Evolution is a lie?

[SkyWriting]

Evolution is a lie based on half truths, false science and ignorance, whose proponents invariably ignore scientific laws when convenient. Attempts to claim the scientific high ground is laughable.

Science cannot see the past. But it can compile evidence to support a theory.
And that's all science has done, compile evidence. Mutations and natural
selection are easy to document BECASUE they can be tested in real time.
Common origins for all life is what the scriptures teach us as well. But the
exact process is all history and scientifically unrepeatable. So it's just a story.
Not so much a lie. Just one possible story for those who don't trust in the
Biblical version. And many don't.

 

[KTskater]

The "checks and balances" only work to bring published research in line with the average views of the body of scientists. Research that furthers the groups agenda, might be rubber stamped for approval. If I invest my career in a line of research, what happens if someone publishes supporting literature?

Lets let you prove it to you. "Disproving another scientist's theory gets you recognition and prestige, especially if it's a well established theory."

So what do we have here? A well established theory that can be dis-proven. Whaaaaat?. In your example (I'll consider you a knowledgeable expert for the moment) a theory can be well established without being correct. Someone must have rubber stamped this guy's work.

But if you'd like to retract your example, that's fine too.

Let's talk about Galileo disproving the widely held idea that the sun revolved around the earth. Or Louis Pasteur (and others) and his work on germ theory disproving the idea that disease was caused by evil spirits.

The beauty of science is that all theories can be disproven, otherwise they wouldn't be considered science. In fact, they very description of a hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable. Theories are are simply a hypothesis or a collection of hypotheses and data supporting them.

 

[sfs]

Not even possible.
Science can only support repeatable events.

Not true. There is scientific support for many non-repeatable events.

 

[sfs]

Mutations are invariably bad and do not offer any value.

False.

Not sure where you found this information but what I do know is that children dont have the same appearance as their parents, but they will certainly be humans and so will their children for the next 4.4 x 10-8 generations.

The information wasn't quite right -- there are probably ~75 new mutations per human birth -- but it's in the right ballpark. And no, you don't "know" that human descendants will continue to be human into the indefinite future (and ignoring the fact that your statement didn't actually make any sense as written).

But let me understand this...the following are all from genetic mutations;
- our sight,taste, hearing, feeling and smelling senses,
- the eyeball, the eye socket, the attached nerve endings thereof, the connection to the brain, the automatic reponses of the body to light,
- our tongue, voice box, knee joints with cartilage, sweat glands, endocrine system, our brain, memory and fingerprints, etc etc etc etc

Ultimately, yes.

And that's waht so amusing about people who profess to be evolutionists / falsely called scientists. They beat the book of creation down because it doesn't stand up to their veiled scientific analysis, yet they happily stand on evolution that fails in the same way.

Ultimately the evolution theory is as vulnerable as the creation theory and it depends on which spirit one yields to for their doctrinre and belief system.

What's funny here? Evolution explains and predicts vast swathes of data in diverse fields of science. Creationism predicts almost nothing, and what it does predict is always wrong. Given this fact (and it is a fact), why exactly do you think scientists should choose creationism over evolution?

A Barrier to Evolution
Evolution, Thermodynamics, and Entropy

Ah yes, the ICR and thermodynamics. Merely incompetent at physics, or actively lying for Jesus? It doesn't really matter, since the effect is the same -- they're doing their bit to convince the scientifically literate that Christianity is for nitwits.

 

[mark kennedy]

What's funny here? Evolution explains and predicts vast swathes of data in diverse fields of science. Creationism predicts almost nothing, and what it does predict is always wrong. Given this fact (and it is a fact), why exactly do you think scientists should choose creationism over evolution?

Creation is historical in it's orientation, it's content and it's focus, much as Darwinism always has been. The inferences of Creationism are with regards to three major events as described in the Genesis narrative. Specifically the universe (Gen 1:1), life ); life (Gen. 1:21); and Man (Gen. 1:27). These are events are by divine fiat, special creation without precursors, the language of the narrative is unambitious on this point. Darwinism is focused on lineage, particularly, the lines of descent from previously existing species.

