Together, these data suggest a pivotal role of Dlx5 and related Dlx factors in the onset of differentiation of chick calvaria osteoblasts.


A new eutriconodont mammal and evolutionary development in early mammals.

Luo ZX, Chen P, Li G, Chen M.


Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennysylvania 15213, USA.


Detachment of the three tiny middle ear bones from the reptilian mandible is an important innovation of modern mammals. Here we describe a Mesozoic eutriconodont nested within crown mammals that clearly illustrates this transition: the middle ear bones are connected to the mandible via an ossified Meckel's cartilage. The connected ear and jaw structure is similar to the embryonic pattern in modern monotremes (egg-laying mammals) and placental mammals, but is a paedomorphic feature retained in the adult, unlike in monotreme and placental adults. This suggests that reversal to (or retention of) this premammalian ancestral condition is correlated with different developmental timing (heterochrony) in eutriconodonts. This new eutriconodont adds to the evidence of homoplasy of vertebral characters in the thoraco-lumbar transition and unfused lumbar ribs among early mammals. This is similar to the effect of homeobox gene patterning of vertebrae in modern mammals, making it plausible to extrapolate the effects of Hox gene patterning to account for homoplastic evolution of vertebral characters in early mammals.


Pelvic skeleton reduction and Pitx1 expression in threespine stickleback populations.

Bell MA, Ellis KE, Sirotkin HI.


Department of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245, USA.


The pelvic skeleton of threespine stickleback fish contributes to defence against predatory vertebrates, but rare populations exhibit vestigial pelvic phenotypes. Low ionic strength water and absence of predatory fishes are associated with reduction of the pelvic skeleton, and lack of Pitx1 expression in the pelvic region is evidently the genetic basis for pelvic reduction in several populations. Pelvic vestiges in most populations are larger on the left (left-biased), apparently because Pitx2 is expressed only on that side. We used whole-mount in situ hybridization to study Pitx1 expression in 19 populations of Gasterosteus aculeatus from lakes around Cook Inlet, Alaska, USA. As expected, specimens from six populations with full pelvic structures usually expressed Pitx1 in the limb bud; those from eight populations with left-biased pelvic reduction usually did not express it. Specimens from one of three populations with right-biased or unbiased pelvic reduction sometimes expressed Pitx1. One of two populations in which the pelvic spines (but not the girdle) are usually absent often expressed Pitx1. In terms of Jacob's 1977 'tinkering' metaphor, Pitx1 was the spare part with which natural selection usually tinkered for stickleback pelvic reduction, but it also tinkered with other genes that have smaller effects.


PMID: 17710856 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


And about your research skills. You claimed you did "research". That's claim 11. (Ain't it great I faithfully document your claims, evasions, and hand waving and can bring them up in a second, lest we have to debate again your silly claim for the nth time. It really would be easier if you just got the scientific evidence for your claims. Not just answering claims with more claims.)





What is your definition of a transitional fossil? What would you accept as evidence for such? I've noted, for example, if we found modern humans in geological layers where we only find trilobites, I would accept that as a solid disproof of evolution. What would you accept as evidence for a transitional form or feature?


Answered! Gosh! 1 out of 16! Unfortunately it's not quite the definition peer reviewed science uses so I understand why your reject this evidence. So then let me ask you:


Why do you think paleontology accepts this as evidence?





Thus..we need fossils of somthing that is almost a stegasaurus.


And your definition of "almost" is?


Anyway, dispute, for example, the fossils that show the transition from reptile jaws to mammalian jaws.






Bones and hard material will readilly fossilize. So will soft bodied organisms.(This is for you JMO & mindmetoo).


Readily? What is your evidence soft bodied organisms "readily" fossilize?



[quote][b]18 )[/b]



The Cambrian era is characterised by the sudden appearance of highly complex lifeforms.


Define sudden.






The Cambrian era is characterised by the sudden appearance of highly complex lifeforms. Such lifeforms would have required precursors: transitional, intermediate forms. Yet there are none. Not a single one. The strata representing the era immediately prior reveals little more than single celled lifeforms. No evolutionist, letalone eslteachers on a this messageboard, can explain the mystery.


This has been provided many times.


What are your problems with it? Never answered this direct question. C'mon, demolish this link.


You state:


You already largely ignored the Cambrian explosion part of this debate. Now I'll follow your example of digging in heels until you provide an answer. OK?


But it's been sitting in question 19 for several days now. Read. Don't hand wave.






Theres your naiivete once again. The earth is flat was at the core of "modern science" for how many centuries? You think modern biology is advanced? So why can't they make a functioning cell in a lab? When it comes to the mastery behind creation, we humans are far lower than amoebas on the intellectual scale.


No. Modern science and the process of science emerged long after the shape of the earth was known. Many religious people thought it was flat. But many employing the inklings of the scientific method understood the shape of the earth and calculated it's circumference accurately. Your analogy is faulty.


And again, it is peer reviewed science that over throws older ideas in science. I don't know many pastors who have over thrown a scientific theory from the pulpit and with cute, unsubstantiated claims.


How do you think web pages full of untested claims, even if proposed by scientists, can over throw evolution if they don't actually test those claims?




You also claim the catholic church viewed the earth as flat but not protestants. There were certainly plenty of Catholics who believed the earth was round, contrary to church dogma. Could you provide an example of a representative body of the protestant religion that promoted the idea of a round earth before catholic acceptance?






Creationists have claimed they are identical to a child barefoot. Such a possibility is clearly not even mentioned in your evolution factbooks. I don't possess photos of the prints or photos of a barefoot child to compare them, so i can't say; but it at least seems a possibility and one that no doubt evolutionists fail to adress. if you can find them doing so, put it up.


Yeah. Claimed. And their evidence is? They are making this claim it's human prints. Why should evolutionists make this claim? Where is their evidence for their claim? (You made this claim twice, twice I challenged you for the evidence, twice you didn't provide evidence. Sure seems to me when you ask me to back up my claims, I do. You habitually don't. Why? You have none?)




