Nice quote about human evolution :-)
Over at Uncommon Descent, Barry Arrington continues to point out the reality about human evolution. (Bold is mine)
Time’s verdict regarding Ida: “Most paleontologists will roll their eyes at that sort of overhyped nonsense, especially given that there’s real science lurking underneath. After wading through the false advertising, though, most people might have a hard time finding it.”Full story here.
Then there is this gem: “‘Most of what we understand about primate evolution is pieced together from bits of teeth and jaws,’ says Michael Novacek, curator of paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History.”
Teeth and jaws. Seems to me that leaves an awful lot of room for interpretation, which, of course, is influenced by worldview (or “metaphysical prejudices if you like) as much as anything else.
Quotes. Wow….. that really is scientific. Glad to know that proves nothing. Quotes are quotes, they are opinions, not always represented by facts.
Bon,
Obviously these quotes disagree with your faith. I guess the truth about human evolution is not what some people like to hear. Lies are much better for tickling the ears huh?
Human evolution aside, the question is really, “is there evidence for evolution”, and if there is, then to claim evolution is false would make God a liar (since God would have to have planted that evidence to make it look like there was evolution).
The thing that gets me is, the Bible is a theological book, not a science book. It says nothing about the process of how things came to be, it ONLY says why (ie, because God created it).
So they claim they have found “the missing link.” It is about time. They have only been looking for it (actually a chain of missing links about 1000 miles long) for the last 150 years since Darwin. Oh well, in another 150 years time, they may find another missing link. By that time, I’m sure “Ida” will be reclassified as having no relationship whatsoever in human evolution. That they (call them “scientists”, if you like) find an intact fossil and proclaim it as “the missing link” of human evolution is really a joke, especially when it is presented by the media to the public as fact. Just goes to show how desperate they are.
I think the point is Geoff, the evidence is really lacking. Where are the continuum of transitionals? If the best evidence is the fossil record, and yet the fossil record is so lacking, then why such confidence in the “theory”? Until the evidence is MUCH better, I will continue to believe that “macro evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups” as one museum curator said.
Dear admin,
you say that for you the fossil record is so lacking and why the confidence in the theory? Why indeed. Have you really thought deeply about why scientists have not only mere confidence in the theory of evolution, they regard it as a stone cold fact beyond question. Do you really think they all have this big agenda to “prove” christians and the bible to be wrong? They accept this theory because the evidence is so overwhelming that to deny it would be intellectual folly,
You may want the evidence to be MUCH better but for tens of thousands of scientists worldwide with minds and intellects MUCH greater than yours and over a period of 150 years the evidence has been more than enough for them to be totally convinced.
I would suggest if you have some startling new idea that could shake the foundations of this theory then you put together a paper containing your idea and your evidence for this and submit it to a respectable scientific journal and see if it passes muster and perhaps ushers in a new period of “enlightenment”.
We’re all waiting.
Chris,
Appealing to the scientific masses is fallacious. Truth does not depend upon numbers.
Yes, I have thought about it — have you? Or have you just bought into the traditions you were brought up within?
Agenda? I don’t think so in most cases. But clearly there are some scientists who are using their platform to espouse philosophy.
Publishing papers? Yeah, right! The ID guys have tried that one — and watched as the scientific priesthood closed ranks on them
That is the height of bull, Chris, and you know it, especially all this baloney about “molecules to man” vertical evolution being a fact because of the confidence of scientists in the fossil record for the last 150 years being enough to convince them that it is true.” If that were so, you would not have eminent evolutionists like Stephen J. Gould, considered the world’s foremost evolutionist, conceding that “The fossil record with its abrupt appearance of complete forms offers no support for gradual change…All palaeontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups (kinds) are characteristically abrupt”. Dr. Robert Barnes is an authority of invertebrate zoology. In his book “Invertebrate Beginnings,” he writes, “The fossil record tells us nothing about the evolutionary origin of phyla and classes. Intermediate forms are non-existent, undiscovered, or not recognized.” Remember Ernest Mayr. Many have considered him the greatest evolutionist since Gould. This is what he had to say about the fossil record: “Palaeontologists had long been aware of a ’seeming contradiction’ between Darwin’s postulate of gradualism …and the actual findings of palaeontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record” (Mayr. E. Our Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138). Renowned evolutionist Niles Eldredge who, along with Stephen J. Gould, originated the concept of “Punctuated Equilibria” (Evolution-by-peaks) to explain away the grave disparity in the fossil record of evidence for gradual evolution from one distinct kind to another (Evolution-by creeps) had this to say: “We have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not “(Niles Eldredge, “Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the theory of Punctuated Equilibria, 1985, p.44). As Robert E. Ricklefs has rightly pointed out in “Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution, Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59: “Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian Evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. . Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved…The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to ‘resolve’ a dilema.” In other words, the idea of punctuated equilibrium of rapid peaks equivalent to tens of thousands of years of evolution (too fast to be seen) between long ages of gradual evolution is (in the mind of the evolutionist) sufficient (for the present at least) to explain away the failure of gradual evolution or evolution-by-creeps (too slow to be seen). Brilliant!
Of course, not even six day creationists, not to speak of progressive creationists, limit microevolutionary change to variation within species and certainly creation allows for speciation (different species) and adaptation within a biblical kind ( a biblical kind is far more than a modern specie). Microevolutionary change is simply change within certain vague limits, limits which fall far short of the wholesale development envisioned by the Thesis of Common Ancestry. Nevertheless, evolutionists will extrapolate evidence from operational science or microevolution (I.e. natural selection, random mutation) to juxtapose their argument for macroevolution or vertical evolution ( fish-to-philosopher) from the primordial soup, which really comes from origins science, all the while ignoring the key point that speciation (variation) due to natural selection and mutation results in loss of genetic information in the genome, not an increase as vertical evolution from simple to complex requires, so that it does not matter how much time you allow for the evolutionary process to take place (millions or billions of years), it will never produce anything other than a variety of the animals own basic kind ( I.e. over 200 different species of dogs from the little Chihuahua to the Great Dane) or else eventual extinction over time. It will not produce anything new in the way of a new, basically distinct kind demanded by vertical (fish-to-philosopher) macroevolution. Which is why Dr. Felix Konotey-Ahula, M.D. (Lond.), FRCP, DTMH, one of the world’s leading experts in sickle-cell anemia, a serious chronic and painful blood disorder, states, “Demonstrating natural selection does not demonstrate that ‘upward evolution’ (fish to philosopher) is a fact, yet many schoolchildren are taught this as “proof” of evolution.” He points out that “the sickle-cell gene is still a defect (an inherited random change or mutation), not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for.. and having more carriers of the sickle-cell genes results in more people suffering from this terrible disease. He concludes that science would be far better served by scientists working on “factual lines rather than theoretical evolutionary concepts” .Dr. John K.G. Kramer, formerly associate editor of the scientific journal LIPIDS (Ph.D. in biochemistry), completed three years of post-doctoral studies as a Hormel fellow at the Hormel Institute and as an NRC fellow at the university of Ottawa. He has identified, characterized, and synthesized the structure of numerous food, bacterial, and biological components and has published 128 refereed papers and numerous abstracts and book chapters. He states, “No one has ever demonstrated macro evolutionary changes on a molecular level, yet, many people readily speculate evolutionary links between bacteria, plants, animals, and man. If macroevolution is unlikely on a molecular level, how can the whole be changed? Endless DNA sequence comparisons do not explain evolutionary development. Furthermore, the changes (mutations) observed on a molecular level, such as DNA, are predominately disruptive, and always with loss of, not gain in, information and complexity.” Renowned evolutionist James Shapiro agreees: “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject–evolution–with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity” (Molecular biologist James Shapiro, “In the Details…What?” National Review, 19 September 1996, pp. 62-65.
As far as published research papers go, I think “Admin” answered it best: “Publishing papers? Yeah, right! The ID guys have tried that one — and watched as the scientific priesthood closed ranks on them.”
New “facts” or interpretations of science, even of the majority of scientists, are discovered everyday, while old “facts” are just as often discarded. The history of science is littered with the wrecks of ideas that were considered to be “true,” but have long since fallen out of favour. For example, before 1986, researchers and texts had asserted for 20 years that RNA had been synthesized in the lab. It was even in college textbooks. Finally, Dr. Robert Shapiro checked it out and found it to be a rumour spread entirely from a single ambiguous paper drafted in 1967. His announcement was a bombshell at the 1986 conference of the International Institute for the Study of the Origin of Life at Berkeley, California. Random development of RNA in the environment of early earth has been shown to be impossible (Robert Shapiro, “Prebiotic Ribose Synthesis,” A Critical Analysis of the Origin of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 18, 1988, pp. 71-85; and Shapiro, “Protomabolism: A Scenario for the Origin of Life,” The American Scientist).
In conclusion, whatever confidence evolutionists have in “from the goo, through the zoo, to you” evolution is certainly not found in the fossil record of the last 150 years, according to the most eminent scientific minds, both evolutionists and non-evolutionists. See my previous comment above. and please no appeals to the majority (not determinant of truth), redundant straw dummy arguments, name calling, or such like. I also agree that “macro evolution” is a fairy tale for grown-ups” as one museum curator said.
Once I was an amoeba in a stinking bog,
then I became a croaking frog (after eons of transitional or intermediate forms that we don’t see in the fossil record)
Next I became a monkey in a coconut tree (after millions of years of gradual evolution-by-creeps [too slow to see], evolution-by-peaks [too fast to see] and evolution-by-freaks (genetic mutations still harmful-produces nothing new by way of transmutations: snails remain snails, clams clams, trilobites trilobites, jellyfish jellyfish, birds birds, fish fish, apes apes, man man).
Now, I’m a professor with a Ph.D .(in Palaeontology would you believe).
It takes a lot more faith to believe that than “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth …and every herb yielding seed… fruit tree yielding fruit…and every living creature..after their kind… And God said, “Let us make man in our image.” God bless.
Dear admin,
What do you mean “appealing to the scientific masses is fallacious”? Are you saying that the views of the vast majority of trained scientists who regard the theory of evolution as utterly compelling based on the evidence they have studied over a 150 year time period counts for nothing?
One can only conclude that you think scientists are a bunch of completely incompetent fools for so many to get it so wrong over such a long period of time. This is even more puzzling when you take into context the cut throat world of sciencific research where scientists are only too eager to prove their fellow researchers wrong if they feel the science is bad.
I asked you in my previous posting if you had thought deeply about why scientists are so confident in this theory if, as you suggest, it is a load of bollocks. You said that you had. What conclusions did you reach?
I am pleased to hear that you don’t think scientists have an agenda against christian thinking, unlike your friend Rayburne who takes conspiracy theories to the nth degree.
However I am puzzled by your following statement where you say there are some scientists who are using their platform to espouse philosophy. I’m sorry but I don’t actually understand what you mean. I’m only guessing but are you saying that scientists are not allowed to make philosophical statements?
Finally, just to say that the invitation to submit a scientific paper to debunk the great fraud that is evolution is still open.
You are right, the ID guys have tried that and failed miserably. In fact I don’t know how hard they tried actually. But the IDers from the Discovery Institute in the USA are bunch of devious propaganda merchants dealing in lies and pseudoscience. They don’t actually do any credible science and so it’s little wonder they had nothing to offer to any respectable journal. I believe that you’re better than that with a higher sense of morality and ethics than they have.
By the way if you don’t agree with my view of the ID argument read this from Federal Judge John E Jones summing up after presiding over the case in late 2005 which went against the Dover High School board’s intention to teach creationism in the science classroom. This was in the state of Pennsylvania.
” Intelligent design is grounded in theology, not science, and is an old argument for the existence of god. Science on the other hand is a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclessiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea’s worth”
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
Chris,
Evolution is a worldview Chris. It is also the dominant model used in science to understand parts of the natural world. Newtonian physics was in the same boat about 100+ years ago. It was widely accepted. Then cracks appeared and everything changed forever.
If all you have to appeal to is the masses who like yourself just accept the reigning paradigm and show indignation toward those who dare question it, then we should just move on. I realize how hard it is Chris to question something that everyone else seems to believe in and talk about as if it is just rock-solid fact. It is much easier 4 1 2 just go with the flow.
“take into context the cut throat world of sciencific research where scientists are only too eager to prove their fellow researchers wrong”
Sure Chris, except that replacing a theory with one that has theological implications is ruled out a priori. This contains the WHOLE essence of the issue. God is NOT allowed into materialistic science, ergo the fact of evolution.
“I’m only guessing but are you saying that scientists are not allowed to make philosophical statements?”
No, I would never advocate that. I think the philosophical aspects are often the most interesting. But as you know, philosophy undergirds science and thinking. We should be clear that NDE is a philosophy, not a science. Just consider this post for example: http://christiannews.co.nz/2009/nice-quote-about-human-evolution/
Judge Jones? Yeah, his summing up document was apparently almost verbatim from the ACLU, including spelling mistakes
Have you seen this atheist’s website: http://bradleymonton.wordpress.com/category/intelligent-design/?
“Chris says “your friend Rayburne who takes conspiracy theories to the nth degree.”
