TIME’s Top 10 Medical Breakthroughs - Evolution Not Included
On January 15, 2008 in In the News, Science Related
TIME Magazine released their list of the Top 10 Medical Breakthroughs of 2007, and as suspected Evolutionism had absolutely no guidance over any of them. So why would something so vital (sarcasm) as Evolutionism have absolutely no guidance what-so-ever over advancing our Medical knowledge, and helping mankind? Perhaps it’s becoming even more evident that funding the Monkey-Junkie’s Imagination and Story-telling is not the best way to spend tax-payer dollars.
Monkey-Junkie’s?
Hey man that is the best thing I have read all month!
“Monkey-Junky” was purely inspiration
It just rolled out of my mouth as I was typing. Hehe. How you been, Man? You’ll have to look me up on one of my many IM’s someday 
Working very very hard!
We are about to release a content filtering, access control server to protect churches and schools (Nehemiah’s Watch). As well as open sourcing my main product.
We should talk soon
Contact me with more info to get a hold of you.
God Bless
Much of this list actually may not have happened without evolution as a testable theory (which it is).
“Since evolution has been the dominant theory of biology for more than a century, it’s a safe statement that all of the wonderful innovations in medicine and agriculture that we derive from biological research stem from the theory of evolution. Recent, exciting examples are humanized
antibodies like Remicade for inflammation and Herceptin for breast cancer, both initially made in mice. Without our knowledge of the evolution of mice and humans and their immune systems, we wouldn’t have such life-saving and
life-improving technologies.
Another specific example is resistant bacterial infections, one of the scariest threats to public health. The ones that are resistant to antibiotics are more reproductively successful than their non-resistant relatives and pass the new resistance genes on to more offspring. Just as Darwin said 150 years ago.”
-Holden Thorp (chairman of the chemistry department at the University of North Carolina)
What has ID done for medicine?
Kenny,
Welcome to the Blog, first of all. Now let’s enjoy a bit of back-and-forth. You quoted Holden Thorp in saying the following:
Since evolution has been the dominant theory of biology for more than a century, it’s a safe statement that all of the wonderful innovations in medicine and agriculture that we derive from biological research stem from the theory of evolution.
Superficially, this may sound logical, but in reality it’s actually pretty illogical. This would be equivalent to me saying, “Since Nike has been the popular choice for athletics since its conception in 1964, it is safe to say that all of the athletic achievements we have today stem from its amazing bouncy soles.”
Additionally you claim that our understanding of the Evolution of Immune Systems and Mice and Humans gave us the success of testing antibodies in Mice for Humans. This is ridiculous too. The narrative gloss of Evolution didn’t cause a Scientist to say, “Oh Gee! We can use Mice to test antibodies because of Evolution!” If you disagree, please cite your source since you are making the claim.
The bottom line is that our biological composition is similar across all species. We all have similar proteins, we all have the same amino acids, we all have the same use of DNA and RNA. To claim that a foreknowledge of Evolution is required to make observations on the Biochemical level today is ridiculous. Show me one Biochemist who cannot do their job without a belief that man descended from amoeba’s 4+ billion years ago. Just one.
Jonathan
Superficially, this may sound logical, but in reality it’s actually pretty illogical. This would be equivalent to me saying, “Since Nike has been the popular choice for athletics since its conception in 1964, it is safe to say that all of the athletic achievements we have today stem from its amazing bouncy soles.”
Reply: That’s not really a good analogy, is it? Medicine has always been around, but no sensible person is going to substitute modern medicine for pre-1859 medical care, just as I can positively tell you that my Nike’s now are better than any footwear prior to 1964. We have a new approach, and our understanding of evolution helps in this endeavor. Consider:
“One of the typical examples is the idea that is essentially evolutionary when we use antibiotics for our ailments. We should use antibiotics in an intelligent way. For example, we should be using multiple antibiotics in a careful regimen. If we use single antibiotics and we don’t use them carefully enough, what we do is cause natural selection in the pathogen to select for resistance. The origin of resistance in antibiotics is an imminently evolutionary mechanism, and if we understand how evolution works, then we can avoid it or at least we can slow it down.
The same situation goes for the most successful approaches to complex diseases such as HIV/AIDS. One of the best approaches to fight that kind of battle is, in fact, to bombard the population of viruses with a variety of responses, not just with one. For the same reason as multiple antibiotics. The virus evolves very rapidly to respond with resistance to individual medical solutions or medications. When we use multiple ones, what we are doing is using the basic principle of evolution–living organisms simply cannot evolve resistance to complex environments because they cannot count on multiple divisions happening at the same time. That is an important principle that comes out of evolution.”
-Massimo Pigliucci
The bottom line is that our biological composition is similar across all species. We all have similar proteins, we all have the same amino acids, we all have the same use of DNA and RNA. To claim that a foreknowledge of Evolution is required to make observations on the Biochemical level today is ridiculous. Show me one Biochemist who cannot do their job without a belief that man descended from amoeba’s 4+ billion years ago. Just one.
Reply: No one is saying that Biochemist have to assert a statement of faith in evolution, it is simply a fact that biochemists work with. You are merely repeating the same falsehood that Michael Behe made when he said:
“A survey of thirty biochemistry textbooks used in major universities over the past generation shows that many textbooks ignore evolution completely.”
As talkorigins replies:
“Is this true? Of course not … and this should come as no surprise to those who are familiar with the tactics of the anti-evolutionists. Behe is deliberately misleading his readers in several different ways. His first strawman is the implication that biochemistry textbooks are about evolution - they are not. It is not the purpose of biochemistry textbooks to describe and explain evolution. Instead, the authors make the assumption that students have taken biology and are familiar with the basic concepts of evolution. Biochemists know that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution and they simply assume that intelligent students will understand references to evolution that are scattered throughout the textbooks. The textbooks do not ignore evolution, they take it as a fact.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/textbooks.html
You may also find the article at http://yalemedicine.yale.edu/ym_sp02/biosensor.htm as to how our evolutionary understanding of RNA/DNA is being put to use.