 (claim fails)


You offered the Castenedolo skeletons as evidence modern humans existed in earlier geological strata. Tomato pointed out:


ANSWERED! You retracted your claim!




 (claim fails)



It is an "unfalsifiable" hypothesis.


First, don't you claim you've put it asunder with all your mighty unsupported claims? Odd you believe you've falsified it out of one side of your mouth but out of the other side you claim it's unfalsifiable. Fallacy: inconsistency.


Again more evidence you're simply not reading the evidence and waving your hands.


That link which you simply dismissed without argument or even clarification when I called for it makes it very clear how the evidence can be falsified. You're wrong and speaking from an obvious position of gross ignorance on this matter. Sorry. Try again.


Do you still believe evolution is unfalsifiable?


You recently returned to this claim despite question 23, despite being told by the participants, even, what they would considered a falsification. Anyway, you've simply ignored this evidence and stuck your head in a dark bucket.






6. If intelligent design relies on weak arguments and analogies, why has it been relatively successful in the past few years at getting a serious airing…?


Where? Before scientific conferences? In peer reviewed journals? Oh you mean creationist web sites and churches? Define "serious airing". Oprah's The Secret has gotten a lot of "serious airing". The Secret is based on weak arguments. UFOs and psychic research get a lot of "serious airing". Are these things valid because they get this undefined airing?


ID has been kicking around as a hypothesis for 25 years. Creationism, well, forever. Now, here's an interesting thing. In real science, if a hypothesis has legs, if there is something to it, it evolves (ha) into a real scientific discipline. Departments at major universities are set up. Journals appear. Nature/Science publish papers. You can't hold back science when there's real science to it. DNA to now? The discovery of the neutron to now? Computers? Aeronautics? Antibiotics?


Science is done by young, fiercely independent ego driven people. Think of Dave's users. That's the hyper competitive level in science. Young grad students all want to make their name chasing down new ideas. If there's something to ID, something really behind fancy ID ideas like organisms bring about their own change, people will get on this and do research. But they don't. Why? Because it's crap. Total crap without a shred of evidence or even biologic probability.


The hallmark of a pseudoscience, like creationism/ID, is:


a) they keep restating their claims in the popular literature (the eye is too complex has been kicking around since Darwin's day)


b) they don't scientifically test their claims.


The world is 6,000 years old. Test that claim. Sure seems to me scientists all around the globe without western religious political baggage would kinda notice the supposed evidence for a 6,000 year old earth. Odd science in the 19th century approached geology under the assumption that the world was very young and the flood created mountains and valleys. But as they accumulated evidence, they began to conclude very different things.


Why do you suppose ID/creationism has offered nothing new, let alone strong scientific evidence of some core claims like a young earth, even after 100+ years?




Oh, conspiracy. Right?




 (claim fails)


From Tomato:


I just learned something which shattered my faith in humanity:

The Creationists accused a scientist of attempting to erase evidence of human-dinosaur footprints:


but the accusation was not true:


And here I thought Creationists were good Christians who don't bear false witness!


I thought all those lies in evolution were fatal to the theory. What about these lies? Not fatal? You call evolutionists liars. Your sources don't lie?






Rapier, here are two sites you've provided as evidence:


You claimed this was evidence of humans in very old strata, thereby a falsification of evolution.


You also cite the creationwiki as some kind of authority. Now check out this link from your site:



The Castenedolo and Calaveras human remains in "old" strata invalidate the geologic column. The evidence is not sound.[/quote]


So site 1 says "it's evidence of humans in old strata" and site 2 lists it under "Arguments that should definitely not be used". So which way do you want to have it? Which source do you trust?


ANSWERED! You retracted your claim about castenedolo. I trust you won't use anymore?





Behe believes in an old earth and common descent. You've used his claims on ID and gene duplication. Clearly you believe in a young earth. If Behe is so much in error as regards his theories that require an old earth, why do you view his claims as valid, since at their core they run contrary to your belief in a young earth.


[b]28 )[/b]


Let me put it to you fast 'n' simple:


Young earth.


What evidence?





Where is your limit in terms of change? I think you've claimed previously species can change enough that they lose the ability interbreed, which is pretty much one of the definitions of a new species. A wolf can change into a dog but it will always be a dog. What is your evidence mutation can't carry it past "dogness"? Not claims. Evidence.






Once again, where are the fossils showing your transition from single cells to complex organisms with bones, fins, legs, wings, eyes, hearts, lungs, kidneys, and so on? Where are they?


What evolutionist claims the fossil record represents this kind of gapless, linear evolution?






If it wasn't for creationists uncovering all your forgeries and sleight of hand, who knows what heights of ridiculous fantasy you'd be teaching.


Maybe you could name one example where a creationist has righted a scientific wrong. Claim. Evidence.


When you speak of forgeries, do you mean Dmitri Kouznetsov. A creationist?


It seems to me evolutionists uncover your lies (see question 25 as well). Not the other way around. *pat* *pat*






Scientific research supports my claims better than it does yours.


You yourself admit there is no scientific evidence you can call upon. So it's odd now you're doing a 180 and claiming science supports your claims. Gosh. Which is it?


Do you have peer reviewed scientific evidence to support 6,000 year old earth, super DNA that let man live 900 years, the flood, etc? If you got it, lay it on the table. Because you doubt evolution does not then mean your beliefs win by default. That's a false dichotomy.





My statement of the ID argument (which I remind you involves an old earth):


Organisms engineer themselves. The genome only rearranges existing DNA.


Your acceptance:


here are the only 2 sentences of truth i've ever heard you utter.


That's your claim. Another claim. So you got the evidence that organisms engineer themselves and also do it in the space of 6,000 years?






So... if everyone obeyed the christian commands "thou shalt not kill, commit adultery, steal, lie" etc etc then it would have no impact?


Actually those are the Jewish commands. So right, if we were all good Jews life would be good. Do you agree?






You saying everything no longer with us is because it changed into something else?


Do you believe we've been saying all this time that everything alive evolves into something else? Do you believe this is a central claim of evolution? If so, can you provide a non hostile link that makes this claim about evolution.