We all know that “conspiracy theories” first originated with the mainstream evolutionary establishment as a deploy against credible challenges against ID theorists to convince the public that ID (which they believed was creationism in disguise) was simply another resort of creationists to debunk evolution. Never mind that many in the ID movement are university professors and relatively few of them adhere to the traditional beliefs of creationism.. One could list Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson, Lehigh biologist Michael Behe, Dean Kenyon, biologist (emeritus) at san Francisco State,Walter Bradley, professor emeritus of mechanical engineering at Texas A&M; Charles Thaxton, who taught natural sciences at Charles University in Prafue; Robert Kaita, plasma physicist at Princeton; Martin Poenie, zoologist at the University of Texas; Jed Macosco, molecular biologist at the University of California at Berkeley; Henry F. Schaeffer, pioneer quantum chemist at the University of Georgia; William Dembski, mathematician at Baylor University, and many more.
All I ask is a rebuttal of what I have said above in my long comments with evidence to suuport you rebuttal. As “Admin” has rightly pointed out,” If all you have to appeal to is the masses who like yourself just accept the reigning paradigm and show indignation toward those who dare question it, then we should just move on.”
If all you have to appeal to is the masses who like yourself just accept the reigning paradigm and show indignation toward those who dare question it, then we should just move on.
My comment shoud read:” We all know that “conspiracy theories” first originated with the mainstream evolutionary establishment as a deploy against credible challenges against mainstream Darwinian evolution by ID theorists to convince the public that ID (which they believed was creationism in disguise) was simply another resort of creationists to debunk evolution. Then, they came up with the bset one of all; namely that the movie “Expelled” was a desperate propaganda attempt by ID theorists to smear Darwiniam Evolution under the guise of refusing to allow freedom of academic inquiry and promoting academic bigotry and discrimination. Very clever.
As I have reasonably requested, just give me a rebuttal of what I have said above
with regard to microevolutionary/macroevolution change (and by the way, we all quote authorities), with evidence to support your rebuttal. Thank you.
Admin,
Newtonian physics is still widely accepted as a practical and elegant model of the macro world. The cracks you are referring to (presumably relativity and quantum mechanics) are part of the ongoing development of a scientific model, and in fact are evidence of the fact that scientists are not dogma bound and are prepared (in fact delighted) to find and accept deficiencies in theories.
God of course is not allowed into scientific materialism as he/she/it is not material. God is a response to a question for people who are afraid to say “I don’t know”.
A Judge’s written decisions very commonly utilise one or other of the lawyers’ submissions. All lawyers know this, and write their submissions in a way that can be incorporated by a judge. Although this point keeps getting made (that Judge Jones heavily relied on ACLU’s submissions) any lawyer will tell you there is nothing sinister in this, and it is standard practice across the board. So why do people keep repeating this point?
“…and in fact are evidence of the fact that scientists are not dogma bound and are prepared (in fact delighted) to find and accept deficiencies in theories.”
No Tim, SOME scientists are not dogma bound. Others have often opposed new theories until the weight of evidence is too much to bear. Big bang cosmology is an example where the theistic implications made it very hard for some to accept the apparent evidence (e.g. Sir Arthur Eddington).
And the evidence against Darwinism is mounting…….
“God of course is not allowed into scientific materialism as he/she/it is not material. God is a response to a question for people who are afraid to say “I don’t know”.”
This is nonsense Tim. Materialist scientists make up the rule “everything in the universe is material” such that God is a priori excluded.
That is, scientists, by faith, declare their omniscience! (What arrogance btw to make such a claim.)
Then they declare that God and science cannot be discussed in the same sentence. What intellectual dishonesty is this?
P1. A priori define God out of science
P2. Find evidence of design in the universe
C. Conclude that evidence of design must be naturalistic in origin because God cannot be allowed into science.
Yeah, right!
Why, Judge Jones? Because the ACLU have an agenda, right? Can I smell something?
Tim says. “God of course is not allowed into scientific materialism as he/she/it is not material. God is a response to a question for people who are afraid to say “I don’t know”. Yeah, sure, , God is not included as a response by scientific materialists when it comes to the philosophical question of the origin of life “from the goo, to the zoo, to you” because they are not afraid to say, “I do know,” even though there is no testable, observable, repeatable phenomena on origins. Right?
Hi Admin,
On June 14th you said:
“Evolution is a worldview Chris. It is also the dominant model used in science to understand parts of the natural world. Newtonian physics was in the same boat about 100+ years ago. It was widely accepted. Then cracks appeared and everything changed forever”.
Is the use of a fancy nebulous phrase such as “worldview” your latest futile attempt to cover up your ignorance of all things scientific? It seems to me that this ignorance seems to lie at the heart of your contemptous, dismissive and even fearful attitude towards science and scientists.
An example of this ignorance (apart from the multitude of intelligent design based pseudoscientific comments) is to be found in your comments about Newtonian physics.
What cracks are you talking about? What has changed forever? What’s your point? You can’t even make a relatively simple comment on scientific theories without sounding utterly ridiculous. I think Tim answered your comments rather well except to say that for all practical purposes Newtonian physics still holds perfectly well in our everyday world.
So if you’re using this situation as a comparison to Evolutionary science then what you’re really saying is that Darwin’s theory of evolution (that is descent , with modification, of all organisms from common ancestors with natural selection as the driving force) still holds perfectly well today despite our vast increase in knowledge of the field of genetics and molecular biology that Darwin didn’t have access to in his day. Your analogy has shown the complete opposite of what you intended (and is far more accurate)
You also said “If all you have to appeal to is the masses who like yourself just accept the reigning paradigm and show indignation toward those who dare question it, then we should just move on. I realize how hard it is Chris to question something that everyone else seems to believe in and talk about as if it is just rock-solid fact. It is much easier 4 1 2 just go with the flow”
This paragraph is full of just just plain mumbo jumbo. You still don’t seem to “get it” about my point about the absolutely overwhelming numbers of scientists over a 150 year period who regard evolutionary science as a scientific fact in the same way they regard the theory of the Earth revolving around the sun. It is not appealing to the masses as you like to refer to it. The point lies in the reasons they believe it. It is based on the combination of overwhelming evidence from several scientific disciplines all pointing to the one and same conclusion. It is not just from the fossil record. The fields of molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics provide a huge amount of evidence even without the work of the palentologists. So to say that it is just appealing to the numbers and nothing else is misleading.
Also your comment about showing indignation towards those who question science is astounding both in its arrogance and shear hypocrisy. Much of this website is dedicated to rubbishing scientists and scientific thought, promoting carefully crafted pseudoscience (ie lies) and joyfully promoting the idea that religion has all the answers to not only things spiritual but also the physical world without the need for any proper falsifiable evidence. In other words not only are scientists spiritually dead and philosophically ignorant they’ve got the science completely wrong as well! And you’re worried about a bit of rejection coming your way!
What an insult that is to all the dedicated people out there who study hard in what is not an easy field of learning and do original and innovative research to gain a better understanding of the world we live in.
This is in contrast to people like yourself who do nothing more than promote
anti intellectualism.
Good try Chris, but I have more scientific qualifications than you my friend. You are a food technician by training, right?
I am not anti-science. I just not a sucker who is forced into believing things because that’s what everyone else believes.
FYI, I am an ex-atheist. I too once believed what you believe.
Anti-intellectual — if only you knew Chris.
Here’s an invite Chris — Give me the 3 best evidences for “the fact of evolution” (by which I mean macro evolution). Please, for the sake of my own ignorance, here is your chance to put me right and set me on the right path. Convince me Chris and I will publically recant and begin promoting your side on this website.
Come on, give me your best three…….
Perhaps you could begin with abiogenesis — and no speculations, just cold hard fact please.
Dear admin,
you said “good try Chris, but I have more scientific qualifications than you my friend. You are a food technician by training, right?”
What do you mean by good try? You have made no attempt to address the points made in my previous posting and have instead tried to be evasive by resorting to a little game of academic oneupsmanship. I also detect a rather unsavoury patronising tone coming through here.
Actually for your information I’m a chemist by training. And while you’re trying to reveal personal details of others in a public forum why don’t you take the time here to reveal to us your real name and these high powered scientific qualifications you supposedly possess.
I would also like to know if they are real or obtained from one of those religious institutions in the States that masquerade as Universities.
You said “I am not anti-science. I just not a sucker who is forced into believing things because that’s what everyone else believes.”
The first sentence is simply not true. You most certainly are anti-science and anti scientists. Let’s face it you have to be. It and they are too threatening to your rigid personal beliefs (you’re a Young Earth creationist, right?) You made reference to a “scientific priesthood closing ranks’ in a previous posting. I think this speaks volumes about your attitude on this matter.
The second sentence is just juvenile psycho-babble and is not worth commenting on.
You said “FYI, I am an ex-atheist. I too once believed what you believe”
Yes I know you’re an ex-atheist, you’ve mentioned this before. However what sort of atheist were you? A passive atheist you had never really given the subject much thought or someone who had thought the situation through and had a good grasp of the physical world we live in and rejected religion as a ridiculously far fetched concept but was amazingly converted in spite of this. I’m guessing the former.
You said “Anti-intellectual — if only you knew Chris”
This sounds like the start of some dramatic thriller novel. I think you’d be much better placed as a paperback writer than wasting your time with this superstitious nonsense.
If, as you say, you once had a scientific bent but then turned your back on this to pursue the promotion of anti-intellectual ID propoganda then this is all the more tragic. However judging by your comments about Newtonian physics in your last post then perhaps it wasn’t such a big loss after all.
You said “Here’s an invite Chris — Give me the 3 best evidences for “the fact of evolution” (by which I mean macro evolution). Please, for the sake of my own ignorance, here is your chance to put me right and set me on the right path. Convince me Chris and I will publically recant and begin promoting your side on this website.
Oh what a gloriously deceptive red herring this is! By the way I assume you mean “3 best pieces of evidence”.
Why do you resort to these devious little childish tactics? If I thought for one minute that you were open minded enough to study any evidence I might provide and make a decision on it purely on its merits as physical evidence without resorting to the supernatural or the lies from the ID brigade then I would provide it. However you and I both know that you are not interested in evolutionary evidence from mainstream science. You’ve probably read much of it anyway and have chosen to reject it out of hand so why should I repeat it?
However I will say that most of your refutation of evolution is based on attacking the supposed lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. This attack is totally unwarranted but don’t you realise that we don’t even need the fossil record to prove evolution? Molecular biology provides powerful tools to unlock some of the mysteries surrounding this subject. For instance Allan Wilson was a pioneering New Zealand scientist in this field. He made his name at Berkeley University in the USA and in 1967 published a paper in Science magazine titled “immunological timescale for human evolution”. He asserted that the origins of the human species could be seen through what he termed a “molecular clock”. This was a way of dating from the genetic mutations that had accumulated since they parted from a common ancestor. He had discovered that these mutations accumulate at a constant rate. He found that chimpanzees and humans shared about 99% of genetic material. From this and the rate of change using the molecular clock he deduced we parted ways with chimps just over 5 million years ago, not 25 million as had been previously thought.
This was controversial at the time but is now universally accepted (except amongst the fundamental christian brigade of course).
This is an example of innovative science at its best (and from a New Zealander no less). There is now a Scientific Centre of research excellence named after him at the Massey University campus.
You said “perhaps you could begin with abiogenesis — and no speculations, just cold hard fact please”.
You keep showing your scientific ignorance here Admin despite implying your scientific credentials are impressive.
You’ve asked me to give an example of the evidence for evolution and then say I should start with Abiogenesis. But these are two different subjects!
Abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. Evolution is the study of how groups of living things change over time.
C’mon admin why don’t you come clean in this public forum and admit you don’t really know much about science and only appear to have some knowledge by regurgitating the pseudoscience propaganda that the ID boys in America send you.
Hi Chris. No, I am not trained in the USA. (Btw, I believe USA universities took 18 of the top 20 spots in a Chinese survey a couple of years ago.)
No Chris. I am not a young earth creationist.
You should give up guessing Chris.
Your ignorance of Newtonian physics is showing Chris. Sure it is still useful, and widely used, but GPS units would crash planes if they relied upon Newtonian physics. (Newton btw was a young earth creationist, a Christian, and a brilliant mind, perhaps the most brilliant since Adam. I only say this to point out that God belief did not appear to hinder Newton’s genius.)
I’m glad you agree with Gould and admit that the fossil record does not help your side.
Explain to me why “molecular clock” dating is not begging the question? I mean, you are assuming that mutations have happened at a constant rate over some long period of time. How is that assumption to be proved? If it could be, that would be good evidence imo.
Closed mindedness? Well, I would disagree Chris. I have no gain in believing things that are false. I suspect that, perhaps unlike yourself, I have actually managed to admit that I believe that I was once wrong in what I believed. I, like the world’s most famous philosophical atheist Anthony Flew, changed my mind. Perhaps it is you that is closed minded?
Abiogenesis? This is a starting point Chris. Do you believe it happened by chance? Upon what do you base that? And why say it has nothing to do with evolution? Evolution means “change over time”, right? So in a broad sense, it is evolution, and certainly evolution of imformation.
If you are so open minded, I challenge you to listen to some ID podcasts. Listen to atheist Dr. Bradley Monton defend ID as a valid discipline.
Warmest regards to you Chris.