What predictions you could expect from Creationism are by inference and implication. Creationism is religious doctrine and was not produced through empirical testing, that narrative came directly from God to Moses at Sinai. It's a special revelation that begins the revelation of redemptive history. What it predicts is that when you hear the Gospel, believe and receive the Holy Spirit of promise that you become a new creature in Christ. It further predicts and promise not only a translation to a perfect creation in the resurrection but ultimately a new heavens and a new earth. Creationism predicts many things, it's implications for natural science are limited but to say that it has none is absurd.

The implications for natural science would be the there are limits beyond which the descendants of the originally created kinds cannot evolve. See my signiture.

Ah yes, the ICR and thermodynamics. Merely incompetent at physics, or actively lying for Jesus? It doesn't really matter, since the effect is the same -- they're doing their bit to convince the scientifically literate that Christianity is for nitwits.

It is single most telling flaw of theistic evolution that they disparage Christian ministry in this way. What the secular world despises about the Christian faith is the reliance of our belief system on God's miraculous interactions with us, starting with creation. This incessant mockery of Christians who affirm the clear testimony of Scripture and address the issues leveled against them was provoked by the attrition of Darwinism. The attacks on Creationists by Theistic Evolutionists is deleterious both to science and theology and virtually identical to the criticisms levels against them by the unbelieving world. I expect it from the secular world, of course they wouldn't know much about Christian theism but for a professing Christian well read on the subject matter, it is inexcusable.

I was tempted to get into the role of mutations in evolutionary biology but I'm starting a formal debate on another topic today. I don't intend to pursue it today but there are two points worth considering. First of all mutations with a beneficial effect are rare enough, mutations with a strong enough selective advantage to be adaptive on an evolutionary scale are presumed rather then demonstrated or directly observed.

More importantly, the deleterious effects of mutations on vital organs like the human brain yield disease and disorder. If beneficial effects from changes in the requisite genes exist, science has yet to identify them. Skepticism is warranted.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[sfs]

Creation is historical in it's orientation, it's content and it's focus, much as Darwinism always has been.

Indeed.

The inferences of Creationism are with regards to three major events as described in the Genesis narrative. Specifically the universe (Gen 1:1), life ); life (Gen. 1:21); and Man (Gen. 1:27). These are events are by divine fiat, special creation without precursors, the language of the narrative is unambitious on this point. Darwinism is focused on lineage, particularly, the lines of descent from previously existing species.

Creationism has offered many claims beyond those bare three. In particular, it quite often claims the fiat creation of the earth and of each created "kind", whatever that is taken to be.

What it predicts is that when you hear the Gospel, believe and receive the Holy Spirit of promise that you become a new creature in Christ. It further predicts and promise not only a translation to a perfect creation in the resurrection but ultimately a new heavens and a new earth.

Those are predictions of Christianity, or at least of evangelical Christianity, not of creationism per se.

Creationism predicts many things, it's implications for natural science are limited but to say that it has none is absurd.

The implications vary by the creationist, and while not absurd, they do not reflect physical reality.

The implications for natural science would be the there are limits beyond which the descendants of the originally created kinds cannot evolve. See my signiture.

And thus the implication is also that widely different forms of life should not show signs of common descent, and that humans should not show signs of common descent with any other species.

It is single most telling flaw of theistic evolution that they disparage Christian ministry in this way.

It is the single most telling feature of creationist "ministries" that they misrepresent science, distort facts, and evade data. As in this case, in the handling of thermodynamics.

What the secular world despises about the Christian faith is the reliance of our belief system on God's miraculous interactions with us, starting with creation.

What the scientific world despises about creationists is that they lie, distort and debase science. There are plenty of scientists who are Christians, and only a small percentage of scientists who actively despise Christianity as a whole. The low regard for creationists has little to do with the Christian faith and everything to do with how creationists interact with science.

Look, creationists make absurd misstatements about science all the time; some are linked to in the post we're talking about. Do you really expect scientists just to ignore these howlers?