“Many biochemists find it easy to accept the concept that large portions of protein molecules serve mainly to bring the molecule up to suitable size and shape and have very little specific function as compared with small specialized active sites. Most of a protein molecule, according to this concept, can evolve freely by random drift.”
Thomas H. Jukes (1980) p.204-”Neutral Changes Revisited.” in EVOLUTION OF PROTEIN STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION
…what we do is cause natural selection in the pathogen to select for resistance. The origin of resistance in antibiotics is an imminently evolutionary mechanism, and if we understand how evolution works, then we can avoid it or at least we can slow it down.
Correction, you don’t “cause” Natural Selection to do anything - you give it an opportunity. But never mind. The key thing here is “Natural Selection”. This is real. But it is not Synonymous with “Evolution”. In the Evolutionary framework Natural Selection is nothing more an a cog, or a mechanism in cascade of other significant parts.
No intelligent Christian will disagree with Natural Selection, we know it works. This is demonstrated (keeping to the Nike comparisons) in the Olympics. How many heavy-set guys participated in the long-distance running competitions? None. They were all weeded out before-hand if they even participated to begin with.
To claim further that the resistance in antibiotics is an Evolutionary Mechanism is merely wishful thinking. The only thing we have Scientifically observed is that resistant strains are selected for naturally via Natural Selection, which again is not synonymous with “Evolution”.
…The virus evolves very rapidly to respond with resistance to individual medical solutions or medications…
Massimo is incorrect here. Well, if he’s talking about Evolution being a mechanism that turns amoeba into people, then yes, he’s incorrect. This resistance isn’t “evolved” it was already present in the population to begin with. This is why a culture is never completely wiped out. No population benefits from any new evolutionary changes within it. How many fish evolved legs during their life-time only to begin walking on land? In every aspect of Evolutionary theory the offspring enjoy the fruits of Evolutionary labor, yet Massimo wants us to believe this is different on the Biochemical level and expect the parent-population to evolve a new resistance before it is wiped out? Hardly so.
You might enjoy reading a bit on “Super bugs” if you’re into this subject: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/superbugs.asp When you’re finished there you can read some more on Bacterial Resistance http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
…No one is saying that Biochemist have to assert a statement of faith in evolution, it is simply a fact that biochemists work with…
Okay, so tell me, how exactly do they “work with” the idea that Humans descended from a Common Ancestor that was birthed in a pre-biotic soup 4+ billion years ago? What role exactly does that play in Biochemistry that is so vital that Biochemists cannot do their job without it?
Jonathan: Correction, you don’t “cause” Natural Selection to do anything - you give it an opportunity. But never mind. The key thing here is “Natural Selection”. This is real. But it is not Synonymous with “Evolution”. In the Evolutionary framework Natural Selection is nothing more an a cog, or a mechanism in cascade of other significant parts.
Reply: You are simply arguing semantics here. I see no problem with giving something an “opportunity” being phrased as “cause natural selection in the pathogen to select for resistance.” You could say much of Evolution via Natural Selection is very opportunistic.
Jonathan: Massimo is incorrect here. Well, if he’s talking about Evolution being a mechanism that turns amoeba into people, then yes, he’s incorrect.
Reply: Huh? Where the heck did he say that? Talk about jumping to conclusions.
Jonathan: This resistance isn’t “evolved” it was already present in the population to begin with.
Reply: Haven’t you heard of viral evolution?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_evolution
When the doctor tells to take antibiotics, he makes sure I take all of it. Why? If you don’t, it evolves and the antibiotic then becomes ineffective. I know you know this, you just don’t want to use the term “evolve.” You want to accept the mechanism in which evolution works, you just don’t want to accept the term “evolution.” Why fight it? The reason Christians lost at Dover is because evolution was proven as true. It is a fact.
From the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology “Evolution is among the most thoroughly tested theories in the biological sciences. It is supported by volumes of scientific evidence in numerous fields, including genetics, biochemistry, developmental biology, comparative anatomy, immunology, geology, and paleontology. Moreover, evolution lays the foundation for much of what we know about genetics, immunology, antibiotic resistance, human origins, and the adaptation of species to a changing environment. Removing evolution from the classroom, or misrepresenting evolution as a flawed theory, deprives students of one of the most important tenets of science and the basis of our understanding of biology and medicine…”
Jonathan: Okay, so tell me, how exactly do they “work with” the idea that Humans descended from a Common Ancestor that was birthed in a pre-biotic soup 4+ billion years ago?
Reply: What an asinine statement. It is important, Jonathan, because evolution didn’t stop with “pre-biotic soup 4+ billion years ago.” It is observed and tested everyday.
You seem like a smart guy, but unfortunately you are hijacked by an ancient book written by men ignorant of science. We would never ask Moses or St. Paul for answers to mathematics and astronomy or medicine, yet we are so willing to give them our minds for many more important things.
Kenny,
Something we need to clear up before we can continue talking is the definition to the word “Evolve”. This has been an obvious confusion for you when I use it, and it is annoying to me when you use it.
When you say “Evolve”, do you mean Change, or Append Fundamentally new Genetic Information? There’s a very profound difference between the two, and it’s one that isn’t always distinguished in context.
Viruses change, but they don’t Evolve in the sense that Fish evolved into Reptiles. Fish-to-Reptile evolution requires much more than what we see in the “evolution” of viruses. Viruses and Bacteria change is very different from F2R change. The latter requires the insertion of fundamentally new information, whereas the Biochemical “evolution” you’re referring to could be nothing more than changing the coat of a protein, translocation, gene-deletion or some other nebulous issue.
Nobody in their right mind would claim that the changes we see in antibiotic resistance is the same type of change that would turn a population of fish into a population of reptiles. If you disagree, please demonstrate these mechanisms.
Regarding Dover, Christians didn’t lose. It wasn’t an issue over Christians vs. Evolution. If you had done your homework you would know that. The issue was over Intelligent Design and Evolution. Intelligent Design proponents aren’t always Christians, and even the ones who are generally don’t claim that the God of the Bible is deducible by means of Scientific Investigation of lilliputian systems.