I enjoyed reading your comments “Admin”, which show that you possess open mindedness and humility, as well as wisdom in responding to what I have observed amount to mostly “unsupported assertions.” in your dealing with the scientific evidence for/against mainstream Darwinian evolution. The reader is not interested in mere “assumptions” about what the other knows or doesn’t know, just the evidence for the assertions one makes. Therefore, any appeal for evidence, either from operational or historical (origins) science, is reasonable provided one is careful to distinguish between the two and does not, as many like to do, extrapolate evidence from microevolution or operational science (I.e. natural selection, genetic mutation) to juxtapose their argument for vertical or macroevolution ( fish-to-philosopher).
As I have indicated before, not even six day creationists, not to speak of progressive creationists, limit microevolutionary change to variation within species and certainly creation allows for speciation (different species) and adaptation within a biblical kind ( a biblical kind is far more than a modern specie). Microevolutionary change is simply change within certain vague limits, limits which fall far short of the wholesale development envisioned by the Thesis of Common Ancestry
For example, the evolutionary development of whales, horses, and elephants are trivialities compared to the grand scenario envisioned by the theory. The transition from lower primates to humans is nothing compared to what the theory postulates on the grand scale. Even the evolution of amphibians from fish or birds from reptiles is miniscule compared to whole tree of life postulated by the theory, for it still only involves evolutionary development within a single phylum.
Resorting to “cheap shots” is all too typical of those who turn to ad hominem attacks when they can’t refute the evidence.
You people are both maddening and hilarious. Evolution is an undeniable fact, there is more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity, and I’m pretty sure gravity is real. No matter what you believe you can not deny evolution, I’m sorry, it would make your fairy tales so much easier to believe but unfortunately there is just no way of denying it. You spend all of your time refuting evolution and Science but what is your alternative? If Adam & Eve were white then why are there Asians and Africans etc. Evolution happens, whether you call it ‘kinds’ or not.
Very weak response Admin. I am disappointed, I thought you could do better than that. But I am starting to realise you are not as smart as you sound. The abiogenesis point is very telling. You should admit you are wrong there. As Chris says, abiogenesis is not part of, or covered by, or contemplated by the theory of evolution. You asked for evidence of evolution. No-one with genuine scientific credentials would then ask for an explanation of abiogenesis as part of that evidence.
For (macro) evolution to occur Tim requires something to begin with, right? Something that can replicate itself, right? Well, unless you can get to that place, you have a problem, right?
Do I take it you have stalled at this point?
That’s right, for evolution to occur there must be something for it work on. Also, for evolution to work there has to be a planet for animals and plants to live on, but the study of evolution does not include the science of the formation of planetary bodies. Similarly, evolution does not concern itself with the formation of life, which is necessarily taken as a given.
If you don’t want to talk about evolution, but instead want to talk about abiogenesis, then we can, it’s just that this started out as a discussion about evolution.
So how did life form? I say – I don’t know. You say God. Until we come up with the definitive explanation, people like you will go on saying “God”, rather than – “I don’t know, but let’s try and find out”. Just as when they used to say “why does the sun keep rising?”. And most people said “because the gods make it rise”. Some people said – “I don’t know but I’m going to find out”. And they did. Same thing. That’s why religion is so useless and pointless. It stops people enquiring.
So far there are some very compelling theories and evidence about early molecules replicating and being stimulated to form more complex molecules in the kind of environment that would have existed on pre-life earth. From what I have read, those theories make a lot of sense and seem to be heading in the right direction. They sure make a lot more sense than any religious explanation I have heard.
In another post you called liberals “looney” and made a lot of disparaging remarks about people that don’t believe in your religion. That’s so ironic. What do you believe – that once there was a god who made a man and some animals and trees. Then he made a woman from the man’s rib. Then there was a talking snake. The talking snake persuaded the woman to eat an apple from a tree god put there. Because she ate the apple, all of human kind is cursed. Then the god’s son came down to earth, but he was really his own father too. For some reason he decided to make himself appear by being born as a baby to a virgin. the god/father/son could do miracles. Then he got killed. Then he came back to life and went up into the sky. Now you worship the execution device that killed him. Huh, and we are looney???
No, it is you (say No to theism) who is both maddening and hilarious. There is about as much evidence for evolution as there is for a flat earth. Yeah, evolution is a fact because it is a fact. Right? As Admin has rightly out, you cannot even talk about “from the goo, through the zoo, to you” evolution if you can’t even explain how the first living cell began. As Dr. Jerome J. Lejeune, Discover of the cause of Down’s syndrome, Institute de Progenese (Paris), former Professor of Fundamental Cytogenetics, pointed out: “It is futile to pretend to the public that we understand how an amoeba evolved into a man, when we cannot tell our students how a human egg produces a skin cell or a brain cell!”
Molecular biologist James Shapiro, “In the Details…What?” National Review, 19 September 1996, pp. 62-65 echoed this sentiment or statement of fact: “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject–evolution–with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.” Again, Chandra Wickramasinghe , Professor of Applied Math & Astronomy, University College, Cardiff, Wales, declared “Contrary to the popular notion that only creationism relies on the supernatural, evolutionism must as well, since the probabilities of random formation of life are so tiny as to require a ‘miracle’ for spontaneous generation tantamount to a theological argument”
As for who is believing in fairy tales, it makes more sense to believe that the man in the moon is a newfie than in “microbes to man” evolution. As Nobel Prize winner Sir Ernest Chain once said of the theory of evolution, “I would rather believe in fairy tales than in such wild speculation” (Ronald W. Clark, The Life of Ernest Chain, pp. 147-148).
Here is what genetist Michael Denton called the cosmological myth of the twentieth century and, I believe, will be recorded as the biggest hoax in history:
Once I was an amoeba in a stinking bog (after the random interaction of certain chemicals in a primordial soup by a process (spontanteous generation or life evolving from non-life) that we nowhere see in the natural world today and Louis Pasteur proved experimentally to be scientifically impossible).
then I became a croaking frog (after eons of transitional or intermediate forms that we don’t see in the fossil record)
Next I became a monkey in a coconut tree (after millions of years of gradual evolution-by-creeps [too slow to see], evolution-by-peaks [too fast to see] and evolution-by-freaks (genetic mutations still harmful-produces nothing new by way of transmutations: snails remain snails, clams clams, trilobites trilobites, jellyfish jellyfish, birds birds, fish fish, apes apes, man man).
Now, I’m a professor with a Ph.D .(in Palaeontology would you believe).
It takes a lot more faith to believe that than “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth …and every herb yielding seed… fruit tree yielding fruit…and every living creature..after their kind… And God said, “Let us make man in our image.” God bless.
Further “Say No to Theism” question: “If Adam & Eve were white then why are there Asians and Africans etc. Evolution happens, whether you call it ‘kinds’ or not.? is so elementary that most children in a Christian school know the answer:
The truth, though, is that these so-called “racial characteristics” are only minor
variations among the people groups. Scientists have found that if one were to
take any two people from anywhere in the world, the basic genetic differences
between these two people would typically be around 0.2% – even if they came
from the same people group. But, these so-called “racial” characteristics that
many think are major differences (skin color, eye shape, etc.) account for only 6%
of this 0.2% variation, which amounts to a mere 0.012% difference genetically.
In other words, the so-called “racial” differences are absolutely trivial. Overall,
there is more variation within any group than there is between one group and another.
If a white person is looking for a tissue match for an organ transplant, for instance, the best match may come from a black person, and vice versa. The ABC (USA) news science page stated, “What the facts show is that there are differences among us, but they stem from culture, not race.”
The only reason many people think these differences are major is because they’ve been brought up in a culture that has taught them to see the differences this way. According to the Bible, all people on Earth today descended from Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives, and before that from Adam and Eve (Gen. 1–11).
The Bible tells us how the population that descended from Noah’s family had one language and were living together and disobeying God’s command to “fill the earth” (Gen. 9:1; 11:4). God confused their language causing a break-up of the population into smaller groups which scattered over the Earth (Gen. 11:8–9). Using modern genetics, it is possible to show how, following such a break-up of a population, variations in skin color, for example, can develop in
only a few generations. And there is good evidence to show that the various groups of people we have today have not been separated for huge periods of time.
There is really only one race — the human race. Scripture distinguishes people by tribal or national groupings, not by skin color or physical appearances. Clearly, though, there are groups of people who have certain features (e.g., skin “color”) in common, which distinguish them from other groups. As stated earlier, we prefer to call these “people groups” rather than “races.”
All peoples can freely interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This shows that the biological differences between the “races” are not very great at all. In fact, the DNA differences are trivial, as already pointed out.
Anthropologists generally classify people into a fairly small number of main racial groups, such as the Caucasoid (European or “white”17), the Mongoloid (which includes the Chinese and the American Indians), the Negroid (“black” Africans), and the Australoid (the Australian Aborigines). Within each classification, there may be many different sub-groups. Virtually all evolutionists would now agree that the various people groups did not have separate origins; that is, in the evolutionary belief system, the different people groups did not each evolve from a different group of animals. So they would agree with Biblical creationists that all people groups have come from the same original population.
Of course, they believe that such groups as the Aborigines and the Chinese have had many tens of thousands of years of separation. Most people believe that
there are such vast differences between groups that there had to be many years for these differences to somehow develop. One reason for this is that many people believe that the observable differences come from some people having unique features in their hereditary make-up which others lack. This is
an understandable but incorrect idea. Let’s look at skin color, for instance. It is easy to think that since different groups of people have yellow skin, red skin, black skin, white skin, and brown skin, there must be many different skin pigments or colorings. And since different chemicals for coloring would mean a different genetic recipe or code in the hereditary blueprint in each people group, it appears to be a real problem. How could all those differences develop within a short time?
Here’s how. We all have the same coloring pigment in our skin: melanin. This is a dark brownish pigment that we all have in special cells in our skin. If we have none (as do people called albinos, who suffer from an inherited mutation-caused defect, so they lack the ability to produce melanin), then we will have a very white or pink skin coloring. If we produce a little melanin, it means that we will be European white. If our skin produces a great deal of melanin, we will be a very deep black. And in between, of course, are all shades of brown.
There are no other significant skin pigments. Generally, whatever feature we may look at, no people group has anything that is, in its essence, uniquely different from that possessed by another. For example, the Asian, or almond, eye gets
its appearance simply by having an extra fold of fat (see Figure 1). Both Asian and Caucasian eyes have fat — the latter simply have less of it.
What does melanin do? It protects the skin against damage by ultraviolet light from the Sun. If you have too little in a very sunny environment, you will more easily suffer from sunburn and skin cancer. If you have a great deal of melanin, and you live in a country where there is little sunshine, it is much harder for
your body to get adequate amounts of vitamin D (which needs sunshine for
its production in your body). You may then suffer from vitamin D deficiency, which could cause a bone disorder such as rickets.
We also need to be aware that one is not born with a genetically fixed amount of melanin, but rather with a genetically fixed potential to produce a certain amount, increasing in response to sunlight. For example, if you are in a Caucasian community, you may have noticed that when your friends headed for the beach
at the very beginning of summer, they may, if they spent their time indoors during winter, have all been more or less the same pale white. As the summer went on, however, some became much darker than others.
But how do we explain the formation of many different skin colors arising in such a short Biblical time scale (few thousand years)? Let’s look at a few observations that can help us to explain this. From here on, whenever we use such words as different colors, we are, strictly speaking, referring to different shades of the one color, melanin.
If a person from a very black people group marries someone from a very white group, their offspring (called “mulattos”) are mid-brown. It has long been known that when mulattos marry each other, their offspring may be virtually any “color,” ranging from very black to very white. Understanding this gives us the clues we need for our overall question, so we must first look, in a simple way, at some of the basic facts of heredity.
Each of us carries information in our body that describes us a bit like the way a
blueprint describes a finished building. It determines not only that we will be human beings, rather than cabbages or crocodiles, but also whether we will have blue eyes, short nose, long legs, etc. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, all the information that specifies how the person will be built (ignoring such superimposed factors as exercise and diet) is already present. This information is in coded form in our DNA. To illustrate coding, a piece of rope with beads on it can carry a message in Morse code .Can you see how the piece of rope, by using a simple sequence of short beads, long beads, and spaces (to represent the dots and dashes of Morse code) can carry the same information as the English word “help” typed on a sheet of paper? The entire Bible could be written thus in Morse code on a long enough piece of rope. In a similar way, the human blueprint is written in a code (or language convention), which is carried on very long chemical strings called DNA. This is by far the most efficient information storage system known, surpassing any foreseeable computer technology.This information is copied (and reshuffled) from generation to generation as people reproduce.
The word “gene” refers to a small part of that information which carries the instructions for manufacturing only one enzyme, for example. A small portion of the “message string,” with only one specification on it, would be a simple
way of understanding this gene concept. So, going back to that cell, and that egg which has just been fertilized — where does all of its information,
its genes, come from? One half has come from the father (carried by the sperm), and the other half from the mother (carried in the egg).