This incessant mockery of Christians who affirm the clear testimony of Scripture and address the issues leveled against them was provoked by the attrition of Darwinism. The attacks on Creationists by Theistic Evolutionists is deleterious both to science and theology and virtually identical to the criticisms levels against them by the unbelieving world. I expect it from the secular world, of course they wouldn't know much about Christian theism but for a professing Christian well read on the subject matter, it is inexcusable.

When creationists stop lying, I'll stop complaining about their lies. And of course, the abuse hurled by creationists at theistic evolutionists is both worse and more wide-spread than what you're complaining about.

I was tempted to get into the role of mutations in evolutionary biology but I'm starting a formal debate on another topic today. I don't intend to pursue it today but there are two points worth considering. First of all mutations with a beneficial effect are rare enough, mutations with a strong enough selective advantage to be adaptive on an evolutionary scale are presumed rather then demonstrated or directly observed.

This is trivially false: beneficial mutations that are actually observed tend to have much larger selective advantages than ones thought to be common in adaptive evolution, simply because the largest ones are the easiest to identify.

More importantly, the deleterious effects of mutations on vital organs like the human brain yield disease and disorder. If beneficial effects from changes in the requisite genes exist, science has yet to identify them. Skepticism is warranted.

Skepticism is always warranted, but seems poorly grounded here. Genetic variation that affects organs like the brain, but that does not carry detectable deleterious effects is abundant. Perhaps you can think of a reason that such variation can occur, but that mutation cannot create new copies of it, but I can't. In addition, beneficial mutations in vital organs have been identified.

 

[berachah]

False.

by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.
Fish supposedly evolved into people by gene mutations, but a recent report shows that mutations have disastrous effects.1 Not only are individual genes essential, but when they are inhibited, entire gene networks are disrupted, resulting in severe growth and development problems in the organism.
One of the main model organisms used to study gene and genome function is the small soil worm called a nematode. Nematodes are the most abundant type of animal on earth and live in many different environments. They also make excellent test animals for genetic study in the lab because they are easy to raise, have a small genome size, and much is known about their biology.
In the past, scientists used a variety of technologies to sequentially inhibit individual genes in the nematode genome.2, 3 Their goal was to ascertain which genes are essential to its survival. However, in these early studies, researchers only analyzed the effects of gene mutation by looking at individual nematodes for observable changes. They also only evaluated the effects of mutation on a single generation. Therefore, they missed detecting the results of disabling genes where the effects were subtle.
In this recent study, scientists observed the effects of 550 sequentially inhibited genes on the overall fitness of nematodes over eight generations. Fitness is the ability of a population of organisms to grow and reproduce over time compared to a control population that does not have the mutation. Fitness can also be tested in different environments that apply various stresses.
In the majority of cases, the disruption of single genes reduced the fitness of the nematode populations. This was an effect that kept increasing with successive generations. Theoretically, this would have eventually led to extinction.
As a result, researchers concluded that most every gene tested was essential to survival of the nematode. Because the mutant worms' fitness decreased over successive generations, the researchers also concluded that even single mutations negatively impact entire gene networks.
The researchers wrote,
In contrast to previous estimates, we find that, in these multigeneration population assays, the majority of genes affect fitness, and this suggests that genetic networks are not robust to mutation. Our results demonstrate that, in a single environmental condition, most animal genes play essential roles.1
In the biological evolution model, the process of genome mutation not only involves the hypothetical alteration of gene sequences, but the idea that not all genes are essential to life. In other words, there is room in the cell system for DNA to randomly change, so that once in a while it can spit out some useful new gene sequence to advance evolutionary progress. However, this new study shows that even though the cell systems in roundworms are dynamic and environmentally responsive, the fine-tuned DNA-based informational system that underlies it cannot be corrupted without diminishing its ability to survive.
So in addition to refuting evolution, nematode gene networks show every sign of carefully crafted system engineering.