The Proponents of ID didn’t lose because, as you say, “Evolution was proven as true. It is a fact.” If that is the case, please substantiate your claim with a court transcript of some sort, or a reference to the study that demonstrated this. Also, please tell me what you mean by “evolution” in this context since the term is very equivocal and ambiguous.
Removing evolution from the classroom, or misrepresenting evolution as a flawed theory, deprives students of one of the most important tenets of science and the basis of our understanding of biology and medicine…
You’re making the same claims, and yet here I am still waiting for the evidence to suggest that Evolution is so vital to the Sciences. Simply repeating yourself ad nauseam isn’t going to demonstrate it, you’re going to eventually have to give me some tangible evidence that demonstrates its role in guiding science and medicine today.
What an asinine statement. It is important, Jonathan, because evolution didn’t stop with “pre-biotic soup 4+ billion years ago.” It is observed and tested everyday.
Could you please tell me where, and how it’s tested? How do we test whether a fish population gave rise to a reptilian population? Please, take all the time you need.
Jonathan: Something we need to clear up before we can continue talking is the definition to the word “Evolve”. This has been an obvious confusion for you when I use it, and it is annoying to me when you use it.
Reply: You should talk. This is exasperating. When I say Evolution, I mean it in all its aspects, and I am not just isolating it to macroevolution like you want to do for everything. (BTW, Macroevolution and Speciation have both been observed. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jun05.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/observd3.htm
We have observed beneficial mutations such as in the Katahdin potato also.
It is well know that no matter what evidence is produced, Christians will not accept it.)
Jonathan: Regarding Dover, Christians didn’t lose. It wasn’t an issue over Christians vs. Evolution. If you had done your homework you would know that. The issue was over Intelligent Design and Evolution.
Reply: Actually, you are dead wrong, and here I have to assert my position on why Christians are so intellectually bankrupt.
ID failed at Dover because it was deemed a religious theory. The ID side was promoted by CHRISTIANS funded by CHRISTIAN organizations, and by the judges own admission, these CHRISTIANS even stooped to lying. SIR, it had the name christian all over it. How dare you assert it wasn’t an issue over Christians vs. Evolution. This is simply either ignorance on a monumental degree, or a devious response. I am not even going to go into the Wedge Document.
Jonathan: Could you please tell me where, and how it’s tested? How do we test whether a fish population gave rise to a reptilian population?
Reply: Simply type in “observed speciation” in google. Can you manage that? Everytime someone watches generation after generation of bacteria grow and mutate into another species, that’s shows that it happens. Everytime someone digs up a fossil, that’s a test.
Now, Jonathan, Can you show me God? Where can I see the Intelligent Designer? Can I test it? Can I observe Jehovah? Of course not. Evolution as a viable working theory survives because it works. Scientists examine each other’s data, discuss it and compare it to their own work. Since nature is assumed to be consistent, the data has to be consistent. If it’s not then then something is screwy and more research will show you what’s not right. The majority of scientists must be getting the same results from their experiments. They compare notes. The basic assumption is that nature is a cohesive whole. Therefore truth will be the same in Bangkok as it is in New York. The truth is, whether you are Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist or Hindu, evolution still proves itself to be true. The only group that seems to find contrary evidence is a small group of Biblical literalists.
An idea has to make its own way in the marketplace of ideas. It has to prove itself. The only way a scientific idea can do that is to be on a solid foundation of data. Evolution has data. ID/Jehovah has no data. It does not have the means to prove itself. It does very well when it can present flashy formulas to someone who didn’t pass high school algebra. However, when it does that to an actual mathematician, it fails. ID/Jehovah wants to be sheltered from criticism. In fact, it seems to me that ID/Jehovah is simply a criticism of evolution.
This part of your blog was not entitled: TIME’s Top 10 Medical Breakthroughs - Intelligent Design Not Included.
ID does nothing for us. Evolution does (which of course will never be accepted by you as you will always find a way of mocking the data). Read: Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution by Theodosius Dobzhansky, it is online.
See you on Monday. The weekend awaits me.
Kenny,
It’s not that I want to limit the use of the word “evolution” to merely “macro-evolution”, as you put it. It’s that using it as an all-inclusive manner is confusing and not beneficial to Scientific discussion as its definition is far too broad to just use freely without a tightly-defining context. Computers evolve, landscapes evolve, relationships evolve, bacteria evolve, and populations evolve. Shoot, even our ideas of evolution evolve. So when you use the term without a clear context, I would like for you to explain what you mean when you say it.
Regarding Speciation, I have no argument there. I have no problem with Speciation and Natural Selection. Nor do I have any problem with Mutations or any other natural effect on Gene Pools over time. It’s when you introduce the idea that the changes we see in nature could eventually turn a population of fish into a population of Velociraptors that I have to object.
Regarding beneficial mutations, I don’t have a problem with those either. But you have to demonstrate more than just a benefit when dealing with Mutations. You have to demonstrate a net-increase in fundamentally new information that will drive a population to acquire completely new physiological or mechanical advantages over their ancestors.
Simply saying “The potato proves it” doesn’t work either. You’ll have to tell me more about your magical potato.
On the topic of the ID movement, I feel you’ve turned a blind-eye to all of its proponents. The ID proponents do not evangelize their readers or listeners with the ID message. Nor could they, since they do not adhere to any Religious doctrine for guidance. Granted, some of the ID proponents may be Christian, but some are not. To be completely honest, some proponents of ID feel that Humans are the product of Non-Deistic Creation. Perhaps the product of Alien experimentation. Some ID proponents are Muslim, or Jewish. To claim that they are Christians is to be willingly ignorant.
Kenny, I feel that you are getting a bit emotional, because now you’re making very bold claims that I feel you’ll regret once you sleep on it. You claim that ID doesn’t have the ability to convince a true Mathematician that there is a designer, yet one of the greatest proponents of the ID movement, Dr. William Dembski, is in fact a Ph.D. Mathematician from the University of Illinois at Chicago. He also holds a Masters in Statistics from the same University. On from there would be another famous Mathematician, Dr. John Lennox, who is a Professor at Oxford holding multiple degrees, including a Ph.D. in Mathematics.