To cite your creationwiki:


"Evolutionary theory does not require the parent species to become extinct."






The findings suggest that genetic diversity was greater in earlier Neanderthal history than in later times, when modern humans started to arrive in Europe.


First modern humans are not linear descendants of the neanderthal. They are our cousins. Their heterozygosity has nothing to do with humans. Second many populations undergo reduced heterozygosity. Who said some populations and species don't experience this. Again, you've been given examples of mutation that increases information and function.


What is the point of this reference other than example of what evolution predicts: some populations under go bottlenecks? Some recover. Some don't.





You stated Mars once underwent a global flood. What is this evidence of? The Genesis account happened on Mars? That Europa is a moon covered entirely in liquid water is evidence some planets can be covered in water. So what? This is a non sequitur. What is your scientific evidence the Earth once was earthy and then was covered in a global flood in a short period of time and then the water all went away?






So tell me tomato- why does virtually every new fossil discovery nowadays force scientists to realise that such complex species lived "far earlier than previously thought?"


What is your basis for the claim virtually every new fossil forces a roll back of dates? The ones that require a roll back are news worthy. The ones that don't don't make the popular press. This is a form of the file drawer effect. Some fossil finds will push back dates. Some won't . Some me evidence virtually every new fossil is pushing back dates. No cherry picking now.


[b]38 )[/b]



Adam apparently had chromosomal fusion. No longer perfect- eating that apple was a costly slip up. Humans also had greater genetic variety in their DNA. It has been lost- by mutation. Organisms including humans have been playing a losing game ever since that first mistake. to illustrate this...


Apparently? Ummm. Like. You got evidence for that? Or even something that supports the claim in terms of biologic plausibility?





You cite this article as evidence of human/Neanderthal interbreeding:


You cite this article as evidence of all evolution results in loss:


Oddly, the second article contradicts the first.


"The DNA studies conducted so far suggest little, if any, interbreeding between Neanderthals and moderns took place."


So which is it in your scientific opinion? Interbred or not?


Also the livescience page links to:


Weird you trust such a source that so wholly embraces, gasp, evolution.





greedy_bones wrote:


ancestors of modern tetrapods are the tetrapodomorphs of which there are numerous fossils and exhibit characteristics which are part fish/part amphibian and are closely related to both the coelocanths and the lungfish.


Junior wrote:




From one of the paper's below:


"Although the body scales, fin rays, lower jaw and palate are comparable to those in more primitive sarcopterygians, the new species also has a shortened skull roof, a modified ear region, a mobile neck, a functional wrist joint, and other features that presage tetrapod conditions."


This is exactly the scientific definition of a transitional fossil. Older species A, newer species C. Middle species B with characteristics of both.


Now you have any published peer reviewed science to contradict? Your page has a lot of claims. Claims. Evidence?





Nowhere Man wrote:


This pushing, based on geological evidence, has taken millions of years to occur.


Junior wrote:


Thats based on the assumption that everything has always happened at the same pace it does when they studied it.


You have evidence to doubt this assumption? Further, who claims this is the assumption? Evidence.







You see you start with an ancestor exiting the ark. By a process of culling genetic information, isolated populations then take new forms. Devolution. For example you have the mosquitos that took only 50 years to form a new species in Londons underground-virtually impossible now to cross one of them with the ones living above ground.


So we can get a new species in 50 years but in 60 million years there just isn't enough time for other stuff. Uh huh.





(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.


Saying "there are some things you won't figure out" is not really a scientific prediction. We call that pessimism. How do we distinguish between things just hard to figure out and things that have no solution in biology? And such is already an assumption of any scientific endeavor. But as noted previously, if this is a prediction, it's not fared very well. Flagellum? Failed. Clotting? Failed. Bombardier beetle? Failed.







Fossilized seashells on the mountaintops?


What are mountain tops now used to be below sea level. Do you have evidence these mountain tops were not once below sea level?






You're 75% the same as a nematode worm.,for example,- according to the Human Genome project. Its perfectly possible for vastly different organisms to share almost the same DNA configuration.


Yes. Perfectly in keeping with evolution. Again, I refer you to that link on cladistics. Read it. Come back and tell me then why this is troubling.





You've cited the Meister prints as evidence of a contemporary man/trilobite time frame. Do you still believe this is good evidence:


"After mainstream rebuttals of this find were published in the 1980's (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986; Strahler, 1987), most creationists quietly and wisely ceased promoting this specimen. However, a few individuals continue to advocate it as an out-of-order fossil."


Indeed, your AiG site also argues against this as evidence:


"7. The Meister sandalprint is uncritically accepted, despite not being part of a trackway, and despite the geology there being such that all sorts of flat, spawled shapes arise from natural processes."


What kind of research are you doing? Remember you require rigor. Is this an example of rigor on your part?





Regarding your claim that the Bible is full of modern scientific insight. To quote your creationwiki:


"There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible

    The original authors did not intend it to be understood the way that some people read science into it."


Do you still believe this? What does the bible have to say on heliocentrism? Anything about the American or Antarctic continents?


[b]48 )[/b]



Does neofunctionalization come under your definition of "random"? It illustrates how organisms can engineer themselves to a degree. It shows design.

Could you supply the scientific evidence for this?


Where you getting this? Lets look at a paper on neofunctionalization.


[quote]Rapid Subfunctionalization Accompanied by Prolonged and Substantial Neofunctionalization in Duplicate Gene Evolution

Xionglei He and Jianzhi Zhang1

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

1 Corresponding author: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, 3003 Natural Science Bldg., 830 North University Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48109.