and

Many Americans believe that the big-picture story of evolution, as biology professors routinely expound it, is false.1 Basically, they haven't bought into the concept that all life descended from one common ancestor that miraculously sprang into being millions of years ago. And that makes sense, considering there are no real examples of that kind of evolution.
If evolutionary biologists could document such evolution in action, they could vindicate their worldview and cite real research to support their surreal claims. In 1980, this search for proof led researchers to painstakingly and purposefully mutate each core gene involved in fruit fly development. The now classic work, for which the authors won the Nobel Prize in 1995, was published in Nature.2 The experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genes―mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creature―merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies. This therefore showed that fruit flies could not evolve.
Similarly, Michigan State University evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations.3 In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative. University of Bristol emeritus professor of bacteriology Alan Linton summarized the situation:

But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.4
​

In a recent study, also published in Nature, University of California Irvine researcher Molly Burke led research into the genetic changes that occurred over the course of 600 fruit fly generations. The UCI lab had been breeding fruit flies since 1991, separating fast growers with short life spans from slow growers with longer life spans.5
The UCI scientists compared the DNA sequences affecting fruit fly growth and longevity between the two groups. After the equivalent of 12,000 years of human evolution, the fruit flies showed surprisingly few differences.
One requirement for Darwin's theory is that the mutational changes that supposedly fuel evolution somehow have to be "fixed" into the population. Otherwise, the DNA changes quickly drift right back out of the population. The researchers found no evidence that mutational changes relevant to longevity had been fixed into the fruit fly populations.
The study's authors wrote, "In our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with 'classic' sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed."5
They suggested that perhaps there has not been enough time for the relevant mutations to have become fixed. They also suggested an alternative—that natural selection could be acting on already existing variations. But this is not evolution, and it is actually what creation studies have been demonstrating for many years.6
Evolution was not observed in fruit fly genetic manipulations in 1980, nor has it been observed in decades-long multigenerational studies of bacteria and fruit flies. The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don't evolve—they just die.
Although the experimental results from these studies were given titles with an evolutionary "spin," the actual experiments demonstrate undoubtedly that bacteria and fruit flies were created, not evolved.

The information wasn't quite right -- there are probably ~75 new mutations per human birth -- but it's in the right ballpark. And no, you don't "know" that human descendants will continue to be human into the indefinite future (and ignoring the fact that your statement didn't actually make any sense as written).

clearly scientific numbers....
I know that humans will remain humans no matter how much time heat and random mutation you might suppose to be up ahead, because humans have always been humans. There are no clear transitional fossils in spite of rabid efforts to show otherwise and in spite of billions of fossils being uncovered. The closest potential candidate have all been fabricated hoax's. (Hoax's which clearly show how desperate some groups of individuals are in the support of their theory)

And using your figures with the same looseness you find acceptable, I guess the coelacanth should have had roughly 300 000 000 000 mutations since it first evolved, so you obvioucly have an explanation why it is still the same fish today..?

What's funny here? Evolution explains and predicts vast swathes of data in diverse fields of science. Creationism predicts almost nothing, and what it does predict is always wrong. Given this fact (and it is a fact), why exactly do you think scientists should choose creationism over evolution?

Creationists are engaged in all the same fields of science and actually the evolution theory predicts nothing. (mostly it supposes and thats why it is a theory - in spite of attempts to call it fact) And when it does attempt to predict, it pretty quickly has to be changed to accommodate new findings. (the evolution theory is about the only things that evolves). And worst of all it is absolutely depending on circular reasoning.

Ah yes, the ICR and thermodynamics. Merely incompetent at physics, or actively lying for Jesus? It doesn't really matter, since the effect is the same -- they're doing their bit to convince the scientifically literate that Christianity is for nitwits.

No, I think that is probably your strength....

 

[mark kennedy]

Creationism has offered many claims beyond those bare three. In particular, it quite often claims the fiat creation of the earth and of each created "kind", whatever that is taken to be.