So, either you feel it’s permissible to lie in order to convince people, or you don’t feel serious enough about your beliefs to actually be intellectually honest with your peers.
Lastly, you stated that no Christian will ever accept evolution. Again, this is a ridiculous claim. The founder and Chief Editor of Skeptic Magazine, Dr. Michael Shermer, claims that he was a Christian. There are dozens of prominent Atheists and Evolutionists who claim to have once been Christians. Either A) They are telling the truth, and you are lying, or B) They are lying, and they cannot be trusted because they are willing to lie to advance their position.
Have a good weekend.
J: Regarding Speciation, I have no argument there. I have no problem with Speciation and Natural Selection. Nor do I have any problem with Mutations or any other natural effect on Gene Pools over time. It’s when you introduce the idea that the changes we see in nature could eventually turn a population of fish into a population of Velociraptors that I have to object.
K: It appears to me that you, (as a Christian I presume), wants lettuce, bacon, and tomatoes, you just don’t to call it a BLT sandwich. Speciation, for all intents and purposes, IS Macroevolution. Natural Selection is a mechanism whereby Evolution works. Ever since I have posted here you have only argued semantics and terminology.
Macroevolution means speciation. We could just as easily define macroevolution as the difference between breeds, rather than species. Speciation is a product of evolution. It is not some magical barrier that Creationists insist cannot be broken. The same forces that cause microevolution (mutation and natural selection) also cause speciation. Macroevolution is simply the accumulation of change that results in a different species. Macroevolution is a lot of microevolution. Saying that macroevolution cannot occur, but microevolution can, is the equivalent of claiming that I can walk across the street but not across town. It’s all walking. It’s the same thing. It’s all evolution. It’s the same thing.
J: Regarding beneficial mutations, I don’t have a problem with those either. But you have to demonstrate more than just a benefit when dealing with Mutations. You have to demonstrate a net-increase in fundamentally new information that will drive a population to acquire completely new physiological or mechanical advantages over their ancestors.
K: “By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
* increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
* increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
* novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
* novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)”
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
J: On the topic of the ID movement, I feel you’ve turned a blind-eye to all of its proponents. The ID proponents do not evangelize their readers or listeners with the ID message. Nor could they, since they do not adhere to any Religious doctrine for guidance. Granted, some of the ID proponents may be Christian, but some are not.
K: Why do you persist in this. You are again, either ignorant of the ID movement, or simply feel comfortable lying to me.
From wikipedia:
“the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.” Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005), Ruling p. 26. A selection of writings and quotes of intelligent design supporters demonstrating this identification of the Christian God with the intelligent designer are found in the pdf Horse’s Mouth by Brian Poindexter, dated 2003.
William A. Dembski, when asked in an interview whether his research concluded that God is the Intelligent Designer, stated “I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.” Devon Williams (12-14-2007). CitizenLink: Friday Five: William A. Dembski. Focus on the Family, a California non profit religious corporation. Retrieved on 2007-12-15.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#_note-KvD26
And again, we have to hearken back to the Wedge Document:
“The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document, which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to “defeat [scientific] materialism” represented by evolution, “reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions” and to “affirm the reality of God.” Its goal is to “renew” American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
J: Kenny, I feel that you are getting a bit emotional, because now you’re making very bold claims that I feel you’ll regret once you sleep on it. You claim that ID doesn’t have the ability to convince a true Mathematician that there is a designer, yet one of the greatest proponents of the ID movement, Dr. William Dembski, is in fact a Ph.D. Mathematician from the University of Illinois at Chicago. He also holds a Masters in Statistics from the same University. On from there would be another famous Mathematician, Dr. John Lennox, who is a Professor at Oxford holding multiple degrees, including a Ph.D. in Mathematics.
Reply: You misinterpreted by remark. While you can point to some mathematicians, you have to admit that the vast majority of Mathematicians do not believe in God. The two you mentioned are Christians with a clear agenda.
J: So, either you feel it’s permissible to lie in order to convince people, or you don’t feel serious enough about your beliefs to actually be intellectually honest with your peers.
Reply: I don’t have beliefs. I have spent most of my life as a devout believer, and even an apologist for the Christian faith. I know the difference. I have not lied, but if gods exist, I hope they forgive me for lying for Jesus.
J: Lastly, you stated that no Christian will ever accept evolution. Again, this is a ridiculous claim.
Reply: Again you misread me. I said “will never be accepted by YOU” but I now feel I was wrong in this assumption, as you indeed do accept Evolution. Of course many Christians believe in Evolution.
I mentioned Theodosius Dobzhansky, who wrote _Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution_. He is a devout believer. Michael Behe believes in Evolution. In fact, it was the words of Behe that finally convinced me that humans and apes shared a common ancestor.
Kenny,
I don’t think you’ve noticed that I don’t use terms like “Microevolution”, or “Macroevolution”, since these typically reflect nothing more than phenotype representations, which are not always indicative of large-scale genetic changes.
Instead, I like to address things with a deeper appreciate than your suggestions of a superficial cursory view of what they are, or how they look.
Speciation has not been demonstrated to lead to fundamentally new creatures. Having salt-water Crocs and fresh-water Crocs doesn’t demonstrate that the Croc itself came from a fish millions of years ago. If you think it does, please offer evidence to demonstrate so.
Regarding Information, I see that you’re a copy/paste warrior! Rawr! You do realize that this means you’ve not checked these facts yourself, and you’re just assuming that these are factual. Meaning you are giving me information that may or may not be true, but for the very fact that it coincides with your view, you’re going to offer it anyway.
Here’s a helpful suggestion. When you’re talking with a Creationist, offer REAL answers. Don’t just copy and paste a line of text that says, “Lenski aswered this in 1995, and 1991.” It’s very amusing - do you even know what Lenski, Alves, Knox, Park, Friedman, Hughes, and the others actually said or demonstrated? I doubt it, yet you have no reservation to quickly posting it when you need an answer.