[b]Gene duplication is the primary source of new genes. Duplicate genes that are stably preserved in genomes usually have divergent functions.[/b]

 The general rules governing the functional divergence, however, are not well understood and are controversial. The neofunctionalization (NF) hypothesis asserts that after duplication one daughter gene retains the ancestral function while the other acquires new functions. In contrast, the subfunctionalization (SF) hypothesis argues that duplicate genes experience degenerate mutations that reduce their joint levels and patterns of activity to that of the single ancestral gene. We here show that neither NF nor SF alone adequately explains the genome-wide patterns of yeast protein interaction and human gene expression for duplicate genes. Instead, our analysis reveals rapid SF, accompanied by prolonged and substantial NF in a large proportion of duplicate genes, suggesting a new model termed subneofunctionalization (SNF). [b]Our results demonstrate that enormous numbers of new functions have originated via gene duplication.[/b]



So what's any of this got to do with genes engineering themselves? Where is your evidence neofunctionalization is about genes engineering themselves. All I see is more evidence that gene duplication adds new function.





Junior, do you really understand the difference between a claim and scientific evidence?






You've just tried a sleight of hand maneouvre to repackage and present Paleopolyploidy as "evolution". Crafty guise indeed.


It's not? Based on what evidence?


What is your problem with the above?





mindmetoo wrote:

You'll notice when I make claims, I support them with either links to the primary research (ie pubmed abstracts) or secondary sources that list the primary references.



-links that don't actually back you up, how useful Laughing


Could you give me an example of a link that doesn't back up one of my claims? Very odd again, you make a claim without supporting evidence. You can't even use the material within this debate to support your claim. So claim. Evidence?






Alleles are not cannons shuttling around a deck until they by chance fit into a slot: they are designed to perform a service with incredible accuracy.


Oh, designed. Could you supply the scientific evidence for this?





Junior wrote:


Its a ductile fold.


I'm still curious where you found this claim about the Grand Canyon.





Junior wrote:


How then did your nylon bugs produce exactly the right reaction and function required, at the right moment, as and when needed, on cue? Surely they would have randomly tried a billion useless adaptations before by chance hitting the right one? You see organisms have been made by a benevolent creator that allowed them to be self regulating to some degree. God foresaw changes in the world and made organisms perfectly designed to adapt as and when needed. randomness just cannot account for the degree of microevolution or the way in which organisms regulate themselves.


To this claim, I asked for evidence. How is the nylon bug not an example of mutation that adds information and provides a beneficial adaptation but now an example of "design"? It should be noted Junior has been provided the nylon bug page. Think he looked at it? No. Because then he offered this bizarre page:


Which talks about recombination, mentions nothing about the nylon bug, and doesn't even deal with the insertion/frame shift that resulted in the ability of the bacteria to digest nylon.


Weirder still he seems to cite a paper that only supports genetic evolution. Junior cited this:


"The ability to induce homologous recombination in response to unfavorable environmental changes would be adaptive for each species, as it would increase genetic diversity and would help to avoid species' extinction. Homologous recombination would be more efficient for evolution than random mutagenesis or nonhomologous recombination. Although the latter two will mostly disrupt previously existing genes rather than creating new ones, homologous recombination can use previously existing genes as building blocks, thus enabling the creation of new proteins with more complex functions in a step-by-step manner." 13 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98(15):8425-8432 (2001)"


So, Junior:


I don't see how this paper is inconsistent with genetic evolution or argues for "design". Recombination is the process by which we avoid the accumulation of deleterious mutations. If we didn't evolve this, we'd not be here. And note the "step by step". That's exactly what evolution argues for. One grain at a time. One grain at a time, my lil DP. So thanks for citing a paper in support. Also the paper runs counter to your claims everything results in a loss of genetic diversity. You're not really very good at this, are you? Did you read what you cited? Did you understand it?





Junior wrote:


And dating methods are dubious.


Oh good. Perhaps you could cite the peer reviewed papers that show the dubious nature of dating methods?





Junior wrote:


Evolutionism is practically a religion.


How is it "practically a religion"? Can you define "religion" for us?





Junior wrote:

If a threatened species dies out, its simply dismissed darwinianly as "not strong enough to survive or adapt".


Really? You have some quotes to support that? What? Back a claim? I won't stay up waiting for it. (Since it's on the claim list, I was wise not to stay up.)


[b]58 )[/b]


Junior wrote:


Evolution entails no morality: ask Hitler and Lenin- they were staunch evolutionists.


Lenin quoted Darwin? Got any?





Junior wrote:


That deliberate human genetic engineering has been shown to have limitations?


Claim. Evidence?





mindmetoo wrote:


I've asked you what evidence do you have that small changes cannot add up to big changes over time, in the manner of a man adding a grain of sand at a time to create a very large pile. Now, demonstrate the limiting mechanism.


Junior wrote:


That there is zero evidence to show it happened, for one?


I encourage you to go to pubmed, search on "gene duplication" and dispute the findings of the 5000+ results.




Evolution of the neuropeptide Y family: New genes by chromosome duplications in early vertebrates and in teleost fishes.


Sundström G, Larsson TA, Brenner S, Venkatesh B, Larhammar D.

Department of Neuroscience, Uppsala University, Box 593, 75124 Uppsala, Sweden.


Despite sequence information from many vertebrates the evolution of the neuropeptide Y (NPY) family of peptides has been difficult to resolve, particularly among ray-finned fishes. We have used chromosomal location and sequence analyses to identify orthologs and gene duplicates in teleost fish genomes. Our analyses support origin of NPY and peptide YY (PYY) from a common ancestor in early vertebrate evolution through a chromosome duplication. We report here that the teleost tetraploidization generated duplicates of both NPY and PYY and that all four genes are still present in the two sequenced pufferfish genomes Tetraodon nigroviridis and Takifugu rubripes as well as three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. The zebrafish Danio rerio NPYb gene has probably been lost whereas medaka, Oryzias latipes seems to lack PYYb. Some of the previously published PYY sequences were misidentified and actually constitute NPYb. Our analyses confirm that the peptide previously named PY in some fish species is a duplicate of the PYY gene and hence should be called PYYb. The NPYa and NPYb genes in Takifugu rubripes are predominantly expressed in brain, as detected by RT-PCR, whereas PYYa and PYYb are expressed in several organs including brain, intestine and gonads. Thus, also the resemblance in expression pattern supports the fish gene duplication scenario. Our study shows that when sequence comparisons give ambiguous results, chromosomal location can serve as a useful criterion to identify orthologs. This strategy may help to resolve relationships in several families of short peptides.