I'm not crazy about some of the geology and thermodynamics arguments, they just seem a little obscure. I really don't know where you are getting that Creationism supports some kind of a flat earth, I've never seen that and even the ancient Greeks knew the earth was round. What the Scriptures speak to expressly is the creation of the universe (Gen. 1:1), life (Genesis 1:21) and man (Gen. 1:27). Creationism as doctrine never really goes beyond that. The created kinds are very general but obvious classifications of birds, mammals and sea life are about as specific as the Genesis account gets.

Those are predictions of Christianity, or at least of evangelical Christianity, not of creationism per se.

Well Christianity and the Hebrew prophets starting with Moses, let's not leave them out. Creationism is really an apologetic response the Modernist attacks on the credibility of Scripture, creation is only one of the issues.

The implications vary by the creationist, and while not absurd, they do not reflect physical reality.

Is that fair? Would it be fair for me to say that Theistic Evolution does not reflect sound doctrine?

And thus the implication is also that widely different forms of life should not show signs of common descent, and that humans should not show signs of common descent with any other species.

Depends on what you consider definitive proof, homology arguments don't do much to convince me. There has to be a base line for determining whether or not a transition from apes to humans is feasible. As far as I can tell, it is simply assumed beyond skepticism.

It is the single most telling feature of creationist "ministries" that they misrepresent science, distort facts, and evade data. As in this case, in the handling of thermodynamics.

The same could be said for Talk Origins, the whole topic is riddled with false positives. Creationist ministries are at least affirming the reliability of Scripture which is something Theistic Evolutionist groups have not the slightest interest in.

What the scientific world despises about creationists is that they lie, distort and debase science. There are plenty of scientists who are Christians, and only a small percentage of scientists who actively despise Christianity as a whole. The low regard for creationists has little to do with the Christian faith and everything to do with how creationists interact with science.

That's simply not true, Creationist ministries have been pretty responsible about keeping their facts straight. The fact is that just saying you are a Creationist is enough to incite an all out attack on your credibility regardless of why you happen to be one. The Intelligent Design folks simply infer a Designer with no real arguments beyond that, they suffer the same relentless scorn.

It is because it's an expression of the Christian faith, Creationism is essential Christianity.

Look, creationists make absurd misstatements about science all the time; some are linked to in the post we're talking about. Do you really expect scientists just to ignore these howlers?

That's because there are two things going on here at once. The natural science that is working with living systems and learning their intricacies are never criticized by Creationists at large. Darwinism on the other hand is just one long argument against special creation and it continues to this day. It's not so much that there are common ancestors but that it goes all the way back to primordial common ancestors and never allows for God as the cause of anything.

I don't know what to call that except bias, and that's putting it mildly.

When creationists stop lying, I'll stop complaining about their lies. And of course, the abuse hurled by creationists at theistic evolutionists is both worse and more wide-spread than what you're complaining about.

Lies huh? Still want to tell me that we are 98% the same as Chimpanzees in our DNA?

This is trivially false: beneficial mutations that are actually observed tend to have much larger selective advantages than ones thought to be common in adaptive evolution, simply because the largest ones are the easiest to identify.

I've challenged evolutionists for years to tell me how a beneficial effect could occur from a mutation in a brain related gene. Now, disease and disorder are pretty easy to itemize but improved fitness from a change in a brain related gene seems unlikely, at least I've never heard tell of one.

Sure, beneficial effects from mutations happen but they need to happen in vital organs like the brain for us to have evolved from apes.

Skepticism is always warranted, but seems poorly grounded here. Genetic variation that affects organs like the brain, but that does not carry detectable deleterious effects is abundant. Perhaps you can think of a reason that such variation can occur, but that mutation cannot create new copies of it, but I can't. In addition, beneficial mutations in vital organs have been identified.

Oh I think adaptive evolution can be accounted for by something a whole lot more substantive then random copy errors. One of the reason I persist in these profoundly miserable debates is because I keep getting little glimpses of how adaptive evolution actually works.

More importantly and you can take this any way you see fit. Creationism is grounded in the clear testimony of Scripture, Old and New Testament and is clearly foundational. Disparaging Creationism with no regard for it's vital doctrinal foundation is not something a mature believer would do. Genesis is an historical narrative and a divine revelation, in fact, the very oracles of God. Genesis, John's Gospel, Hebrews and the Nicene Creed all discuss creation in absolute and unambiguous terms. In order to be a Christian you must be a Creationist, to call Creationists liars with poorly grounded reasons for their skepticism is self deprecating for any Christian.