I, on the other hand, will give you something you can actually read. A relevant exchange between Dr. Lee Spetner, and Dr. Edward Max of talkOrigins. This was supposed to be viewable on TalkOrigins, but for some odd reason they never held up their end of the bargain. You can read “A Scientific Critique of Evolution” for more information.
One the topic of the ID Movement. Quoting some ID Proponents describing how they feel that God created us is pointless, since I already said that many of the ID Proponents were probably Christians - or did you not read that to begin with? I additionally pointed out that not ALL of them were Christians. Got anything better to do than to setup straw-man arguments and then push them down?
Now you’re engaging in Circular Reasoning on the subject of Mathematicians who are Christians. You claim that “The vast majority of Mathematicians do not believe in God.” Did you demonstrate that with a reputable source? No. Are you convinced that the Majority determines what is true or false? I hope not. You then go on to claim that the ones I mentioned were “Christians with a clear agenda.” So anybody who accepts an alternative view to Evolutionism MUST have an agenda? Sounds like your excluding the exceptions by your own definition.
“I don’t have beliefs.” Really? Forgive me for chuckling, but that is the dumbest thing I’ve heard all day. Who says believing something is bad? Do you believe you’re Mother loves you? Do you believe the Police aren’t out to get you?
Now you’re back-peddling claiming that you didn’t say Christians will never accept evolution. Read in Comment 10, where you said the following: “We have observed beneficial mutations such as in the Katahdin potato also. It is well know that no matter what evidence is produced, Christians will not accept it [Evolution].)”
If you cannot be consistent and intellectually honest, there’s no purpose in me wasting my time with you.
Jonathan
J: Speciation has not been demonstrated to lead to fundamentally new creatures. Having salt-water Crocs and fresh-water Crocs doesn’t demonstrate that the Croc itself came from a fish millions of years ago. If you think it does, please offer evidence to demonstrate so.
Reply: They’re called transition fossils. Don’t you have access to google?
J: Regarding Information, I see that you’re a copy/paste warrior! Rawr! You do realize that this means you’ve not checked these facts yourself, and you’re just assuming that these are factual. Meaning you are giving me information that may or may not be true, but for the very fact that it coincides with your view, you’re going to offer it anyway.
Reply: Here we go! It is only a matter of time before some fundy stoops to the old “everyone is lying but us” desperate argument. Do you really believe there is a big pro-evolution conspiracy? Do you really believe everyone else in the world is lying, or so deceived by Satan that only the fundagelicals are correct and everyone else is wrong?
J: Here’s a helpful suggestion. When you’re talking with a Creationist, offer REAL answers. Don’t just copy and paste a line of text that says, “Lenski aswered this in 1995, and 1991.” It’s very amusing - do you even know what Lenski, Alves, Knox, Park, Friedman, Hughes, and the others actually said or demonstrated? I doubt it, yet you have no reservation to quickly posting it when you need an answer.
Reply: I have no reason to doubt what most learned people have to say on a particular subject. I am not a scientist myself, and my knoweldge in this is only cursory. But when a doctor tells me that some antibiotic will cure me, I do generally take his word for it. I am not a doctor, but years of examining the helpful effects of their advice is enough for me. When I see that the majority of scientists have no problem accepting evolution, even after 150 years, this tells me something. Bad ideas don’t usually last that long in a competitive marketplace of ideas such as science, unless of course the mighty hand of Satan is at work. Isn’t this what you really believe? It was what I was told, and am still being told by my Christians friends and relatives.
J: I, on the other hand, will give you something you can actually read. A relevant exchange between Dr. Lee Spetner, and Dr. Edward Max of talkOrigins. This was supposed to be viewable on TalkOrigins, but for some odd reason they never held up their end of the bargain. You can read “A Scientific Critique of Evolution” for more information.
Reply: Funny, I had no problem finding it on talkorigins: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html (unless of course there is something more that I am missing).
But speaking of tomfoolery, perhaps I can hearken back to your hero William Dembski and his shenanigans at
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/shenanigans.cfm (I didn’t know his math was off also).
J: One the topic of the ID Movement. Quoting some ID Proponents describing how they feel that God created us is pointless, since I already said that many of the ID Proponents were probably Christians - or did you not read that to begin with? I additionally pointed out that not ALL of them were Christians. Got anything better to do than to setup straw-man arguments and then push them down?
Reply: Again, your persistence in this shows me how devious and dishonest you are. Again, no rebuttal from you on the Wedge Document, or even the evidences brought up in Dover. I agree that “Intelligent Design proponents aren’t always Christians” but they are largely Christians, and in the case of DOVER, they were ALL Christians.
I checked on Muslims but got “No Muslim Would Ever Say, “There Is Intelligent Design” Instead of “Allah Created”!”
-The “intelligent Design” Distraction by Harun Yahya
I do see that Michael Cremo (Hare Krishna) and Jonathan Wells (a Moonie) do work against Evolution (Cremo has no problem with humans existing for 100,000 years), but having brainwashed cultists on your side does not help your efforts.
There seems a rift between Jewish scholars and Jewish clergy here, but even they admit ID “has been crafted primarily by evangelical Christians and spurned by most scientists.”
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2005-12-29/news/darwin-this.
J: Now you’re engaging in Circular Reasoning on the subject of Mathematicians who are Christians. You claim that “The vast majority of Mathematicians do not believe in God.” Did you demonstrate that with a reputable source? No.
Reply: AGAIN, I assumed you had access to google. Do me a favor. Go to http://www.google.com and press CTRL+D, this way you will have it in your bookmarks.
J: Are you convinced that the Majority determines what is true or false? I hope not.
Reply: In this case, why not. Bad ideas do not survive long in modern science. The mathematician or scientist that can successfully topple the theory of evolution would be gain instant fame and fortune, yet none have been successful, not even your Dembski whose math does not seem to be up to snuff. See http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/experts/shallit.pdf), Häggström (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/olleh.cfm), Olofsson (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Pandasthumb.pdf).
J: You then go on to claim that the ones I mentioned were “Christians with a clear agenda.” So anybody who accepts an alternative view to Evolutionism MUST have an agenda? Sounds like your excluding the exceptions by your own definition.