The Origins of Novel Protein Interactions during Animal Opsin Evolution.


Plachetzki DC, Degnan BM, Oakley TH.

Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America.


BACKGROUND: Biologists are gaining an increased understanding of the genetic bases of phenotypic change during evolution. Nevertheless, the origins of phenotypes mediated by novel protein-protein interactions remain largely undocumented. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: Here we analyze the evolution of opsin visual pigment proteins from the genomes of early branching animals, including a new class of opsins from Cnidaria. We combine these data with existing knowledge of the molecular basis of opsin function in a rigorous phylogenetic framework. We identify adaptive amino acid substitutions in duplicated opsin genes that correlate with a diversification of physiological pathways mediated by different protein-protein interactions. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This study documents how gene duplication events early in the history of animals followed by adaptive structural mutations increased organismal complexity by adding novel protein-protein interactions that underlie different physiological pathways. These pathways are central to vision and other photo-reactive phenotypes in most extant animals. Similar evolutionary processes may have been at work in generating other metazoan sensory systems and other physiological processes mediated by signal transduction.



Gene duplication and adaptive evolution of digestive proteases in Drosophila arizonae female reproductive tracts.


Kelleher ES, Swanson WJ, Markow TA.


Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.


It frequently has been postulated that intersexual coevolution between the male ejaculate and the female reproductive tract is a driving force in the rapid evolution of reproductive proteins. The dearth of research on female tracts, however, presents a major obstacle to empirical tests of this hypothesis. Here, we employ a comparative EST approach to identify 241 candidate female reproductive proteins in Drosophila arizonae, a repleta group species in which physiological ejaculate-female coevolution has been documented. Thirty-one of these proteins exhibit elevated amino acid substitution rates, making them candidates for molecular coevolution with the male ejaculate. Strikingly, we also discovered 12 unique digestive proteases whose expression is specific to the D. arizonae lower female reproductive tract. These enzymes belong to classes most commonly found in the gastrointestinal tracts of a diverse array of organisms. We show that these proteases are associated with recent, lineage-specific gene duplications in the Drosophila repleta species group, and exhibit strong signatures of positive selection. Observation of adaptive evolution in several female reproductive tract proteins indicates they are active players in the evolution of reproductive tract interactions. Additionally, pervasive gene duplication, adaptive evolution, and rapid acquisition of a novel digestive function by the female reproductive tract points to a novel coevolutionary mechanism of ejaculate-female interaction.




RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)




Gene duplication and the evolution of vertebrate skeletal mineralization.

Kawasaki K, Buchanan AV, Weiss KM.

Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.


The mineralized skeleton is a critical innovation that evolved early in vertebrate history. The tissues found in dermal skeletons of ancient vertebrates are similar to the dental tissues of modern vertebrates; both consist of a highly mineralized surface hard tissue, enamel or enameloid, more resilient body dentin, and basal bone. Many proteins regulating mineralization of these tissues are evolutionarily related and form the secretory calcium-binding phosphoprotein (SCPP) family. We hypothesize here the duplication histories of SCPP genes and their common ancestors, SPARC and SPARCL1. At around the same time that Paleozoic jawless vertebrates first evolved mineralized skeleton, SPARCL1 arose from SPARC by whole genome duplication. Then both before and after the split of ray-finned fish and lobe-finned fish, tandem gene duplication created two types of SCPP genes, each residing on the opposite side of SPARCL1. One type was subsequently used in surface tissue and the other in body tissue. In tetrapods, these two types of SCPP genes were separated by intrachromosomal rearrangement. While new SCPP genes arose by duplication, some old genes were eliminated from the genome. As a consequence, phenogenetic drift occurred: while mineralized skeleton is maintained by natural selection, the underlying genetic basis has changed. Copyright 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel.




Claim CB101.2:


Mutations only vary traits that are already there. They do not produce anything new.


Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 103.

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 51.


1. Variation of traits is production of novelty, especially where there was no variation before. The accumulation of slight modifications is a basis of evolution.

2. Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following:

* the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);

* adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);

* the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);

* evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);

* modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);

* evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);

There is evidence for mutations producing other novel proteins:

* Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).

Laboratory experiments with directed evolution indicate that the evolution of a new function often begins with mutations that have little effect on a gene's original function but a large effect on a second function. Gene duplication and divergence can then allow the new function to be refined. (Aharoni et al. 2004)

3. For evolution to operate, the source of variation does not matter; all that matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may have been preexisting in the population originally, but not all of them were, especially considering the creationists' view that the animals originated from a single pair.

Gene duplication is pretty much at the core of evolutionary genetics. It's not in dispute. You're really at the point arguing along the lines that fusion is not taking place at the core of the sun to produce fire. Sorry, man, it's increasingly more difficult to hammer any of this to match a myth about a bronze age sky god, anymore so than Rteacher can hammer it to support his giant blue baby TIE fighter myth.


So, back to the terribly difficult concept that small changes lead to eventual big changes. The math is rather simple. 1+1+1+1+1... The inference is rather simple. Now would you like to show me where the inference breaks down? Hmmmm?






Junior wrote:


It takes only a few generations of isolated inbreeding for people to form what can be regarded as a new "race" with particular features.


Perhaps you'd like to define race and then demonstrate how this claim fits that definition? But you won't.


Junior wrote:


A race is a separate variety within a species, showing consistent differences in appearance, as a result of a period of geographical isolation.I think even you can see the difference between eskimos and folks from the congo? This occurs in animals too, where it is labelled race or subspecies: each is better suited to its particular environment. More melanin around the tropics, etc. Pedant.





Junior wrote:


The harmful mutations accumulate.


Claim? Evidence?


Junior the cited:




You will notice that paper is talking about one case:


"Breed almost any organism under conditions where it is [b]forced to accumulate random mutations[/b]

, its fitness will invariably decay."