Anyway, nice to chat with you again Steve. A very Merry Christmas to you and your's this holiday season.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[KTskater]

There are no clear transitional fossils in spite of rabid efforts to show otherwise and in spite of billions of fossils being uncovered. The closest potential candidate have all been fabricated hoax's. (Hoax's which clearly show how desperate some groups of individuals are in the support of their theory)

That simply isn't true. We have quite a large amount of fossils that show transition. I don't like just telling people they are wrong. So I'll give you a quick overview of the evidence. All of this can be checked via any bio-anthropology text book, professor, online encyclopedia...etc. I have multiple sources that will give you all the same information. I have held the bones of almost all of these species in my own hands, so I can personally verify the information, as well.

The Pleistocene had primate-like mammals. These looked very similar to rodents. They had no post-orbital bar, their eyes were not forward facing, they had no opposable digits, claws, rodent-like teeth, diastema (gap for canine teeth), and very tiny brains.

As we move into the Eocene, we have the Omomyids (Teilhardina asiatica is one, and is considered to be as close of an example as we have to the stem primate), and the Adapids. There is a ~95% complete Adapid (Darwinius masillae) fossil known as "Ida" from the Messel Pit in Germany. Ida shows many rodent characteristics, but she also has nails and an opposable hallux.
Other early anthropoid fossils include:
Eosimias ("Dawn Monkey") and Aegyptopithecus. These range from ~50mya to about 33mya.
These all show the transition from rodent-like mammals to the characteristics we see in primates. Things like the presence of a post-orbital bar, forward facing eyes, grasping hands and feet, nails instead of claws, all with varied development.
Moving into the Miocene you have Proconsul (21-17mya), as well as species like Kenyapithecus, Ouranopithecus, Sivapithecus and Pryopithecs. However the latter three show characteristics more similar to modern great apes than humans, so they aren't considered part of the human lineage, but could present spliting point in the evolution of man and other apes.
From there we move into more familiar territory. I'll do a quick overview of the traits of each type specimen of each of the transitory species so you get can a feel for the the development of modern human characteristics.

Salhelanthropus tchadensis (7mya)
(Cranium only)
Foramen magnum position shows possible bipedalism
Non-honing canines
Thick enamel (ape characteristic)
Small brain (365 cc)
Facial prognathism

Orrorin tugenesis (6.2-5.65mya)
(Parts from 12 individuals)
Neck of femurs suggests bipedalism
Non-honing canines
Humerus shows they were also be arboreal

Ardipithecus kadabba (5.8-5.2mya)
(Teeth and post-crania)
Shows ape-like chewing
Toe shows possible evidence of bipedalism

Aridpithecus ramidus (4.4mya)
(45% complete)
Foremen magnum => bipedal capabilities
300-350cc cranial capacity for (ARA-VP-6/500 fossil only).
Os peroneum is a bone in the foot that allows for both an opposable toe and to stiffen the foot for "toeing off" (how humans walk). It's a more developed version of what is seen in A. kadabba. It show a slightly flared ilia (part of of hip) which is seen to a greater extent in humans.
Still many ape characteristics:
Large canines, smaller molars, ape-like enamel and diet, curved fingers, lower pelvis very chimp-like. Facial prognathism

Australopithecus anamensis (4mya)
Chimp like jaw, more human-like teeth.
Here we start to see sexual dimorphism (different sizes between males and females) developing.

Australopithecus afarensis (3.6-3.0mya)
(40% compelete) A.k.a "Lucy" (although many other specimens exist)
She has "mirrored" post crania, meaning that what she misses on one side is present on the other, so we have an idea of what her whole body looks like.
Knees, pelvis, feet (no longer has the divergent toe that we see in Ardipithecus) and foreman magnum all show habitual bipedalism.
Curved fingers show she was also arboreal. Facial prognathism
Cranial capacity (400-500cc)

NOTE: The Paranthropines also existed during this time, but they aren't believed the be ancestors to humans.