Reply: Again, it is a Christian document called the Wedge Strategy, which is extremely clear in its agenda. This was brought out in Dover, and they were caught lying when denying this agenda.
J: “I don’t have beliefs.” Really? Forgive me for chuckling, but that is the dumbest thing I’ve heard all day. Who says believing something is bad? Do you believe you’re Mother loves you? Do you believe the Police aren’t out to get you?
Reply: “Belief” has several different definitions. For instance, I have belief/confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I have this belief because I have seen this happen many times before. This belief/confidence is based on prior evidence. The other kind, the kind I was referring to, means blind trust in the absence of evidence, sometimes even in the teeth of evidence. When I was questioning things I was always told to just “have faith”, in other words, believe in this even though we can’t prove it. The motto for many Christians is “Just Believe.”
I am not telling you anything new, but your tact, ad nauseum, seems to be to try to trip me up with words and definitions when you know full well what I am getting at. I find you to be a surreptitious fellow.
J: Now you’re back-peddling claiming that you didn’t say Christians will never accept evolution. Read in Comment 10, where you said the following: “We have observed beneficial mutations such as in the Katahdin potato also. It is well know that no matter what evidence is produced, Christians will not accept it [Evolution].)”
Reply: You are correct there. I should have worded that differently.
Here we go again…
Kenny, you seem to think that “Transitional” Fossils demonstrate how Salt-Water Crocs and Fresh-Water Crocs descended from Fish…please explain. I’m asking for a mechanism that can change fish into Crocs, and you want me to look at bones? You’ve haven’t given me a mechanism yet that has been demonstrated to create that type of change in a gene-pool.
With regards to “Everybody is lying”, where did I say that? Are you just pulling more nonsense out of the air? Setting up more straw men? What I said was how do you know the sources are reliable. It’s a legitimate question, isn’t it? I try to avoid naivety as much as possible. I myself will not suggest that you read something unless I have read it to begin with. I will not quote a source unless I am convinced myself of that source. Excuse me for taking my discussions more serious than you.
You state that you are “Not a Scientist”, and your knowledge of Evolution is “only cursory”, yet you have decided to ardently support Atheism and Evolution. Why? Apparently it wasn’t an intellectual journey, if your knowledge is only cursory. I’m curious, you call Scientists who believe in Evolution “learned people”, and Scientists who believe in God you characterize as stupid - so how did you decide who is “learned” and who isn’t if your knowledge is only cursory and you yourself are “not a scientist”?
Did you just hop on the Evolution bandwagon because it makes you feel good?
Glad to see that TalkOrigins got the article up. Last I checked it wasn’t there, but that was some time ago. I see that Max didn’t upload the entire thing by his comment on the original article : “This version contains most of the arguments central to the correspondence, but due to time constraints, some have been omitted. This edited version has not been approved by Spetner…”
Regarding your link to anti-Dembski material on TalkReason, I am not sure what you are trying to prove here. Are you creating a red-herring? Were we event talking about Dembski in any depth? I mentioned him because you said “No Mathematician Accepts Intelligent Design”. He’s not the subject of our discussion, so I’d appreciate it if you could keep to the topics and not deviate too much with red-herrings.
On the wedge-document, why do I care? It wasn’t even part of the discussion. This whole thing started when we were discussing WHAT ROLE EVOLUTION PLAYS IN MEDICINE. You have yet to demonstrate how it is useful to the World of Medicine. All you’ve done is toss up a basket of red-herrings to avoid a legitimate response to my blog-entry. How long are you going to play these silly games.
Your persistent request that I use Google as my source of all answers is a bit annoying. Do you have anything more than these childish tactics to offer? Can you not provide reputable sources for your nonsensical claims? Do you need to rely on vague answers like magical fossils, random citations, and the all-mighty Google?
Regarding your “Christians with a clear agenda” comment. You try to tie this to Dover, when we were talking about Dr. John Lennox, who had absolutely nothing to do with Dover - can you not form a coherent response?
“The motto for many Christians is ‘Just Believe’”. I would argue the same is true for many Evolutionists. Certainly in your case too. You claim to be a non-scientist with a cursory knowledge of Evolution. Yet you’ve decided that Evolutionists are the “learned” folk, and Christians are the blind-faith idiots, even though Creation Scientists hold the same degrees from the same colleges, and write for the same peer-reviewed publications.
You fail to give me a mechanism that can demonstrate that Salt-Water and Fresh-Water Crocodiles descended from Fish and Amphibians, yet you claim that fossils demonstrate this, in the absence of a mechanism. You have demonstrated an un-wavering faith in Evolutionism. From my observation, and conclusion of our discussions, it appears to be an un-founded faith. Blind, with nothing more than the light of your imagination illuminating your path to ignorance.
J: Kenny, you seem to think that “Transitional” Fossils demonstrate how Salt-Water Crocs and Fresh-Water Crocs descended from Fish…please explain. I’m asking for a mechanism that can change fish into Crocs, and you want me to look at bones? You’ve haven’t given me a mechanism yet that has been demonstrated to create that type of change in a gene-pool.
Reply: And I can’t. I am not a scientist. I have seen transitional fossils though so I do not see why it can’t happen.
J: With regards to “Everybody is lying”, where did I say that?
Reply: Why do you play these games Jonathan? You know darn well that is what you think. I know it, and many Christians feel the same way. Tell me then, since almost all biologists accept evolution as fact, are they being truthful?
J: You state that you are “Not a Scientist”, and your knowledge of Evolution is “only cursory”, yet you have decided to ardently support Atheism and Evolution. Why? Apparently it wasn’t an intellectual journey, if your knowledge is only cursory. I’m curious, you call Scientists who believe in Evolution “learned people”, and Scientists who believe in God you characterize as stupid - so how did you decide who is “learned” and who isn’t if your knowledge is only cursory and you yourself are “not a scientist”?