In other words, you're inducing random mutation but no selective pressure on the population. We should have no viable yeast if this were a universal case.


And in typical style, you're only citing a paper that argues against your case:




For example, it suggests that very small populations, which tend to accumulate harmful mutations, will be protected from the endless accumulation of more and more harmful mutations by an increasing rate of beneficial mutation.






Junior wrote:


You're assuming that the animals on the ark had as limited a genetic range as some species do now. You also forgot that not all animals were in 2's, some were ordered to be preserved in specifically higher numbers.


What would we expect the genome of the original copies to look like? What would they have in their genome that would help them avoid fatal bottlenecks? Given we can trace the evolution of genes back millions of years, what should we see if this claim were correct? Because when we trace the evolution of genomes we see increases in information, gene duplications, duplications of chromosomes, and duplications of whole genomes (diploid, hexaploid, etc)


So. Claim. Evidence?





Junior wrote:


You're also ignoring the fact that foxes, coyotes, jackals and other wild canines are prone to diseases as well. So even if the fitness requirements are entirly from nature, the species are still prone to disease. Everything is. its a fallen creation remember.


So what? How do you establish being prone to disease is a result of being "fallen" and not the evolution of bacteria and viruses to populate new niches?





Junior wrote:


The radiometric is faulty because they are assuming everything happened previously at the exact same rate it does now.


The assumption of a constant, slow decay process is wrong. There is now powerful confirmatory evidence that at least one episode of drastically accelerated decay has indeed been the case.


How to break it to about.."everything you know is wrong?". Don't worry I'm sure they'd still have you back at the hippy commune.




Sorry, Junior, your PDF isn't exactly evidence.


Anyway this RATE canard was advanced by Meegook yarans ago. You guys just keep digging up the same old tired debunked fairy tales.


So what problems do you have with the pages above? If you can't answer, you still need to establish the dozen radiometric dating methods are all wrong.


Anything else is just a claim. Evidence?





Junior wrote:


Mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious abnormal mistakes, and those that aren't are still debatable.


There is no debate in science about positive mutations. Unless I'm missing something. Could you direct me to where there is scientific debate about the existence of positive mutations?





(Regarding how molecular errors are evidence of evolution.)


Junior wrote:


When you have a vast amount of genetic material, sure you are bound to find one or two random similarities.


Ummm did it occur to you that maybe scientists would have assumed this? It's a little more than a couple random errors. The fact is there are so many errors, they cannot be accounted for by mere chance. There's an excellent 5 part series on at least 5 lines of molecular evidence for evolution (the head of the human genome project who has gone on record as being a very out christian says himself there is no question about evolution just from the molecular evidence itself):


Now if you really want to argue against the molecular evidence for evolution, you need to pick apart, for starters, these five web pages, with appropriate scientific evidence. No hand waving.





[quote][b]68 )[/b]


(Regarding Tiktaalik as transitional form between fish and amphibians)


Junior wrote:


Once again, you can clearly see tikaalik belongs to the group of lobe-finned fish.





This graphic you cite, let's actually include the caption:


Unlike other tetrapodomorph fishes (1), Tiktaalik has reduced the unjointed lepidotrichia, expanded the radials to a proximal, intermediate and distal series, and established multiple transverse joints in the distal fin. The fin also retains a mosaic of features seen in basal taxa. The central axis of enlarged endochondral bones is a pattern found in basal sarcopterygians and accords with hypotheses that a primitive fin axis is homologous to autopodial bones of the tetrapod limb. In some features, Tiktaalik is similar to rhizodontids such as Sauripterus. These similarities, which are probably homoplastic, include the shape and number of radial articulations on the ulnare, the presence of extensive and branched endochondral radials, and the retention of unjointed lepidotrichia. Figures redrawn and modified from Glyptolepis, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Acanthostega and Tulerpeton.


What's funny is that graphic comes from this Nature article:


"The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb"


But more about that later. Still, thanks again for scoring on your own goal, citing a figure from a Nature paper that argues exactly the opposite.



Once again, you can clearly see tikaalik belongs to the group of lobe-finned fish.[/quote]


Again, you need to read what I cited. Here let me repeat it:


[quote]Just like a fish it has scales on its back, and fins, you can see the fin webbing here. Yet when we look at the head, you see something very different, you see a very amphibian like thing, with a flat head, with eyes on top. It gets even better when we take the fin apart, when we look inside the fin, as in this cast here. What you'll see is bones that compare to our shoulder, elbow, even parts of wrist. Bone for bone. So you have a fish, at just the right time, in the history of life, that has characteristics of amphibians. And primitive fish. It's a mix.[/quote]


So yes. If you look in one place, it's very fish like. If you look in another place it's got  amphibian characteristics. It's a mix. This is the very definition of a transitional fossil. Sorry it's not a crockoduck or bacteria spouting a horn or whatever strawman you like to invoke.


Let's start with Nature. Heard of this journal? Hmmmm?


[quote]Here we report the discovery of a well-preserved species of fossil sarcopterygian fish from the Late Devonian of Arctic Canada that represents an intermediate between fish with fins and tetrapods with limbs, and provides unique insights into how and in what order important tetrapod characters arose. Although the body scales, fin rays, lower jaw and palate are comparable to those in more primitive sarcopterygians, the new species also has a shortened skull roof, a modified ear region, a mobile neck, a functional wrist joint, and other features that presage tetrapod conditions. The morphological features and geological setting of this new animal are suggestive of life in shallow-water, marginal and subaerial habitats.[/quote]


[quote]The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb.

Shubin NH, Daeschler EB, Jenkins FA Jr.


Department of Organismal Biology and Anatomy, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA.