Australopithecus garhi (2.5 mya)
Cranial capacity 450cc
Humerus and femur are human-like (however, scientists have no yet confirmed that the post-cranial and skull are from the same individual).

Homo hablis (2.4-1.6mya)
First sure instance of tool use.
600cc cranial capacity
Smaller teeth, thinner enamel, parabolic dental arcade (human-like, compared to U-shaped type found in chimps).
The skull becomes rounder, less facial prognathism.
Seven well-known specimens

Homo erectus/ergaster (1mya-300kya)
Fully human gait
Cranial capacity 950-1000cc
Larger body size
Lower limbs of human proportions
Smaller jaw, face and teeth than previous specimen
Cranial vault sits high
Forehead
Almost no facial prognathism
Advanced tools
First to leave Africa and spread out throughout the New World
Specimens found in Africa, Europe and Asia.

After this point, the current, most common view point is that a Homo species moved into Europe. This became Homo antecessor, which became Homo heidelbergensis, which became the Neaderthal. Humans most likely evolved from Homo erectus in Africa and then proceeded to leave Africa and colonize the rest of the world (this is supported by genetic evidence). You have archaic humans that look very much like H. erectus, and we also have possible human/Neaderthal hybrid fossils.

 

[berachah]

That simply isn't true. We have quite a large amount of fossils that show transition. I don't like just telling people they are wrong. So I'll give you a quick overview of the evidence. All of this can be checked via any bio-anthropology text book, professor, online encyclopedia...etc. I have multiple sources that will give you all the same information. I have held the bones of almost all of these species in my own hands, so I can personally verify the information, as well.

The Pleistocene had primate-like mammals. These looked very similar to rodents. They had no post-orbital bar, their eyes were not forward facing, they had no opposable digits, claws, rodent-like teeth, diastema (gap for canine teeth), and very tiny brains.

As we move into the Eocene, we have the Omomyids (Teilhardina asiatica is one, and is considered to be as close of an example as we have to the stem primate), and the Adapids. There is a ~95% complete Adapid (Darwinius masillae) fossil known as "Ida" from the Messel Pit in Germany. Ida shows many rodent characteristics, but she also has nails and an opposable hallux.
Other early anthropoid fossils include:
Eosimias ("Dawn Monkey") and Aegyptopithecus. These range from ~50mya to about 33mya.
These all show the transition from rodent-like mammals to the characteristics we see in primates. Things like the presence of a post-orbital bar, forward facing eyes, grasping hands and feet, nails instead of claws, all with varied development.
Moving into the Miocene you have Proconsul (21-17mya), as well as species like Kenyapithecus, Ouranopithecus, Sivapithecus and Pryopithecs. However the latter three show characteristics more similar to modern great apes than humans, so they aren't considered part of the human lineage, but could present spliting point in the evolution of man and other apes.
From there we move into more familiar territory. I'll do a quick overview of the traits of each type specimen of each of the transitory species so you get can a feel for the the development of modern human characteristics.

Salhelanthropus tchadensis (7mya)
(Cranium only)
Foramen magnum position shows possible bipedalism
Non-honing canines
Thick enamel (ape characteristic)
Small brain (365 cc)
Facial prognathism

Orrorin tugenesis (6.2-5.65mya)
(Parts from 12 individuals)
Neck of femurs suggests bipedalism
Non-honing canines
Humerus shows they were also be arboreal

Ardipithecus kadabba (5.8-5.2mya)
(Teeth and post-crania)
Shows ape-like chewing
Toe shows possible evidence of bipedalism

Aridpithecus ramidus (4.4mya)
(45% complete)
Foremen magnum => bipedal capabilities
300-350cc cranial capacity for (ARA-VP-6/500 fossil only).
Os peroneum is a bone in the foot that allows for both an opposable toe and to stiffen the foot for "toeing off" (how humans walk). It's a more developed version of what is seen in A. kadabba. It show a slightly flared ilia (part of of hip) which is seen to a greater extent in humans.
Still many ape characteristics:
Large canines, smaller molars, ape-like enamel and diet, curved fingers, lower pelvis very chimp-like. Facial prognathism

Australopithecus anamensis (4mya)
Chimp like jaw, more human-like teeth.
Here we start to see sexual dimorphism (different sizes between males and females) developing.