We know that skin “color” is governed by more than one gene. For simplicity, let’s assume there are only two, A and B, with the correspondingly “more silent” genes a and b. In a similar way to the eye example, the small letters
in this case will code for a small amount of melanin in the skin. So, a very dark people which, on intermarriage, kept producing only very dark offspring, would be AABB; the same situation for a very fair-skinned people would be aabb. Let’s look at what combinations would result in a mulatto (the offspring of an AABB and aabb union). (See Figure 2) What would happen, by using a punnett square, if two such mid-brown mulatto people were to marry (the shading of the squares roughly indicates the resultant skin color)? (Figure
3)
Surprisingly, we find that an entire range of “colors,” from very white to very black, can result in only one generation, beginning with this particular type of mid-brown parents. Those children born with AABB, who are pure black (in the sense of consistently having no other types of offspring), have no genes for lightness at all. If they were to marry and migrate to a place where their offspring could not intermarry with people of lighter color, all their children will be black — a pure “black line” will result. Those with aabb are white. If they marry other
whites and migrate to a place where their offspring cannot marry darker people, a pure (in the same sense) “white line” will result — they have lost genes
that give them the ability to be black, that is, to produce a large amount of melanin.
So you can see how it is easily possible, beginning with two middle-brown parents (Adam ans Eve), to get not only all the “colors,” but also people groups with stable coloring. But what about people groups that are permanently middle-brown, such as we have today? Again, this is easily explained. Those of aaBB or AAbb, if they no longer interact with others, will be able to produce only mid-brown colored offspring. (You may want to work this out with your own punnett square.)
If these lines were to interbreed again with other such lines, the process would be reversed. In a short time, their descendants would show a whole range of “colors,” often in the same family. The photo above shows what were called Britain’s “most amazing twins.” One is obviously light, the other obviously darker-skinned.
Of course, this is not amazing at all when you do the exercise on paper, based on what we have discussed. (A clue if you want to do it yourself: mother cannot be AABB.) Also, the twins are obviously not identical twins, which are derived from the same egg. If all the humans on Earth were to intermarry freely, and then break into random groups that kept to themselves, a whole new set of combinations could emerge. It may be possible to have almond eyes with black skin, blue eyes with black frizzy short hair, etc. We need to remember, of course, that the way in which genes express themselves is turning out to be much more
complex than this simplified picture. Sometimes certain genes are linked together. However, the basic point is unaffected.
Even today, close observation shows that within a particular people group you will often see a feature normally associated with another group. For instance, you will occasionally see a European with a broad flat nose, or a Chinese person with very pale skin, or Caucasian eyes. As pointed out previously, most biologists now agree that among modern humans, “race” has little or no biological meaning. This also argues strongly against the idea that the people groups have been evolving separately for long periods.
What really happened? We can now reconstruct the true history of the “people groups,” using: • The information given by the Creator Himself in the book of Genesis. • The background information given above.• Some consideration of the effect of the environment.
The first created man, Adam, from whom all other humans are descended, was created with the best possible combination of genes — for skin “color,” for example. A long time after Creation, a world-wide flood destroyed all humans except a man called Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives. This flood greatly changed the environment. Afterwards, God commanded the survivors to multiply and cover the Earth (Gen. 9:1). A few hundred years later, men chose to disobey God and to remain united in building a great city, with the Tower of Babel as the focal point of rebellious worship. From Genesis 11, we understand that up to this time there was only one language. God judged the people’s disobedience by imposing different languages on man, so that they could not work together against God, and so that they were forced to scatter
over the Earth as God intended.
So all the “people groups” – “black” Africans, Indo-Europeans, Mongols, and others – have come into existence since that time.
Noah and his family were probably mid-brown, with genes for both dark and light skin, because a medium skin “color” would seem to be the most generally suitable (dark enough to protect against skin cancer, yet light enough to allow vitamin D production).
As all the factors for skin “color” were present in Adam and Eve, they would most likely have been mid-brown as well. In fact, most of the world’s population today is still mid-brown.
After the Flood, for the few centuries until Babel, there was only one language and one culture group. Thus, there were no barriers to marriage within this group. This would tend to keep the skin “color” of the population away from the extremes. Very dark and very light skin would appear, of course, but people tending in either direction would be free to marry someone less dark or less light than themselves, ensuring that the average “color” stayed roughly the same.
The same would be true of other characteristics, not just skin “color.” Under these sorts of circumstances, distinct differences in appearance will never emerge. This is true for animals as well as human populations, as every biologist knows. To obtain such separate lines, you would need to break a large breeding group into smaller groups and keep them separate, that is, not interbreeding any more.
This is exactly what happened at Babel. Once separate languages were imposed, there were instantaneous barriers. Not only would people tend not to marry someone they couldn’t understand, but entire groups which spoke the same language would have difficulty relating to and trusting those which did not. They would tend to move away or be forced away from each other into different environments. This, of course, is what God intended.
It is unlikely that each small group would carry the same broad range of skin “colors” as the original, larger group. So one group might have more dark genes, on average, while another might have more light genes. The same thing would happen to other characteristics: nose shape, eye shape, etc. And since they would interbreed only within their own language group, this tendency would no longer be averaged out as before. As these groups migrated away from Babel, they encountered new and different climate zones. This would also have affected the balance of inherited factors in the population, although the effects of the environment are nowhere near as important as the genetic mix with which each group began. As an example, let us look at people who moved to cold areas with little sunlight. In those areas, the dark-skinned members of any group would not be able to produce enough vitamin D, and thus would be less healthy and have fewer children.
So, in time, the light-skinned members would predominate. If several different groups went to such an area, and if one group happened to be carrying few genes for lightness, this particular group could in time die out. This natural selection acts on the characteristics already present, and does not evolve new ones.
It is interesting to note that in the Neanderthals of Europe, an extinct variety of man now recognized as fully human, many showed evidence of vitamin D deficiency in their bones. In fact, it was this, plus a large dose of evolutionary prejudice, which helped cause them to be classified as “ape-men” for a long time. It is thus quite plausible to suggest that they were a darkskinned
people group who were unfit for the environment into which they moved because of the skin-color genes they began with. Notice that this natural selection, as it is called, does not produce skin “colors,” but only acts on the created “colors” that
are already there.
Conversely, fair-skinned people in very sunny regions could easily be affected by skin cancer, in which case dark-skinned people would more readily survive.
So we see that the pressure of the environment can (a) affect the balance of genes within a group, and (b) even eliminate entire groups. This is why we see, to a large extent, a fit of characters to their environment (e.g., Nordic people with pale skin, equatorial people with dark skin, etc.).
But this is not always so. An Inuit (Eskimo) has brown skin, yet lives where there is not much sun. Presumably they have a genetic makeup such as AAbb which would not be able to produce lighter skin. On the other hand, native South Americans living on the equator do not have black skin. These examples show that natural selection does not create new information — if the genetic makeup of a group of people does not allow variation in “color” toward the desirable, natural selection cannot create such variation.
African pygmies live in a hot area, but rarely experience strong sunshine in their dense jungle environment, yet they have dark skin. Pygmies may be a good example of another factor that has affected the racial history of man: discrimination. If a variation from the normal occurs (e.g., a very light person among a dark people), then historically it has been usual for that person to be
regarded as abnormal and unacceptable. Thus, such a person would find it hard to get a marriage partner. People could also recognize the poor fitness of certain characteristics in their environment and so these become incorporated into the selection criteria for marriage partners. This would further tend to eliminate light genes from a dark people near the equator, and dark genes from light people at high latitudes. In this way, groups have tended to “purify” themselves.
Also, in some instances, inbreeding in a small group can highlight any commonly occurring unusual features that would previously
have been swamped by continual intermarriage. There is a tribe in Africa whose members all have grossly deformed feet as a result of this inbreeding.
To return to pygmies, if people possessing genes for short stature were discriminated against, and a small group of them sought refuge in the deepest forest, their marrying only each other would ensure a pygmy “race” from then on. The fact that pygmy tribes have never been observed to have their own languages, but instead speak dialects of neighboring non-pygmy languages,
is good evidence in support of this.
The effects of choice People groups that were already equipped with certain characteristics may have made deliberate (or semi-deliberate) choices
concerning the environments to which they migrated. For instance, people with genes for a thicker, more insulating layer of fat under their skin would tend to leave areas that were uncomfortably hot.
The evidence for the Bible’s account of human origins is more than just biological and genetic. Since all peoples descended from Noah’s family after the Flood a relatively short time ago, we would be surprised if, in the stories and legends of many of the groups, there was not some memory, albeit distorted by time and retelling, of such a catastrophic event. In fact, an overwhelming
number of cultures do have such an account of a world-destroying Flood. Often these have startling parallels to the true, original account (eight people saved in a boat, a rainbow, the sending of the birds, and more).
In summary, the dispersion at Babel, breaking a large interbreeding group into small, inbreeding groups, ensured that the resultant groups would have different mixes of genes for various physical features. By itself, this would ensure, in a short time, that there would be certain fixed differences in some of these groups, commonly called “races.” In addition, the selection pressure of the environment would modify the existing combinations of genes, causing a tendency for characteristics to suit their environment.
There has been no simple-to-complex evolution of any genes, for the genes were present already. The dominant features of the various people groups result from different combinations of previously existing created genes, plus some minor changes in the direction of degeneration, resulting from mutations (accidental changes which can be inherited). The originally created (genetic)
information has been either reshuffled or has degenerated, not been added to.
Now that we understand that the so-called “races” in reality constitute just one race with different people groups, what about the issue of so-called “inter-racial marriage?”
If a Chinese person were to marry a Polynesian, or an African with dark skin were to marry a Japanese, or a person from India were to marry a person from America with light skin, would these marriages be in accord with Biblical principles?
There are a significant number of Christians (particularly in America) who would claim that such “inter-racial” marriages violate God’s principles in the Bible, and should not be allowed. But does the Word of God really condemn such mixes as those above? Is there ultimately any such thing as “inter-racial marriage?”
True science in the present fits with the Biblical view that all people are rather closely related – there is only one “race” biologically. Therefore, there is in essence no such thing as “inter-racial marriage.”
Origin of people groups
In Genesis 11, we read of the rebellion at the tower of Babel that resulted in people being scattered over the Earth. Because of this dispersion, and the resulting splitting of the gene pool, different cultures formed, with certain features becoming predominant within each group. Some of these (skin “color,” eye shape, and so on) became general characteristics of each particular
people group. Note that the context of Genesis 11 makes it clear that the reason for God’s scattering the people over the Earth was that they had united in rebellion against God. Some Christians point to this event in an attempt to provide a basis for their arguments against so-called “inter-racial” marriage. They believe that it is implied here that to keep the nations apart, God is declaring
that people from different people groups can’t marry. However, there is no such indication in this passage that what is called “inter-racial marriage” is condemned. Besides, there has been so much mixing of people groups over the years that it would be impossible for every human being today to trace their lineage to know for certain which group(s) they are descended from.
We need to understand that the sovereign Creator God is in charge of the nations of this world. Paul makes this very clear in Acts 17:26. Some people erroneously claim this verse to mean that people from different nations shouldn’t marry. But this passage has nothing to do with marriage. As John Gill makes clear in his classic commentary, the context is that God is in charge of
all things – where, how, and for how long any person, tribe or nation will live, prosper, and perish.In all of this, God is working to redeem for Himself a people who are one in Christ. The Bible makes it clear in Galatians 3:28,
Colossians 3:11, and Romans 10:12-13 that in regard to salvation, there is no distinction between male or female or Jew or Greek or bond or free. In Christ, any separation between people is broken down. As Christians, we are one in Christ and thus have a common purpose – to live for Him who made us. This oneness in Christ is vital to understanding marriage.
Purpose of marriage
Malachi 2:15 declares that an important purpose of marriage is to produce godly offspring – progeny that are trained in the ways of the Lord. Jesus in Matthew 19 and Paul in Ephesians 5 make it clear that when a man and woman marry, they become one flesh (because they were one flesh historically – Eve was made from Adam). Also, the man and woman must be one spiritually so they can fulfill the command to produce godly offspring. This is why Paul states in 2 Corinthians 6:14, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?”
According to the Bible then, which of these impending marriages to the right does God counsel against entering into? The answer is obvious – the third one. According to the Bible, the priority in marriage is that a Christian should marry only a Christian. Sadly, there are some Christian homes where the parents are more concerned about their children not marrying someone from another “race” than whether or not they are marrying a Christian. When Christians marry non-Christians, it negates the spiritual (not the physical) oneness in marriage,
resulting in negative consequences for the couple and their children.30
Rahab and Ruth The examples of Rahab and Ruth help us understand how God views the issue of marriage between those who are from different people groups but trust in the true God.
Rahab was a Canaanite. She came from an ungodly culture – descendants of Canaan, the son of Ham. Remember that Canaan was cursed because of his obvious rebellious nature. Unfortunately, many Christians state that Ham was cursed – but this is not true. Some have even said that this non-existent curse of Ham resulted in the black “races.” This is absurd and is the type of false teaching that has reinforced and justified prejudices against people with dark skin In the genealogy in Matthew 1, it is traditionally understood that the same Rahab is listed here as being in the line leading to Christ. Thus Rahab, a descendant of Ham, must have married an Israelite (descended from Shem). Since this was clearly a union approved by God, it underlines the fact that the particular “people group” she came from was irrelevant – what mattered was
that she trusted in the true God of the Israelites.32
The same can be said of Ruth, who, as a Moabitess, also married an Israelite, and is also listed in the genealogy in Matthew 1 that leads to Christ. Prior to her marriage, she had expressed faith in the true God (Ruth 1:16).