Reply: I did say I am not a Scientist and my knowledge is cursory. I simply cannot tell you how many things work. It is called HUMILITY…you should try it sometime. I find your comments to be quite derogatory, but then I have been a Christian for most of my life so this is nothing new. Few realize how much they sound like the Pharisee in Luke 18:11. I have never called anyone “stupid” here, and I certainly don’t think scientists who believe in God are stupid. One of the greatest minds in history was Isaac Newton, who was also a believer. But then, he believed in Alchemy also.
My knowledge of evolution may not be as strong many others, but my knowledge of Christianity and the bible is extensive. Life simply does not support a literal Christian worldview.
As Dobzhansky writes:
“The evidence of fossils shows clearly that the eventual end of most evolutionary lines is extinction. Organisms now living are successful descendants of only a minority of the species that lived in the past and of smaller and smaller minorities the farther back you look. Nevertheless, the number of living species has not dwindled; indeed, it has probably grown with time. All this is understandable in the light of evolution theory; but what a senseless operation it would have been, on God’s part, to fabricate a multitude of species ex nihilo and then let most of them die out!”
or
“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying
of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.
In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good,
nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” - Dawkins
J: On the wedge-document, why do I care? It wasn’t even part of the discussion. This whole thing started when we were discussing WHAT ROLE EVOLUTION PLAYS IN MEDICINE. You have yet to demonstrate how it is useful to the World of Medicine. All you’ve done is toss up a basket of red-herrings to avoid a legitimate response to my blog-entry. How long are you going to play these silly games.
Reply: Oh Jonathan. Nice Try. You are one shady fellow. The Wedge Document provides ample evidence that ID “Is” religion, and it demolishes your claim above: “The ID proponents do not evangelize their readers or listeners with the ID message. Nor could they, since they do not adhere to any Religious doctrine for guidance.” What a joke!
“My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ.”
-William Dembski (see http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski for more)
J: Regarding your “Christians with a clear agenda” comment. You try to tie this to Dover, when we were talking about Dr. John Lennox, who had absolutely nothing to do with Dover - can you not form a coherent response?
Reply: You are doing it again. I never intimated that Lennox was involved with Dover, but never mind (throwing my arms up in the air in frustration).
J: “The motto for many Christians is ‘Just Believe’”. I would argue the same is true for many Evolutionists. Certainly in your case too. You claim to be a non-scientist with a cursory knowledge of Evolution. Yet you’ve decided that Evolutionists are the “learned” folk, and Christians are the blind-faith idiots, even though Creation Scientists hold the same degrees from the same colleges, and write for the same peer-reviewed publications.
Reply: Yes, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html talks about the practically invisible contributions of ID in peer-reviewed journals, but then, you did not say ID. Christians can be and are scientists, just like Newton, but they can also believe in foolish things, just like Newton.
Evolutionists are learned folk, and so are biologists and so forth, the majority of which accept evolution. As a Christian I was told that Evolution was the work of the Devil, and people like Dawkins were pawns of Satan. I was strongly urged not to read such material. My family and friends would regularly burn books that offered evidence that went contrary to their beliefs. This fear-mongering and milieu control is not satisfying to an inquiring mind. Absolute truth does not fear scrutiny. I am much happier in a field where I don’t know everything and an free to ask questions. Evolution makes much more sense to me than simply repeating this or that happened because someone ate a fruit 6000 years ago.
J: You fail to give me a mechanism that can demonstrate that Salt-Water and Fresh-Water Crocodiles descended from Fish and Amphibians, yet you claim that fossils demonstrate this, in the absence of a mechanism.
Reply: Responded to above. I also cannot explain Neutrinos, Black Holes, Gene Therapy, Polymer and Crystal Physics, Quantum Physics, etc., but this is not an argument against them. Tell me, what is ID good for? TIME’s Top 10 Medical Breakthroughs did not mention ID either. Should I follow that up with: “TIME Magazine released their list of the Top 10 Medical Breakthroughs of 2007, and as suspected ID had absolutely no guidance over any of them. So why would something so vital (sarcasm) as ID have absolutely no guidance what-so-ever over advancing our Medical knowledge, and helping mankind?”
“I have seen transitional fossils, so I don’t see why Evolution couldn’t have happened.”
Wow - that’s pretty naive. So if I show you a skeleton of a man, and a skeleton of a fish, you automatically assume that that this type of fish eventually gave rise to this type of human? You don’t need any more information than that? Goodness. I’m curious, what transitional forms do you find so persuasive, never mind the fact that you think these magical bones can do such phenomenal things in the absence of a biological mechanism that would create such extravagant changes in a lineage of organisms.
“You are a liar, Jonathan. You know you think Evolutionists are lying!”
It’s really not fair for you to debate both sides of the argument, especially when I’m here to debate my side to begin with. Do you really feel that you must create false arguments in order to win a discussion on Evolution? As far as whether I think Evolutionists are liars, no, not all of them. Some of them, yes. There are Politicians who are liars too, and even some Christians. What is the big deal? You think all Scientists are altruistic beings who exist in a selfless state to only serve the greater good for all of mankind? If so, please explain how we get so many fraudulent fossils, etc. Shoot, I was reading Discover magazine last night where it was mentioned that a Scientist lied about having a line of cloned embryonic stem-cells in order to receive attention.
“Your comments are derogatory. I don’t think scientists who believe in God are stupid.”
You called Christians “Intellectually bankrupt”. You referred to them as “fundy”, and “fundagelicals” in a caustic manner. You called me “devious and dishonest”, and “Surreptitious”. So you’re right, you didn’t directly call us “Stupid”. You’re much too subtle for that.
Yes. Some of my comments may be derogatory - Evolution is a stupid idea, and many Evolutionists defend it with stupid evidences, and poor reasoning.
“‘My thesis is…’” - William Dembski
What are you trying to prove in quoting Dr. Dembski? That he’s a Christian? Big deal. I already told you (twice now?) that it doesn’t matter. Some ID Proponents are Christians. Some are Catholics, some are Hindu, some are Muslim -big deal. You want to convince me that my own claims are true? Be my guest
I guess I’ll work to convince you that Dawkins is an Evolutionist - sound like a good use of my time?