Wrists, ankles and digits distinguish tetrapod limbs from fins, but direct evidence on the origin of these features has been unavailable. Here we describe the pectoral appendage of a member of the sister group of tetrapods, Tiktaalik roseae, which is morphologically and functionally transitional between a fin and a limb. The expanded array of distal endochondral bones and synovial joints in the fin of Tiktaalik is similar to the distal limb pattern of basal tetrapods. The fin of Tiktaalik was capable of a range of postures, including a limb-like substrate-supported stance in which the shoulder and elbow were flexed and the distal skeleton extended. The origin of limbs probably involved the elaboration and proliferation of features already present in the fins of fish such as Tiktaalik.[/quote]




[quote]That trial was a silly circus that cannot compare to the measured debate away from the stand undertaken by many people in other forums.[/quote]


Silly circus because you lost. Badly. Claim. How do you back that claim? And yes, the scientific debate is really not in the courts. The real debate is in the literature. Another place creationists don't venture their "evidence" either. My point is courts and the scientific literature are both similar in that they're venues where fact and logic rule the day. While creationists don't venture into the peer reviewed literature debate, they have been known to show up in courts. And when they do, they don't actually bring their evidence. Why?





(regarding science being some cabal of lies)


Junior wrote:


[quote]And DPRK is a peoples paradise in the eyes of Kim Jong ils cabinet. [/quote]


Back to this silly analogy? No comment on why it's a faulty analogy? Simply restating a silly claim. Again let's come back to M v A and what it finds about science:


[quote]The scientific community consists of individuals and groups, nationally and internationally, who work independently in such varied fields as biology, paleontology, geology, and astronomy. Their work is published and subject to review and testing by their peers. The journals for publication are both numerous and varied. There is, however, not one recognized scientific journal which has published an article espousing the creation science theory described in Section 4(a). Some of the State's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was "close-minded" on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused. Perhaps some members of the scientific community are resistant to new ideas. [b]It is, however, inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought.[/b][/quote]


Now, if you think you can make a better case than top notch lawyers trying to argue your crap in a landmark court case, well, I'd like to see you try. Simply restating a claim isn't even trying. It's grade school stuff. But for a guy who tries to pass off the words of others as his, no surprise. You're a fly weight.


And let me also highlight this finding:


[b]Some of the State's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was "close-minded" on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused.[/b]



* * *


[And Junior scores on his own goal, a great example where science doesn't just bury data. It's right here folks:]


Junior wrote:


Mutations conspire to decrease fitness


“The Sanjuán et al. and Bonhoeffer et al. studies show that the pattern of epistasis in RNA viruses is not compatible with current genetic theories of sexual reproduction and recombination, which assume that mutations affecting fitness exhibit negative epistasis”.


What do you believe this research demonstrates?


First, I think you don't understand "fitness" in the genetic sense (as evidenced by your quip about dogs being bred to outrun bullets or whatever).


Fitness in a genetic sense is merely the amount of your genetic material that's made it into the population. So, I can run faster than Bill Gates and I can lift more weight than Bill Gates. But Bill Gates has reproduced. He is by definition more fit.


The hypothesis (mutational deterministic hypothesis) about why sex evolved was it took low level bad mutations, combined them, made a pronounced effect in an individual, killing him solid dead before he can breed, and therefore removing minor negative mutations from the population. This research indicates sex might not be a method by which negative mutations are selected out of the population. Hence, why then did sex evolve? Oh well. That is not evidence there is no mechanism for removing bad mutations or in your hand waving fashion all mutations are loss. Gosh, there must be other methods for removing negative mutations from the population.


What is important to note here is the paper you cite is a perfect example of what real scientists do and oddly contrary to your DPRK claim. Another score on your own goal, fool. This experiment tested MDH and found the results did not support the hypothesis. See. Hypothesis testing. Any of your creationist testing flood geology or super dna? Mmmmmmm? And wow. The results did not support a pretty nifty hypothesis about the evolution of sex. Now in your DPRK model, such evidence would get buried no? Gosh, sure wouldn't the hell get published in Nature. Oh but wait. It was! Gasp. How do you explain this? You were trying to explain away the missing New Scientist articles as a result of the vast conspiracy ("but good luck finding the links, because any article that can be used in support of creationism, when accidentally printed in the mass media, is quickly filed away and all traces removed, "). And yet this one slips through into the journal Nature? Odd.


Now, let's come back to fitness. So a population that's getting along nicely in a warm food rich environment with little selection pressure (other than mate selection) is going to experience some decline in fitness. No mystery. You yourself cited an experiment where organisms were allowed to simply accumulate negative mutations without selection pressure.


But now introduce a disaster into the population. A famine. A flood! A hotter environment. A colder environment. Some organisms will survive. Although they were measured as being less fit previously, by virtue of simply surviving, they are now the ultimate in genetic fitness.

So again, in your words, what do you think the implications of this experiment are?







Junior wrote:


There are plenty of [b]"experts" with multiple degrees in palaentology and decades of study as believing evolutionists[/b] who turn round at the end and admit the evidence points to a creator. [b]Anthony Flew[/b] anyone?


I find it entirely bizarre you advance a claim about paleontologists and then give us a philosopher as an example of someone with multiple degrees in paleontology. Did you even check his wiki page to see if he was paleontologist?



After the war, Flew achieved a first class degree in Literae Humaniores at St John's College, Oxford. Flew was a graduate student of Gilbert Ryle, prominent in ordinary language philosophy. Both Flew and Ryle were among many Oxford philosophers fiercely criticised in Ernest Gellner's book Words and Things (1959). A 1954 debate with Michael Dummett over backward causation was an early highlight in Flew's career.[2]

Flew was a Lecturer in Philosophy at Christ Church, Oxford from 1949 to 1950, following which he was a lecturer for four years at the University of Aberdeen, and a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Keele for twenty years. Between 1973 and 1983 he was Professor of Philosophy at the University of Reading. Upon his retirement, Flew took up a half-time post for a few years at York University, Toronto.



Odd no mention of 'multiple degrees in palaentology".


How do you actually get multiple degrees in paleontology? I guess you can get a bachelors and then a masters and then a doctorate. But that's a pretty weird thing to say. Sounds like you don't know what you're even talking about. Especially since you claim a philosopher is a paleontologist.