When Rahab and Ruth became children of God, there was no longer any barrier to Israelites marrying them, even though they were from different “people groups.”
Real Biblical ‘inter-racial’ marriage If one wants to use the term “inter-racial,” then the real “inter-racial” marriage that God says we should not enter into is when a child of the Last Adam (one who is a new creation in Christ
– a Christian) marries one who is an unconverted child of the First Adam (one who is dead in trespasses and sin – a non-Christian).
Some Christian leaders claim that allowing so-called “inter-racial marriage” would bring then nations together again that were split up at the Tower of Babel, thus helping to bring in a oneworld government. If this were true, then Christians should not be learning other languages,which would negate the Great Commission to preach to all tribes and nations (Matthew 28). Rules regarding whom one could marry were not a part of the event of the Tower of Babel.
Because many people groups have been separated since the Tower of Babel, they have developed many cultural differences. If two people from very different cultures marry, they can have a number of communication problems, even if both are Christians. Expectations regarding relationships with members of the extended family, for example, can also differ. Even people from different
English-speaking countries can have communication problems because words may have different meanings. Counselors should go through this in detail, anticipating the problems and giving specific examples. Some marriages have failed because of such cultural differences. However, such problems have nothing to do with genetics or “race.
As to the question raised above: “If Adam & Eve were white then why are there Asians and Africans etc. Evolution happens, whether you call it ‘kinds’ or not“, who said that Adam and Eve were white.
The claim that Adam was white is pure conjecture and totally unsupportable. Nothing in Scripture suggests that Adam was white or that Adam was the father of only white people.
Adam and Eve, and later Noah and his wife, probably had skin tones closer to middle brown. Adam’s DNA had to contain information for a wide variety of skin tones. Only in this way could human DNA possess the genetic variability to produce the many skin tones we now see. In the simplified illustration, capital A and B refer to information for producing darker skin, and small a and b refer to information for producing lighter skin. Shuffling and sorting of this genetic information produces a variety of skin tones.
After the scattering of people from the Tower of Babel, genetic information was sorted and isolated into many geographic areas. Certain groups lost the ability to produce children of other skin shades because the genetic information for those skin shades was not present in their population group.
Hi Admin
You said “Hi Chris. No, I am not trained in the USA.”
So you don’t have any training then?
“(Btw, I believe USA universities took 18 of the top 20 spots in a Chinese survey a couple of years ago.)”
Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. I was referring to the religious institutions and bible colleges where intellectual rigorousness is probably not to be encouraged too much, not real universities.
“No Chris. I am not a young earth creationist.”
Well you are most certainly a creationist. Therefore you must be an old earth creationist (unless there is such a thing as a medium-aged earth creationist)
Unfortunately for you this is a less tenable position than a YEC. At least they are genuine and consistent and believe in a complete literal interpretation of the bible. You are probably part of the pick and choose brigade.
To believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and yet deny evolution and promote creationism is a very suspect position to take.
“You should give up guessing Chris.”
Why? I enjoy guessing. Especially if you continue to be evasive and mysterious with your replies.
“Your ignorance of Newtonian physics is showing Chris. Sure it is still useful, and widely used, but GPS units would crash planes if they relied upon Newtonian physics.”
So you are admitting that Evolution is useful and is justifiably widely used in our everyday world? By comparing evolution directly to newtonian physics as you did recently, this is in effect what you are saying.
“(Newton btw was a young earth creationist, a Christian, and a brilliant mind, perhaps the most brilliant since Adam. I only say this to point out that God belief did not appear to hinder Newton’s genius.)”
So Newton professed to be religious, so what? So did just about everybody until the 19th century. Whether you actually believed it or not there was much more social pressure to be religious in earlier centuries. I’m pleased that you think Newton was a brilliant genius. I’m not so sure about Adam though.
“I’m glad you agree with Gould and admit that the fossil record does not help your side.”
Congratulations, you’ve just passed intelligent design propaganda 101. Deliberately twisting around or misquoting what people have said is an integral part of their strategy. I used it myself in the first sentence of this reply, see what i mean?
Could you please point out where I have ever said that the fossil record is of no help in proving evolution. The opposite is the case.
Why do you continue to tell lies on god’s behalf? I’m sure if he does exist he is big and strong enough to look after himself!
By the way, Gould is an evolutionist.
“Explain to me why “molecular clock” dating is not begging the question? I mean, you are assuming that mutations have happened at a constant rate over some long period of time. How is that assumption to be proved?”
What makes you think that that was an assumption? Do you think Scientists just make airy fairy assumptions before constructing a theory?
“If it could be, that would be good evidence imo.”
I don’t want to sound too harsh but this is just a straight out lie. As I said before you are not interested in the physical evidence presented by mainstream science. Are you really saying that if the evidence was to your satisfaction then you would abandon your christianity and turn back to atheism? As you are so fond of saying “Yeah, right!”
“Closed mindedness? Well, I would disagree Chris.
I have no gain in believing things that are false.”
Now you are making an assumption. You are assuming you know what is true and what is false.
” I suspect that, perhaps unlike yourself, I have actually managed to admit that I believe that I was once wrong in what I believed.”
I don’t want to sound too picky here but could the standard of your grammar be lifted slightly. It’s a bit hard to read it sometimes.
I think you’re trying to say that you’ve admitted that your atheism was wrong and I should too. But as you said before, why would should one take a position one knows is false.
“Abiogenesis? This is a starting point Chris. Do you believe it happened by chance? Upon what do you base that? And why say it has nothing to do with evolution? Evolution means “change over time”, right? So in a broad sense, it is evolution, and certainly evolution of imformation.”
Do you actually understand the term “happened by chance”? It’s just that many ID proponents put out the message that evolution from ameoba to man happened by pure chance without really explaining how natural selection actually works.
The implication is that the chances are astronomically high against such a thing happening.
The direct answer to your question is ‘of course, how else could it have happened’? But what those chances were given the immense amount of time involved is another matter. They could have been quite favourable. Scientists are still working on that one.
As for asking ‘why say it has nothing to do with evolution’ , well because it doesn’t. Abiogenesis has absolutely no connection whatsoever to Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection.
Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed. This means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claim as to how life got here.
If you want to discuss origins of life in a broad sense then perhaps we should also be discussing other things such as thermodynamics, how did Earth get all its water, where did all the heavy elements that are essential to life come from, how did earth get an oxygen rich atmosphere, where did the moon come from (also essential for life to exist) etc, etc. Where do you draw the line?
“If you are so open minded, I challenge you to listen to some ID podcasts. Listen to atheist Dr. Bradley Monton defend ID as a valid discipline.”
No thanks, I have plenty of ID information as it is. I’ve also listened to William Lane Craig speak in person. I thought his arguments were very suspect so i’m hardly likely to be impressed by any other ID proponent.
I’d like to add in conclusion Admin that I appreciate your inclusion of the comments of myself and others on this site even though they directly conflict with and challenge your own views on such an interesting and important subject.(ie no censorship)
Warmest regards to you Chris.
Dear Admin.
Your grasp of science is very worrying.
There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution is just the result of micro evolution over time. In fact the distinction you make between micro and macro is something created by creationists.
Also you misunderstand Chris’s comments about molecular clock dating. Alan Wilson did not assume mutations occurred at a constant rate he discovered it by looking at genetic codes. Surely you can see the difference.
Finally you ask Chris to provide evidence for evolution. If you have any background in science you should be well acquainted with the arguments. You simply cannot get a scientific education with out coming across evolution. (even if you disagree with them)
So please be honest about your level of scientific literacy You claim to have changed your mind having once been an atheist. So you at least have some integrity so an honest appraisal of science should not be beyond you.
Hi Rayburne,
You said “I enjoyed reading your comments “Admin”, which show that you possess open mindedness and humility, as well as wisdom in responding to what I have observed amount to mostly “unsupported assertions.” in your dealing with the scientific evidence for/against mainstream Darwinian evolution.”
Why am I not surprised that you extoll the virtues of Admin’s “open mindedness” while rubbishing the claims of the evil atheistic evolutionists. Strange though how the theory of evolution has lasted 150 years despite relying on unsupported assertions. Mind you those scientists are mad.
“The reader is not interested in mere “assumptions” about what the other knows or doesn’t know, just the evidence for the assertions one makes. Therefore, any appeal for evidence, either from operational or historical (origins) science, is reasonable provided one is careful to distinguish between the two and does not, as many like to do, extrapolate evidence from microevolution or operational science (I.e. natural selection, genetic mutation) to juxtapose their argument for vertical or macroevolution ( fish-to-philosopher).”
Wow Rayburne, that’s a mouthfull, did you make that up all by yourself?
Don’t tell me, you have impressive scientific credentials but you’re not going to tell me what they are, right?
By the way could you please tell me the difference between micro and macro evolution in terms of the mechanism by which they operate?
“As I have indicated before, not even six day creationists, not to speak of progressive creationists, limit microevolutionary change to variation within species and certainly creation allows for speciation (different species) and adaptation within a biblical kind ( a biblical kind is far more than a modern specie). Microevolutionary change is simply change within certain vague limits, limits which fall far short of the wholesale development envisioned by the Thesis of Common Ancestry.”
Could you please explain Rayburne what a progressive creationist is? It seems to me a contradiction in terms.
Also what is the Thesis of common ancestry? Do you mean the scientific theory of evolution? Why not use its real name?
“For example, the evolutionary development of whales, horses, and elephants are trivialities compared to the grand scenario envisioned by the theory. The transition from lower primates to humans is nothing compared to what the theory postulates on the grand scale. Even the evolution of amphibians from fish or birds from reptiles is miniscule compared to whole tree of life postulated by the theory, for it still only involves evolutionary development within a single phylum.”
You’ve really lost me now. Are you communicating in some secret biblical code?
Could you please translate the above in plain English please.
“Resorting to “cheap shots” is all too typical of those who turn to ad hominem attacks when they can’t refute the evidence.”
I totally agree. Generally one should stick to facts and not be too confrontational when discussing this interesting subject. I hope you take your own advice on board. For example recently you said in reply to one of my perfectly reasonable comments on evolution “That is the height of bull, Chris, and you know it”.
Not particularly pleasant.
I have left several comments on this site and they have not appeared. Am I being censored if so this web site seems to be embracing the Iranian solution to dissenting views. Is this the type of behaviour that you christians really want to indulge in.
Looks like you left two other comments. And no, I just have not got to them yet. There is life outside of answering comments
Your grasp of science is very worrying.
>>> To you perhaps. And I’m sure the opposite is true.
There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution is just the result of micro evolution over time. In fact the distinction you make between micro and macro is something created by creationists.
>>> Wrong and wrong. Secular scientists also use these terms. Micro/macro: You are question begging to assert they are the same thing.
Also you misunderstand Chris’s comments about molecular clock dating. Alan Wilson did not assume mutations occurred at a constant rate he discovered it by looking at genetic codes. Surely you can see the difference.
>>> Really? Well, why not explain it to our readers? My (perhaps poor) understanding is that this argument uses genetic change over time to find the supposed rate. Correct me if I am wrong please.
Finally you ask Chris to provide evidence for evolution. If you have any background in science you should be well acquainted with the arguments. You simply cannot get a scientific education with out coming across evolution. (even if you disagree with them)
>>> Wrong again. I have done many science papers and have seen little “evolution” in them.
So please be honest about your level of scientific literacy You claim to have changed your mind having once been an atheist. So you at least have some integrity so an honest appraisal of science should not be beyond you.
>>> One day perhaps, but not today. But thanks 4 asking
Yes, the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is one made by creationists–and for good reason because, as I have already pointed out, microevolutionary change is simply change within certain vague limits, limits which fall far short of the wholesale development envisioned by the Thesis of Common Ancestry. Not even six day creationists, not to speak of progressive creationists, limit microevolutionary change to variation within species and certainly creation allows for speciation (different species) and adaptation within a biblical kind ( a biblical kind is far more than a modern specie). Again, microevolution comes under operational science (what can be tested, repeated and observed); macroevolution comes under historical or origins science (what cannot be observed, tested or repeated).
Moreover,natural selection and mutations which account for adaptability and genetic variations within species (creation allows for same) always result in loss of genetic information, as has been shown again and again in scientific research, so that it does not matter how much time (millions or billions or trillions) of years one allows for vertical evolution to take place, it will never produce the kind of change Darwin proposed (from one basic kind to a totally different or distinct basic kind; for example, fish to philosopher) because such vertical or upward change from simple to complex requires an increase in genetic information in the genome, not a loss of information
Consequently, notwithstanding the fact that evolutionists understandably do not distinguish microevolution and macro evolution (Why should they when microevolution is all that they have?), it makes perfectly good sense scientifically to distinguish them because there is no proof that microevolutionary change over time can produce the kind of change that evolutionists presuppose; namely, from “the goo, through the zoo, to you, macroevolutionary change–from one basically distinct kind to another.