“I was told Evolution was the word of the Devil…Dawkins was a pawn of Satan. My family regularly burned books…that went contrary to their beliefs.”
Sounds like you have a family fool of idiots - no offence. But anybody who feels they need to burn books and tell their kids that Evolutionists are satanic need to open their eyes a bit. Obviously not all Christians are like this. I let you comment on my blog, and I even welcome your involvement. See, the difference between me and your family, is that I follow the evidence - they followed their faith ignorantly. Reminds me of Romans 10:2, “…they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” Some Christians are just dumb.
“The evidence of fossils shows clearly that the eventual end of most evolutionary lines is extinction…” - Dobzhansky
Extinction? Yes. Duh, Global Flood, hello? So what is the point of your Dawkins’ quote? To convince me that there is suffering in the World? I don’t need Dawkins’ to tell me that. The Apostle Paul wrote “We know that he whole creation groans and travails in pain together” some 2,000 years ago.
“Tell me, what is ID good for? TIME’s Top 10 Medical Breakthroughs did not mention ID either.”
Exactly. The ID Movement doesn’t say stupid things like “Nothing in Biology makes any sense without ID”. Evolutionists affirm that Science cannot take place without a proper understanding of Evolution. So the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the accuracy of that statement. Nobody else is foolish enough to say such stupid things.
You don’t need to believe in God to do Science. You don’t need to be an Atheist to do Science. Modern Medicine came from Operational Science. Actually studying the Human Body. Studying it at the Anatomical level, the Mechanical Level, the Morphological Level, the Biochemical Level, and the Electrical Level. None of the advances came from a belief that Man descended from Fish via billions of years of Evolution.
J: Extinction? Yes. Duh, Global Flood, hello? So what is the point of your Dawkins’ quote? To convince me that there is suffering in the World? I don’t need Dawkins’ to tell me that. The Apostle Paul wrote “We know that he whole creation groans and travails in pain together” some 2,000 years ago.
Reply: That “the whole creation groans and travails in pain together” is not evidence for a loving creator, it is not evidence of creation, and all this suffering is better explained by evolution rather than ID.
As for the flood, there is so much evidence against the Noahic flood it boggles the mind that intelligent people still believe this, but that is the power of religion for you.
I found this interesting comment floating around online:
“Finding oil is a very important and high-stakes issue for oil companies. Literally trillions of dollars are riding on it. Exxon’s exploration budget alone is around $20 billion per year. When the chips are down and they need to find the most likely spots to drill - what kind of geology do they use? Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?…Why don’t creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If “Flood geology” is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn’t anyone doing this?”
J: What are you trying to prove in quoting Dr. Dembski? That he’s a Christian?
Reply: Ugh! Never mind. I guess at this point I feel I have to move on. You intentionaly play these games time after time.
“Bible verses on suffering are not evidence for a loving creator, nor are they evidence for creation.”
Um, you didn’t ask for evidence of a Loving Creator, or evidence of Creation - so why would that be your complaint? You quoted Dawkins in saying we see pain and suffering in the earth. You didn’t say, “We see pain and suffering, so God doesn’t exist.” Or, “We see pain and suffering, therefore we weren’t created.” You just quoted him out of the blue on suffering in the world. I told you I didn’t need him to tell me that, I already knew it, and the Apostle Paul said it long before he did. Habakkuk said it long before Paul, and so on. Yet another instance of you acting like an argument was made, and convincing yourself of a victory on no related grounds. “What’s your name? Jonathan? Hah! That doesn’t prove God exists!”
“…Suffering is better explained by evolution rather than ID.”
ID doesn’t even deal with the philosophical implications or reasons for “suffering”. Goodness, have you even read their material? The Intelligent Design Movement deals with the distinct scientific features of design in biological systems and the World around us. Just as Forensics deal with interpreting design in murder scenes and the like. Besides, I’m not here to defend the ID Movement, seeing how I’m a Creationist, not a proponent of ID. Unfortunately, you’re not educated enough to know the difference.
“I found this interesting comment floating around online: “Finding oil is very important…”
Oh, another completely random quote out of nowhere? Are you saying that we find oil because we have accepted the idea of “billions of years of evolution?” We’ve been in the oil business since earlier than the 9th century, LONG before anybody thought the earth was billions of years old, or even understood what Evolutionists believe to be the history of the Earth. We’ve got records of crude oil pumped in China 2,500 year ago. So please, do tell me how Evolution is so crucial to the discovery of Oil. And how we managed to find it for THOUSANDS of years before your silly ideas were even formulated. If I’m not mistaken, Muslims have one of the earliest histories in oil - they aren’t evolutionists…so you can thank Creationists (Although Muslim) for that.
For a better understanding of Flood Geology and Oil, read a Geologists perspective here: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=259
J: Nobody in their right mind would claim that the changes we see in antibiotic resistance is the same type of change that would turn a population of fish into a population of reptiles. If you disagree, please demonstrate these mechanisms.
E: I think that changes that we see in antibiotic resistance are not exactly the same type that would turn a population of fish into reptiles. But complex things can be explained with simple examples. And microbes are a lot less complex living organisms then fishes or reptiles.
Evolutionary biology says that the fishes have been evolving for about 500 mil. years and the first reptiles appeared approximately 380-400 mil. years ago. That means that it took about 100 mil. years to create from a population of fish the first reptile. I guess what I want to say is that it is pretty difficult to recreate this kind of changes in that large scale (to create a new phylum).
Erki,
You’re right that it’s pretty difficult to “re”create these types of changes…especially when we have no known mechanism to do this. The only thing Evolutionists tout as examples are antibiotic resistance, which are often times nothing more then a shape-change, or something just as insignificant.
Science is supposed to be deducted from experimentation, observation, and testing. None of these qualify the idea of fish-to-reptile evolution. The “theory” of common-ancestry has no substantial evidence, and is nothing more than an unscientific conjecture.
Jonathan
Circumcision preventing HIV, they must’ve gotten that from the Bible!
Who knows?
Genesis 17:10-11
This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
Add A Comment