(the notion that humans and nematodes are 75% similar in DNA)


[quote] In a survey carried out by the researchers in Cambridge University, some proteins of terrestrial vertebrates were compared. Amazingly, in nearly all samples, man and chicken were paired as the closest relatives. The next closest relative was crocodile. [/quote]


I'm wondering  where you got these article titles? I can find no page, creationist or evolutionary, that gives the article titles, notably the second one. Oddly, both titles are grammatically incorrect.


*Nematode worms genetically 75% similar to humans.

New Scientist, 15 May 1999, p.27


*Cambridge university: study compared DNA of various different animals. Closest to human, was chicken followed by crocodile.

New Scientist v.103, 16 August 1984, p.19


Various different animals? Isn't that a bit of a tautology? And what's with that comma before was? Various animals would convey the meaning in a headline. You just made these titles up. Or maybe they're not titles. Odd the article you cited didn't even mention the title of the articles. No? Seems basic scholarship.


The second one is of interest because there's a difference in comparing the DNA and specific proteins. Proteins are NOT DNA.  It would be indeed weird if humans were more similar in DNA to chickens than, say, chimps.  It would not be surprising if you're comparing certain proteins to certain animals outside of the ape kingdom and finding similarities. Since the article tells us nothing about what animals were compared, what specific proteins were compared, and the intent then like your bible, you can pretty much imagine any old thing. Maybe scientists were interested in knowing what animals outside of the ape kingdom could make suitable lab animals for certain drugs based on certain proteins.


For example consider:




Multiple Phosphorylation of Chicken Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase 1 and Human Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase 1B by Casein Kinase II and p60c-srcin Vitro*1


Eun Joo Jung, Yoon-Se Kang and Choong Won Kim1 We have cloned a soluble chicken protein tyrosine phosphatase, named CPTP1, from the cDNA library of chicken intestine. [b]The CPTP1 showed 92% sequence identity to the corresponding 321 amino acid residues of human PTP1B (HPTP1B). [/b]CPTP1 lacked 13 amino acids of the N-terminal region compared with HPTP1B, while the C-terminal 48 amino acid sequence of this protein was distinct from those of other PTPs.In vitrophosphorylation and phosphoamino acid analysis showed that both CPTP1 and HPTP1B were phosphorylated on serine and threonine residues near their N-terminus by casein kinase II (CKII). Furthermore, phosphorylation of CPTP1 by CKII resulted in an inhibition of its phosphatase activityin vitro.Interestingly, both CPTP1 and HPTP1B were also tyrosine-phosphorylated near their N-terminus by p60c-src. When we examined the vanadate effect, in the absence of vanadate, the tyrosine-phosphorylated CPTP1 by p60c-srcwas autodephosphorylated by its own phosphatase activity. These results suggest that both CPTP1 and HPTP1B might play an important role in CKII- and p60c-src-induced signal transduction cascades.[/quote]


Goodness. Does this mean we can extrapolate humans and chickens are 92% similar in DNA based on a comparison of these two proteins? No. Sorry.


And how did they compare DNA in 1984? Genetic fingerprinting wasn't "invented" until 1985. Also weird since one of your links noted in 1996 that yeast was the most complex genome sequenced. Golly. Good to know yeast is more complex than a chicken and a croc. You can't even get your story straight, can you? And while the nematode genome was sequenced in 1998, the human genome (draft form) wasn't until 2000. So odd the 1999 article could make just a definitive comparison to something that did not even exist.



Anyway, can you show me any evidence the August 1984 study was about comparing DNA and you're just not lying? Lying is a sin. You know?


And can you find me one non creationist source that cites the 75% human/nematode match? Your New Scientist link is just a page number. Even a journal title would help.


Here is the May 15, 1999 issue:


Where is the article now? I can't find it.


Also when I search the New Scientist site for any mention of "nematode" and sort by date:



. . . . .

More comment from Westminster by Tam Dalyell

05 June 1999 From magazine issue 2189 Forum



Dial F for Fear

Never have so many people worried so much about so little

10 April 1999 From magazine issue 2181 Comment


Gosh. Nematode gets a mention april 1999 and then the next mention in June 1999. NO MAY 1999 NEMATODE.


I submit your page is lying. See what happens when you don't have peer review. Creation science sure is easy when you can just make stuff up and no one checks.


Of course now that the human genome and the nematode genome are both fully sequenced, what do we find?


[quote]The genome is small compared to humans (about 30 times smaller), yet it encodes over 22,000 proteins, only slightly fewer than humans.[b] About 35% of C. elegans genes are closely related to human genes.[/b][/quote]


Oh dear. Not quite 75% huh? I think your little often repeated page needs to update its info. Is 35% even troubling? No. All life shares many highly conserved genes. It's a bag of highly conserved genes. Note as well the nematode genome is 30 times smaller. It's not like we're saying "oh of the 20,000 human genes and the 20,000 nematode genes, there's 35% similarity." That would be something.


And remember "closely related to" does not mean identical. These are called homologues. Why was the nematode high on the list for genome sequencing? Because it's a very simple form of life with a nervous system. You'll note we have nervous systems. Our nervous system came from a simpler nervous system. If the nervous system works, nature is going to conserve those genes. It's nothing shocking.






Junior claims the human genome has only lost information since "the fall". But the human genome has gained 689 genes since the human/chimp split


[url=]Nope. Wrong.[/url]


[quote]Along the lineage leading to modern humans we infer the gain of 689 genes and the loss of 86 genes since the split from chimpanzees[/quote]


Junior "astutely notes the article uses the word "infer" and adds:


Inference does not count as proof especially when based on a theoretical mechanism that has never been shown to exist....


Question, Junior.


What mechanism are you talking about? We've never been able to visit the center of a star to see if there is fusion going on, but from the kinds of neutrinos we get from the sun we can certainly infer it. But Junior doesn't even read science so this analogy means nothing at all to him. So let make this analogy.


A person is dead. You were the last person to be seen with the person. You have powder burns on your hands. We can infer you are the killer. Now to counter inference you need to show why that inference is wrong. So, Junior, examine the linked paper and point out where the scientists draw incorrect inferences.