I
When we talk about an increase in genetic information, we mean “specified complexity”. Specified complexity is any complex sequential pattern of symbols that is “aperiodic” or not repeatable but requires that each symbol be specified. This is also the definition used by ID theorists such as William Dembski and biophysicist DR. Lee Spetner of the Jewish faith, It is related to probability. By information as specified complexity, we are not talking about whether or not changes occur through time (they do), not even about the size of the change or whether or not natural selection happens (it does), but rather the type of change required to change microbes into men—-the type of changes that increase the genetic information content. The three billion DNA “letters” stored in each human cell nucleus (the “computer control room” where DNA is located and information is transferred from DNA to RNA) convey a great deal more information (known as “specified complexity”) than half a million DNA “letters” of the “simplest” self-reproducing organism. For instance, the DNA sequences in a “higher” organism, such as a human being or an horse, code for structures and functions unknown in the sort of “primitive first cell” from which all other organisms are said to have evolved.
None of the alleged proofs of “evolution in action” to date provide a single example of functional new information being added to genes. To claim that mere change proves that such information increasing change will occur is like saying that because a merchant can sell goods, he will sell them for a profit. The origin of information is an insurmountable problem for the general “microbes to man” theory of evolution. So far, all observed change is always in the direction of lower specificity (loss of genetic information). Today, there is even a specialized branch of information theory called bio-informatics–the study of biological information.
Informed ID theorists do not deny that copying mistakes (mutations) can be beneficial, by the natural definition that they help the organism. But in all known cases, they still add no new information. The best known example is sickle-cell anemia, a common blood disorder in which a mutation causes the sufferer’s haemoglobin to form the wrong shape and fail to carry oxygen. People who carry two copies of the sickle-cell gene (homozygous) develop fatal anemia. But this misshapen haemoglobin also resists the malaria parasite (Plasmodium). So humans who are heterozygous (have both a normal and abnormal gene) have some advantage in areas where malaria is prevalent , even though their haemoglobin is less effective at its job of carrying oxygen. Which is why Dr. Felix Konotey-Ahula, M.D. (Lond.), FRCP, DTMH, one of the world’s leading experts in sickle-cell anemia, a serious chronic and painful blood disorder,
states, “Demonstrating natural selection does not demonstrate that ‘upward evolution’ (fish to philosopher) is a fact, yet many schoolchildren are taught this as “proof” of evolution.” He points out that “the sickle-cell gene is still a defect (an inherited random change or mutation), not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for.. and having more carriers of the sickle-cell genes results in more people suffering from this terrible disease. He concludes that science would be far better served by scientists working on “factual lines rather than theoretical evolutionary concepts” .Dr. John K.G. Kramer, formerly associate editor of the scientific journal LIPIDS (Ph.D. in biochemistry), completed three years of post-doctoral studies as a Hormel fellow at the Hormel Institute and as an NRC fellow at the university of Ottawa. He has identified, characterized, and synthesized the structure of numerous food, bacterial, and biological components and has published 128 refereed papers and numerous abstracts and book chapters. He states, “No one has ever demonstrated macro evolutionary changes on a molecular level, yet, many people readily speculate evolutionary links between bacteria, plants, animals, and man. If macroevolution is unlikely on a molecular level, how can the whole be changed? Endless DNA sequence comparisons do not explain evolutionary development. Furthermore, the changes (mutations) observed on a molecular level, such as DNA, are predominately disruptive, and always with loss of, not gain in, information and complexity.
There are other examples, such as wingless beetles that survive on windy islands because they can’t fly, so won’t be blown into the sea, and animals in dark caves with shrivelled eyes that are less prone to damage. And one way that the Straphylococcus bacterium becomes resistant to penicillin is via a mutation that disables a control gene for production of penicillinase, an enzyme that destroys penicillin. When it has this mutation, the bacterium over-produces this enzyme, which means it is resistant to even huge amounts of penicillin. But in the wild, this mutant bacterium is less fit, because it squanders resources by producing unnecessary penicillinase
Still another example is a cattle breed called the Belgian Blue. This is very valuable to beef farmers because it has 20-30 percent more muscle than average cattle, and its meat is lower in fat and very tender. Normally, muscle growth is regulated by a number of proteins, such as myostatin. However, Belgian Blues have a mutation that deactivates the myostatin gene, so the muscles grow uncontrolled and become very large. This mutation has a cost, in reduced fertility. A different mutation of the same gene is also responsible for the very muscular Piedmontese cattle. In all these cases, a mutation causes information loss (reduced specified complexity), even though it is “beneficial.” Therefore, it is in the opposite direction required for particles-to-people evolution, which requires the generation of new information. In the case of sickle-cell anemia, ID theorists would say that the sickle-cell gene is a change in the direction of loss of specificity (genetic information) which can confer immunity to malaria; in other words, an information loss that’s beneficial.
As I have indicated, “microbes-to-man, from the goo, through the zoo, to you” evolution requires changes that increase specific complexity or genetic information, therefore not simply any old change is evolution. Further, so far, all observed change is always in the direction of lower specificity (loss of information). And even if the occasional information-increasing change in the sense of specificity were found, it would not confirm that “from the goo, through the zoo, to you” evolution has a viable mechanism, since this would predict many such changes to be observed. So while there are beneficial changes, none have increased information in the sense of specificity, as general “microbes to man” evolution requires.
speciation (variation) due to natural selection and mutation results in loss of genetic information in the genome, not an increase as vertical evolution from simple to complex requires, so that it does not matter how much time you allow for the evolutionary process to take place (millions or billions of years), it will never produce anything other than a variety of the animals own basic kind ( I.e. over 200 different species of dogs from the little Chihuahua to the Great Dane) or else eventual extinction over time. It will not produce anything new in the way of a new, basically distinct kind demanded by vertical (fish-to-philosopher) macroevolution. Which is why Dr. Felix Konotey-Ahula, M.D. (Lond.), FRCP, DTMH, one of the world’s leading experts in sickle-cell anemia, a serious chronic and painful blood disorder, states, “Demonstrating natural selection does not demonstrate that ‘upward evolution’ (fish to philosopher) is a fact, yet many schoolchildren are taught this as “proof” of evolution.” He points out that “the sickle-cell gene is still a defect (an inherited random change or mutation), not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for.. and having more carriers of the sickle-cell genes results in more people suffering from this terrible disease. He concludes that science would be far better served by scientists working on “factual lines rather than theoretical evolutionary concepts” .Dr. John K.G. Kramer, formerly associate editor of the scientific journal LIPIDS (Ph.D. in biochemistry), completed three years of post-doctoral studies as a Hormel fellow at the Hormel Institute and as an NRC fellow at the university of Ottawa. He has identified, characterized, and synthesized the structure of numerous food, bacterial, and biological components and has published 128 refereed papers and numerous abstracts and book chapters. He states, “No one has ever demonstrated macro evolutionary changes on a molecular level, yet, many people readily speculate evolutionary links between bacteria, plants, animals, and man. If macroevolution is unlikely on a molecular level, how can the whole be changed? Endless DNA sequence comparisons do not explain evolutionary development. Furthermore, the changes (mutations) observed on a molecular level, such as DNA, are predominately disruptive, and always with loss of, not gain in, information and complexity.” Renowned evolutionist James Shapiro agreees: “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable
Nice quotemine, clearly the ninth commandment doesn’t get much credence around here.
This You tube video provides a slightly more balanced view on Michael Novacek’s opinions in this regard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeW2XBmKPHI
Basically he’s waxing lyrically about the quality of an early primate fossil “Ida”
This is dishonesty is typical of Uncommon Deceit, is it typical of your sight as well?
My “sight” is pretty good most of the time thanks!
Check this response if you are open-minded enough:
http://creation.com/darwin-fossil-ida-hype
From the article…
I don’t think I have ever seen such blatantly over-stated claims on a fossil find, and I have seen a few, including one by a major co-author of this paper: Philip Gingerich’s claims for Pakicetus back in 1983. Gingerich had a couple of scraps of a skull of a mammal from Pakistan and claimed it as the evolutionary precursor of whales. He embellished the story with an artist’s drawing of what Pakicetus (“whale from Pakistan”) looked like, with legs becoming flippers, a tail fluke developing and the imaginary creature diving for fish. Cute. Gingerich claimed it was “perfectly intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales”. With such a strong, confident claim from the fossil expert, who could doubt that evolution was true? Seven years later, other paleontologists published a paper describing the rest of Pakicetus and the now almost complete fossil showed that Gingerich’s imagination had really run away with him and the animal was not the missing link he thought it was. See: Not at all like a whale.
Named “Archaeoraptor,“ this fossil constitutes the most recent evolution fraud. A Chinese farmer glued together the head and body of a primitive bird and the tail and hind limbs of a dinosaur, and in 1999 completely fooled the the world-wide scientific community into thinking they had found the “missing link” between carnivorous dinosaurs and modern birds (National Geographic, Vol. 196, Nov. 1999, No. 5).
Piltdown Man, found by Charles Dawson in 1912, although a notorious fraud, was used for 40 years to dupe unsuspecting students into thinking that evolution was a fact until flourine analysis was applied to the jaw material and revealed that the jaw had been stained to make it appear as though it matched a human skull and the teeth filed down to give the appearance of extreme old age.
Ernst Haeckel was Professor of Zoology at Jena University in Germany from 1865 to 1909. His infamous (fraudulent) “gill slit,” diagrams or embryological drawings supposedly recapitulating various stages of evolutionary development in the womb (I.e. fish, amphibian, etc.) were used in biology textbooks as evidence for evolution, even though scientists had known for decades that they were faked. Nothing was done to correct the situation until a biologist complained about it in 1999. Stephen J. Gould, a historian of science, blamed textbook-writers for the mistake, and dismissed the whistle-blower (a Lehigh University biochemist) as a “creationist.”
Before 1986, researchers and textbooks had asserted for twenty years that RNA had successfully been synthesized in the lab. It was even in college textbooks. Finally, biochemist Robert Shapiro checked it out and found it to be a rumour spread entirely from a single ambiguous paper drafted in 1967. His announcement was a bombshell at the 1968 conference of the International Institute for the Study of the Origin of Life at Berkeley, California. Random development of RNA in the environment of early earth has been shown to be impossible. No one challenged Shapiro then, or has since.
Orce man” (found in the southern apanish town of Orce in 1982) was hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. (“Skull Fragment May Not be Human,” Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983). In 1982, a team of three Catalan archaeologists , headed by professor Jose Gibert, were digging near the village of Orce in Spain. During their dig, they uncovered an unusual bone fragment, which they announced a year later belonged to a human child. Orce man, as the find came to be known, was said to represent the oldest human fossil ever discovered in Europe and placed humans in Europe much earlier than evolutionists had predicted. Later, to the embarrassment of many, the bone was identified as the skull cap of a six-month-old donkey (Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D., “No Missing Links Here…” May 2002).
Evolutionists tried to claim that the fossils Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoul are “the immediate ancestors of the first birds.”
However, these two fossils of flightless birds (similar to ostriches) have bird-like teeth and lack the long tail seen in the theropod dinosaurs they are supposedly descended from. Additionally, avian (bird) evolution researcher and world authority on birds and evolutionary biologist at the University of North Carolina, A. Feduccia said, “It is biochemical impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails,” exactly the wrong anatomy for flight (Science, Vol. 274, 1996, pp. 720-721).
“Archaeopteryx” claimed to be the evolutionary missing link between dinosaurs and birds.
2. Ans. False: Dr. Alan Feduccia (world authority on birds and evolutionary biologist at the University of North Carolina( said, “Palaeontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘pale babble’ is going to change that” (Archaeopteryx: Early Bird catches a Can of Worms,” Science, Vol. 259, Feb. 5, 1993, pp. 764-765). Despite claims by the media (science special, Feb. 24, 2008 Discovery Channel) and evolutionary scientists that Archaeopteryx is a legitimate transitional fossil between reptiles and birds, dino-birds-intermediates exist only as imaginary models and over a century of studying Archaeopteryx has proven it to be only a bird. It appears abruptly in the fossil record with masterfully engineered wings and fully formed flying feathers common in birds observable today. Its brain was essentially that of a flying bird with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. That fact that it had teeth and wing-claws is irrelevant to its transitional status–a South American bird called the Hoatzin has wing claws, so have bats, and a number of extinct birds had teeth, which some reptiles do not. Dr. Kurt P. Wise, who received his Ph.D in palaeontology under Stephen J. Gould, considered the world’s foremost evolutionist, has pointed out that Archaeopteryx, because it has both bird and reptile structures, is no more a legitimate transitional form that the duckbilled platypus which has a bill like a duck, lays eggs like a reptile, and has hair and produces milk like a mammal. Both are only found as complete, fully functional organisms and they are properly understood as animals that have detectable characteristics of more than one classification group. W.E. Swinton, also an expert on birds and an evolutionist, categorically states, “There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.”
How am I doing so far?
Discovered by Reiner Protsch von Zieten, “Hahnhofersand Man” (a missing link between Neanderthals and modern humans ) was later discredited. On February 18, 2005, Protsch was forced to retire in disgrace after a Frankfurt University panel ruled that throughout his career he had “fabricated data and plagiarized the work of his colleagues.” They found that he systematically lied about the age of human skulls, dating them tens of thousands of years old, even though they were much younger (“Anthropologist resigns in “dating disaster,” Feb. 19, 2005).
3. One famous dino-bird link was Monoonykus, claimed to be a “flightless bird.” The cover of a nationally recognized magazine even illustrated it with feathers, although not the slightest trace of feathers had been found. Later evidence3 indicated that “Mononykus was clearly not a bird…it clearly was a fleet-footed fossorial [digging] theropod.” What magazine ended up in this embarrassing situation? . Ans. Time (Australia, April 26, 1993). Mononykus had a keel–a prominent ridge that extends forward from the breastbone –to which the muscles that allow flight would attach. With arms instead of wings, Mononykus obviously couldn’t fly. Other researchers speculate that the keel came from another animal altogether and was mistakenly lumped in with the Mononykus bones. A better interpretation of the evidence, they say, would be to call Minonk’s a birdlike dinosaur.” (Kathy Svitil,” Bird or mole? Mononykus olecranus, a bird-like fossil with claws instead of wings,” Discover, Jan. 1994).
Time (“Mistaken by Millenniums,” June 11, 1990). Carbon dating in many serious cases embarrasses evolutionists by giving ages that are much younger than those expected from their model of early history. A specimen older than 50,000 years should have too little C-14 to measure. Coal, supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old, should be devoid of C-14. It isn’t. No source of coal has been found that completely lacks C-14. Fossil wood found in ‘Upper Permian’ rock that is supposedly 250 Ma old still contained C-14 (A. A. Snelling, ‘Stumping Old-age Dogma,” Creation, 1998, 20 (4): 48-50). Recently, a sample of wood found in rock classified as ‘middle Triassic,’ supposedly some 230 million years old, gave a C-14 date of 33, 720 years, plus or minus 430 years ( A. A. Snelling, “Dating Dilema,” Creation, 1999, 21 (3): 39-41). “It is an unsolved mystery to evolutionists as to why coal has C-14 in it (D.C. Lowe, “Problems Associated with the Use of Coal as a Source of C-14 Free Background Material,” Radiocarbon, 1989, 31: 117-120), or wood supposedly millions of years old still has C-14 present, but it makes perfect sense in the creationist world view. Carbon dating suggested that snails, which were alive, were 27,000 years old (A.C. Riggs, “Major carbon-14 deficiency in modern snail shells from southern Nevada springs,” Science, Vol. 224, April 6, 1984, pp. 58-61).
Which magazine reported, “We are finding that humans have very, very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to one ancestor?” (A.) Time (B.) Newsweek ( C.) U.S. News and World Report
Ans. (C.) U.S. News @ World Report (“The Genetic Eve gets a Genetic Adam,” Dec. 4, 1995
In 1892 on the island of Java, a Dutch physician, Eugene Dubois, found a thigh-bone, which to all intents and purposes was like that of a modern human. About a year earlier in the same location, he had found a large skull-cap, and later three teeth. These were not necessarily from the same individual: the skullcap and the leg-bone were about 15 meters (50 feet) apart. Dubois was convinced he had found his “missing link” and trumpeted around the world as indisputable proof of human evolution “Java man” or Pithecanthropus erectus became widely accepted as such, in spite of the fact that a leading authority had identified two of the teeth as those of an orangutan, and the other as human. Although no face bones had been found, suitably ‘half-ape, half-man’ features were reconstructed in artists’ drawings.” (“Who was Java man?” Creation, Vol. 13, No. 3, June 1991, pp. 22-23.).
The TRUTH is there is a better chance of finding that the man in the moon is a Newfie than any so-called transitional (transmutation) fossil or so-called “missing link” that proves “from the goo, through the zoo, to you” macroevolution. Take care.
I note you fail to address the issue:
The fundamental dishonesty of quote-mining out of context.
From your link:
Attenborough said, “This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of all mammals. The link they would have said until now is missing … it is no longer missing.”
Here’s the Article by Sir David Attenborough:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-attenborough-evolution-darwin
*****
Paragraph 4
This beautiful little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals: with cows and sheep, and elephants and anteaters. According to one of the scientists who has studied her, she is a “Rosetta stone” for understanding our early evolution.
Paragraph 11
Is Ida the missing link? Well, yes and no. Lines of ancestry are extremely difficult to work out from a series of fossils and there are still huge gaps in our understanding of the primate evolutionary story. But the physical proof of evolution has always demanded that there should be links or transitional forms. The famous Archaeopteryx – the first specimen of which resides in the Natural History Museum in London – for example, is one such transitional fossil between the reptiles and birds. Those who doubt that very simple generalised mammals gave rise to the primates could always ask, “show us the link”. Well that link is no longer missing.
*************
Not only is the quote stripped of context, it blighly bridges 6 paragraphs.
If that’s not false witness, then I dunno what is.
(But never mind, I don’t expect this comment to pass moderation)
Rayburne – Not strong on the 9th commandment either.
Archaeoraptor – National Geographic is not a peer reviewed Scientific journal. News of the publication immediately drew critism from the Scientific community on this issue alone. Here’s a more balanced review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor
Piltdown Man – From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
From the outset, there were scientists who expressed scepticism about the Piltdown find. G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that “deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together.” In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.
Ernst Haeckel
Haeckel’s contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it.
Robert Shapiro – sounds like a time traveller, discovering this in 1986 and travelling back to 1968 to debunk it. Seriously, a) this is a discussion on Abiogensis, and secondly the ability of RNA to randomly develop has nothing to do with RNA synthesis in the lab?
FYI : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm
Orce man? – It seems the origin of the fragment has a) been constantly disputed, and b) remains unknown.
Dr. Alan Feduccia – The quotemine suggests that Dr Feduccia does not support evolution, on the contrary Dr feduccia supports an alternative evolutionary path.
“How am I doing so far?” – Nineth commandment, bent, if not broken.
Nothing of what you said, has changed the facts above. Pilt down man and none of the others were transitional fossils. Alan Feduccia supports an alternative evolutionary path. So what? This does not render his expertise in prouncing Archaeopetryx a true bird invalid. As for Ida, give me a break? This is laughable . There should be millions/billions of transitional (intermediate) fossils if macroevolution were true. And scientists finally have found (after 150 years since Darwin) a “true” missing link. Pathetic.
If there is anyone breaking the ninth commandment (Do you know what it is?), It is not me. Piltdown man was a forgery, Nebraska man was an extinct pig (Peccary), Mononykus was clearly not a bird…it clearly was a fleet-footed fossorial [digging] theropod; Hahnhofersand Man” was a deliberate fraud; Orce man was the skull cap of a six-month-old donkey, etc. . As for the article by
Sir David Attenborough:http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-attenborough-evolution-darwin:
*****
Paragraph 4: This beautiful little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals: with cows and sheep, and elephants and anteaters. According to one of the scientists who has studied her, she is a “Rosetta stone” for understanding our early evolution; I did not reference or quote from this article and frankly I find it laughable. David Attenborough (or whoever) can believe what he wants and makes such ridiculous statements to a gullible public. Put what spin on such find you wish, or quote from whatever evolutionists you wish, it doesn’t change anything. If anyone is giving misleading statements and being dishonest, it is those evolutionists who must resort to such sensational statements because, although the fossil record is more than adequate in terms of numbers, there are only a few “disputed” transitional fossils (you could assembly them on a billiard table) which are what the evolutionary paradigm must produce to support their theory.
Charlie says: “Haeckel’s contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it.” When did contempories of Heackel get him to admit it? If the reader will do some homework, he will find that Haeckel’s fraulent drawings were used in biology textbooks for decades (if not longer) after Haeckel first fabricated this fraud.
I stand by the truth of my statement:
Ernst Haeckel was Professor of Zoology at Jena University in Germany from 1865 to 1909. His infamous (fraudulent) “gill slit,” diagrams or embryological drawings supposedly recapitulating various stages of evolutionary development in the womb (I.e. fish, amphibian, etc.) were used in biology textbooks as evidence for evolution, even though scientists had known for decades that they were faked. Nothing was done to correct the situation until a biologist complained about it in 1999. Stephen J. Gould, a historian of science, blamed textbook-writers for the mistake, and dismissed the whistle-blower (a Lehigh University biochemist) as a “creationist.”
Dr. Alan Feduccia – The quotemine suggests that Dr Feduccia does not support evolution, on the contrary Dr feduccia supports an alternative evolutionary path. So what. That does not invalidate his expertise on concluding that Archaeopetryx to be a true bird. W.E. Swinton, also an expert on birds and an evolutionist, does not take an alternative evolutionary path, and he categorically states, “There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.”
“Robert Shapiro – sounds like a time traveller, discovering this in 1986 and travelling back to 1968 to debunk it. Seriously, a) this is a discussion on Abiogensis, and secondly the ability of RNA to randomly develop has nothing to do with RNA synthesis in the lab?
Comment: Robert Shapiro may appear to be a time traveller to you , but he sure exposed the dishonesty of the scientific community in refuting the rumour that that the problem of development of RNA in the environment of early earth had been solved. Yes, this is is a discussion on Abiogenesis, Charlie I never implied it wasn’t) and because it involved the question of Abiogenesis at that time, it had everything to do with the then fraudlent claim (based on a single ambiguous paper drafted in 1967) that RNA was synthesised in a lab. I stand by my statement.
Orce man? – It seems the origin of the fragment has a) been constantly disputed, and b) remains unknown. To whom does it seem “disputed” and “remains” unknown, Charlie? I stand by my statement:
“Later, to the embarrassment of many, the bone was identified as the skull cap of a six-month-old donkey (Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D., “No Missing Links Here…” May 2002).
I left out many more: Nebraska Man discovered in 1922 turned out to be the tooth of a peccary or extinct pig. Piltdown, used for 40 years in textbooks, was a notorious fraud, Neanderthal Man, for nearly a century viewed as a primitive subhuman ancestor of man, is now classified as fully human “Homo sapiens,” All the evidence from the fossil record and archaeology indicates that the Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal peoples were human in the same ways that we are human. Peking Man discovered in China in 1927, as examined by Marcellin Boule, former professor of Teilhard de Chardin of Piltdown fame, was a battered monkey skull. Dr. Duane Gish, Ph.D in biochemistry, U.C. Berkeley, has pointed out in debates (over 300 with evolutionists) that the tools found with Peking Man were used on him, not by him (natives of South east Asia still eat monkey brains as a delicacy). Australopithecus, of which “Lucy” was the most famous find, according to the famous British anatomist Solly Lord Zuckerman and Dr. Charles Oxnard, formerly director of graduate studies and professor of anatomy at the University of Souhtern California Medical School, was neither ancestral to man nor intermediate between ape and man. Indeed, it has been pointed out (New Scientist magazine) that the entire hominid (alleged ape-to-man) collection of fossils known today would barely covera billiard table. Apart from the australopithecines, there is little, if anything, left to suggest man’s origin from an ape ancestry, other than Stephen J. Gould’s convenient “punctuated equilibria” theory (evolution-by-peaks) to explain away, without evidence, the traditional Darwinian theory of gradualism (evolution-by-creeps). Indeed, there is no such proof that such naked and hairy hominid creatures ever existed, except the clever paper of Paris reconstructions by a clever artist from a few teeth or bones, and a great deal of imagination.
Please no more Ad Hominen attacks, character assinations and assertions without evidence. I have seen more than my share.
Rayburne, this is really getting a little desperate.
“Nothing of what you said, has changed the facts above. Pilt down man and none of the others were transitional fossils.”
Yes, some of them were frauds, some of them were honest mistakes. All of them were uncovered by scientists pursuing the scientific method.
” Alan Feduccia supports an alternative evolutionary path. So what? This does not render his expertise in prouncing Archaeopetryx a true bird invalid.”
Not at all, it’s worth mentioning that he not the ONLY authority, and that there are others of EQUAL expertise who disagree with him.
As for Ida, give me a break? This is laughable . There should be millions/billions of transitional (intermediate) fossils if macroevolution were true.”
Firstly fossilisation is a rare occurance requiring a unique set of circumstances, Every fossil is a rare and valuable snapshot and as such, there shouldn’t be millions/billions of transitional fossils.
Secondly, evidence of Macroevolution does not depend entirely on transitional fossils.
“And scientists finally have found (after 150 years since Darwin) a “true” missing link. Pathetic.”
My irony meter just exploded:
“no more Ad Hominen attacks, character assinations and assertions without evidence. I have seen more than my share.”
You surely didn’t mean yourself.
Lets examine Dr Shapiro:
You wrote :- “Before 1986, researchers and textbooks had asserted for twenty years that RNA had successfully been synthesized in the lab. It was even in college textbooks. Finally, biochemist Robert Shapiro checked it out and found it to be a rumour spread entirely from a single ambiguous paper drafted in 1967. His announcement was a bombshell at the 1968 conference of the International Institute for the Study of the Origin of Life at Berkeley, California. Random development of RNA in the environment of early earth has been shown to be impossible. No one challenged Shapiro then, or has since.”
A vague and nebulous statement suggesting a vast conspiracy (or perhaps incompetancy). Dr. Shapiro’s paper examined the availability of RNA components, specifically Ribose, on prebiotic earth and concluded:
“The evidence that is currently available does not support the availability of ribose on the prebiotic earth, except perhaps for brief periods of time, in low concentration as part of a complex mixture, and under conditions unsuitable for nucleoside synthesis.”
Orca man – The people disputing the origin of the fossil are scientists, the fossil is not a ‘skullcap’, nor as some sites claim a ‘skull’, it is a fragment, it is important because of it’s age.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_orce.html
“Nebraska Man discovered in 1922 turned out to be the tooth of a peccary or extinct pig.”
You can’t even get your facts right, it was found in 1917, described in 1922, and in 1925 the mistake was identified. The mistake lasted 3 years, yet in 2009 you’re still citing it.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with huge mass of myth-conceptions that you bring to bear.
It seems that both Admin and yourself have no qualms with quotemines.
Might I suggest this FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
“Nothing of what you said, has changed the facts above. Pilt down man and none of the others were transitional fossils.”
Yes, some of them were frauds, some of them were honest mistakes. All of them were uncovered by scientists pursuing the scientific method.”
Comment: Desperate for whom? Thanks for the admission. Such “frauds” and “honest mistakes” all contribute to the notorious problem acknowledged by leading evolutionists themselves (I.e. Stephen J. Gould) of major “gaps” in the fossil record—of descendents with no ancestors. “Scientists pursuing the scientific method.” Now, that is laughable. You mean “scientists” searching for data to fit their cherished “millions of years” evolutionary paradigm and rejecting data that does not fit in with such an evolutionary framework. ”
“Alan Feduccia supports an alternative evolutionary path. So what? This does not render his expertise in pronouncing Archaeopteryx a true bird invalid.”
Not at all, it’s worth mentioning that he not the ONLY authority, and that there are others of EQUAL expertise who disagree with him. Since you are so interested in details, give the name and credentials of a few of these “experts”. I already listed one, W.E. Swinton, W.E. Swinton, also an expert on birds and an evolutionist who does not take an alternative evolutionary path, and he categorically states, “There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.”
“As for Ida, give me a break? This is laughable . There should be millions/billions of transitional (intermediate) fossils if macroevolution were true.”
Firstly fossilisation is a rare occurance requiring a unique set of circumstances, Every fossil is a rare and valuable snapshot and as such, there shouldn’t be millions/billions of transitional fossils.
Secondly, evidence of Macroevolution does not depend entirely on transitional fossils.
“And scientists finally have found (after 150 years since Darwin) a “true” missing link. Pathetic.”
My irony meter just exploded:”
That all depends my friend on whether you are interpreting the data through the evolutionary paradigm based on the assumption of uniformitarism–that the present is the key to the past. Fossilization, which provides a rare and valuable snapshot, as you say, is a rare occurrence today., but that does not mean it was always rare in the past. We do not see mass fossilization occurring today, but we have plenty of evidence that it occurred in the past (mass burial graves of fossilized animals) and yes, if “from the goo, through to the zoo” evolution were true, there should be millions/billions of transitional fossils. Even Darwin himself expected to find same. Again, I find your statement amusing, if not laughable and misleading:
No less than Charles Darwin himself declared: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. This explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”
Well, evolutionists have had over 150 years to find those intermediate links “in every geological formation and stratum” Darwin considered “the most obvious and serious objection against the theory” ( mainstream Darwinian evolution from a common ancestor) and, apart from a few “pathetic” disputed transitional fossils, the fossil record is no better than it was in Darwin’s day (I know Charlie will disagree with this one).
“And scientists finally have found (after 150 years since Darwin) a “true” missing link. Pathetic.”
My irony meter just exploded.
Comment: Yes, and my meter for tolerating unproven and sensationalistic statements just exploded. Because a few or many “expert” evolutionists decide based on their scientific assessment of whether or not Ida constitutes a true transitional fossil (the so-called missing link) does not mean that it is. And, yes, in view of the previous “pathetic” track record of man’s so-called evolutionary ancestors (which, for the most part, appear in the geological record suddenly, fully formed and functional, without evidence of transitional (intermediate) ancestors), this claim to have suddenly found the “missing” link is not only “pathetic, it is laughable. It is also an insult to my intelligence.
You wrote :- “Before 1986, researchers and textbooks had asserted for twenty years that RNA had successfully been synthesized in the lab. It was even in college textbooks. Finally, biochemist Robert Shapiro checked it out and found it to be a rumour spread entirely from a single ambiguous paper drafted in 1967. His announcement was a bombshell at the 1968 conference of the International Institute for the Study of the Origin of Life at Berkeley, California. Random development of RNA in the environment of early earth has been shown to be impossible. No one challenged Shapiro then, or has since.”
Comment: No, that is not what I wrote. This is what I wrote, and your spin on it (quoting from Shapiro) does not alter his refution of the then false claim that the
problem of development of RNA in the environment of early earth had been solved.
“Robert Shapiro may appear to be a time traveller to you , but he sure exposed the dishonesty of the scientific community in refuting the rumour that that the problem of development of RNA in the environment of early earth had been solved. Yes, this is is a discussion on Abiogenesis, Charlie I never implied it wasn’t) and because it involved the question of Abiogenesis at that time, it had everything to do with the then fraudlent claim (based on a single ambiguous paper drafted in 1967) that RNA was synthesised in a lab. I stand by my statement.
“You can’t even get your facts right, it was found in 1917, described in 1922, and in 1925 the mistake was identified. The mistake lasted 3 years, yet in 2009 you’re still citing it.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with huge mass of myth-conceptions that you bring to bear.
It seems that both Admin and yourself have no qualms with quotemines.
Might I suggest this FAQ.
Comment: yes, it was 1917, not 1922 ( I hope you extend the same courtesy of making “honest mistakes” to non-evolutionists, as well as to evolutionists.) I do not know “Admin”, but I hope he is reading this comment and responds to the false allegation of “quote mining.” Of course, you don’t have the time or inclination to deal with what you call a “myth-conception” when in March 1922, Cook submitted the specimen to Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the American Museum of Natural History and an eminent vertebrate paleontologist, to determine the tooth’s affinities and Osborn ,who received the tooth on March 14, 1922. wrote to Cook: “I sat down with the tooth and I said to myself: ‘It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid’.” (Osborn, 1922b, p. 2) One month later, Osborn announced Hesperopithecus haroldcookii as the first anthropoid ape from America. “Dispute by scientific community,” as you claim. That tells us a lot about the scientific “expertise” of evolutionists, doesn’t it–that one “scientific” opinion is as good as another. (also what you call “quotemines”). Here are a few more “scientific ” opinions concerning so-called human evolution, including leading evolutionary authorities in the field of paleoanthropology.
“The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone (U.C. Berkeley anthroploogist White).
“To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy…if further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving” (Richard Leakey, PBS documentary, 1990). He also said. If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark? (Richard Leakey, one of the world’s foremost paleoanthropologists, PBS documentary, 1990).
David Pilbeam commented: “There is no clear-cut and inexorable pathway from ape to human being” .
The late Mary Leakey commented as to constructing evolutionary trees that ,” I do not believe it is [now] possible to fit the known hominid fossils into a reliable patter.”
Meave Leakey, the noted Kenyan paleoanthropologist concludes that “it may never be possible to say exactly what evolved into what.”
I could give many more .
It seems that when evolutionists give opinions based on their interpretation of the physical evidence in line with their evolutionary framework or paradigm of millions of years, then it is a fact, but not so with those reputable scientists who disagree with their “opinion”. And please I have heard enough about “Punctuated Equilibruim” (evolution by quick peaks)–a convenient theory to explain away, without evidence, the failure of gradualism (evolution by creeps) to provide transitional (intermediate) fossils and about extrapolating examples from microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. As I said, we are not talking about whether or not changes occur through time (they do), not even about the size of the change or whether or not natural selection happens (it does), but rather the type of change required to change microbes into men—-the type of changes that increase the genetic information content. The three billion DNA “letters” stored in each human cell nucleus (the “computer control room” where DNA is located and information is transferred from DNA to RNA) convey a great deal more information (known as “specified complexity”) than half a million DNA “letters” of the “simplest” self-reproducing organism. For instance, the DNA sequences in a “higher” organism, such as a human being or an horse, code for structures and functions unknown in the sort of “primitive first cell” from which all other organisms are said to have evolved.
None of the alleged proofs of “evolution in action” to date provide a single example of functional new information being added to genes. To claim that mere change proves that such information increasing change will occur is like saying that because a merchant can sell goods, he will sell them for a profit. The origin of information is an insurmountable problem for the general “microbes to man” theory of evolution. So far, all observed change is always in the direction of lower specificity (loss of genetic information). Today, there is even a specialized branch of information theory called bio-informatics–the study of biological information.
Quote from Darwin:
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory. This explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”
By the way, so that the readers will know I’m not “quote mining,” or taking this statement out of context, you will find this quote word for word on page 292 of “Darwin: The Origin of Species, and I will give a few statements immediately preceding the quote above to show the recurring nature of this thought or conviction, as expressed by Darwin in the quote above:
“The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere through nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varities continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory. This explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record” (Darwin: The Origin of Species, page 292).
On page 438 we read at the beginning of a new paragraph (top of page) :
“As on the theory of natural selection an interminable number of intermediate forms must have existed, linking together all the species in each group by gradations as fine as our present varieties, it may be asked. Why do we not see these linking forms all around us? Why are not all organic beings blended together in an inextricable chaos? (Darwin: The Origin of Species, page 438).
Again, on page 438, we read (I will give you the whole paragraph from beginning to end):
“On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory. Why, again, do whole groups of allied species appear, though certainly they often falsely appear, to have come in suddenly on the several geological stages? Why do we not find great piles of strata beneath the Silurian system, stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Silurian groups of fossils? For certainly on my theory such strata must somewhere have been deposited at these ancient and utterly unknown epochs in the world’s history” (Darwin: The Origin of Species, pages 438-439, note the expressions “infinitude of connecting links,” “why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Etc.).
After 150 years of searching for such an “an interminable number of intermediate forms” (“an infinitude of connecting links,” Darwin: The Origin of Species, page 438) that Darwin saw as the “the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory” (Darwin: The Origin of Species, page 438), the picture is no better.
The most credentialed and brilliant evolutionary scientists concede that the fossil record (long heralded within the scientific community as indisputable proof of evolution) is composed entirely of gaps, not evidence of transitional (intermediate) life forms required to demonstrate gradual macroevolutionary change from ancestral forms to descendents (from one distinct basic kind to another) over millions of years. Stephen Jay Gould, considered the world’s foremost evolutionist, conceded that “The fossil record with its abrupt appearance of complete life forms offers no support for gradual change…All palaeontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme perfection of the fossil record” (Stephen J. Gould, “The Panda’s thumb, p. 189).
Renown evolutionist and eminent scientist, E. Mayr, stated: “Palaeontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin’s postulate of gradualism…and the actual findings of palaeontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record” (E. Mayr, “One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, p. 138).
Dr. Robert Barnes is an authority of invertebrate zoology. In his book “Invertebrate Beginnings,” he writes, “The fossil record tells us nothing about the evolutionary origin of phyla and classes. Intermediate forms are non-existent, undiscovered, or not recognized.”
Dr. Steven M. Stanley is professor of paleobiology at John Hopkins University. He was the recipient of the Schuchert award of the Paleontological Society and has been awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship. He openly admits, “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic [gradual] evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualist model can be valid.” I could list many more.
What about other leading scientists, who acknowledge that evolution is not just a religious dogma, but, in contrast to Christianity, an irrational faith in the miraculous exceedingly beyond anything a Christian believes. Robert E. D. Clark (Ph.D. organic chemistry, Cambridge) remarks, ”If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature and must have involved what rightly may be called the miraculous.” Dr. Harry Rimmer (SC.D., D.D.) was allegedly one of only 12 men around 1940 capable of understanding Einstein’s theory of relativity. He wrote, “I fail to see how the natural man can scoff at the faith of a Christian who believes in one miracle of creation, when the unbeliever accepts multiplied millions of miracles to justify his violation of every known law of biology and every evidence of palaeontology, and to cling to the exploded myth of evolution.”
Finally, a Chinese palaeontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin’s theory predicts. When the conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: “In China we an criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.”
And please Charlie, no arguments from numbers (the majority of the scientific community). Numbers or majorities do not determine what is true.
To support with evidence this statement that the fossil record has long been heralded within the scientific community as indisputable proof of evolution, I quote from Pierre-Paul Grasse, who held the prestigious Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne University in Paris, France for 30 years:
“Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through the fossil forms. A knowledge of palaeontology is therefore a prerequisite; only palaeontology can provide them with the evidence and reveal its course or mechanisms” (Evolution of Living Organisms: New York Academic Press, 1977
Grasse, Pierre-P. [former editor of the 28-volume “Traite de Zoologie,” holder for 30 years of the Chair of. Evolution, Sorbonne University .
Yes, Charlie was really desperate, but not because of so-called “myth-conceptions” he alleged I brought to bear. He had little support for his arguments, mostly assertions without evidence, apart from some skeptic’s website “Talk Origins,” which naturally distorts and put their own little spin on the arguments and interpretations of non-evolutionists to fit their evolutionary paradigm.
I think Charlie got more of his share of Darwin than he could handle. Especially since I carefully quoted from Darwin in the context of his book “Darwin: The Origin of Species” (no quote mining here). At least Darwin was far more honest than modern evolutionists, and at least he qualified his speculations with hypothetical language. Not so our present geniuses. They would have us believe they have it all worked out even though they have less evidence than Darwin thought he had.
Leave your response!
Nano-Blog News from around the world
NZ CHRISTIAN BLOGS
NZ CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES
PLACES TO VISIT