Australopithecus afarensis (3.6-3.0mya)
(40% compelete) A.k.a "Lucy" (although many other specimens exist)
She has "mirrored" post crania, meaning that what she misses on one side is present on the other, so we have an idea of what her whole body looks like.
Knees, pelvis, feet (no longer has the divergent toe that we see in Ardipithecus) and foreman magnum all show habitual bipedalism.
Curved fingers show she was also arboreal. Facial prognathism
Cranial capacity (400-500cc)

NOTE: The Paranthropines also existed during this time, but they aren't believed the be ancestors to humans.

Australopithecus garhi (2.5 mya)
Cranial capacity 450cc
Humerus and femur are human-like (however, scientists have no yet confirmed that the post-cranial and skull are from the same individual).

Homo hablis (2.4-1.6mya)
First sure instance of tool use.
600cc cranial capacity
Smaller teeth, thinner enamel, parabolic dental arcade (human-like, compared to U-shaped type found in chimps).
The skull becomes rounder, less facial prognathism.
Seven well-known specimens

Homo erectus/ergaster (1mya-300kya)
Fully human gait
Cranial capacity 950-1000cc
Larger body size
Lower limbs of human proportions
Smaller jaw, face and teeth than previous specimen
Cranial vault sits high
Forehead
Almost no facial prognathism
Advanced tools
First to leave Africa and spread out throughout the New World
Specimens found in Africa, Europe and Asia.

After this point, the current, most common view point is that a Homo species moved into Europe. This became Homo antecessor, which became Homo heidelbergensis, which became the Neaderthal. Humans most likely evolved from Homo erectus in Africa and then proceeded to leave Africa and colonize the rest of the world (this is supported by genetic evidence). You have archaic humans that look very much like H. erectus, and we also have possible human/Neaderthal hybrid fossils.

You mention a handful of fossils across 11 'species' over a supposed 50 million years...
- this record is far from convincing even for diehards.
- the aging of fossils is not scientific and is mostly based speculation and guesswork
- the bone fragments could quite easily be fragments of species that currently exist or other we know previously existed. . Age, activity, injury,diet and disease impact bone structure, density and size. One need only study the human skull to know just how many variations there are. With the same logic, in a 1000 years time, one could also speculate humans were from a variety of different species based on the vast variations in the fossil record.

More than creationists, evolutionists ignore anything that interferes with their pre-determined doctrine and focus on the things that confirm what they believe.

Dont you ever wonder how the tribes in Mexico managed to create all those dinosaur shaped figurines and dinosaur decorated potteries long before dinosaurs were 're-discovered' in the 20th century or how stegasaurus' were carved on ancient Indian temples?

 

[KTskater]

You mention a handful of fossils across 11 'species' over a supposed 50 million years...
- this record is far from convincing even for diehards.
- the aging of fossils is not scientific and is mostly based speculation and guesswork
- the bone fragments could quite easily be fragments of species that currently exist or other we know previously existed. . Age, activity, injury,diet and disease impact bone structure, density and size. One need only study the human skull to know just how many variations there are. With the same logic, in a 1000 years time, one could also speculate humans were from a variety of different species based on the vast variations in the fossil record.

More than creationists, evolutionists ignore anything that interferes with their pre-determined doctrine and focus on the things that confirm what they believe.

Dont you ever wonder how the tribes in Mexico managed to create all those dinosaur shaped figurines and dinosaur decorated potteries long before dinosaurs were 're-discovered' in the 20th century or how stegasaurus' were carved on ancient Indian temples?

Dating methods are not guesswork. They may not always be precise, but they are not guesswork. The science behind it is solid. I will agree that we must make the assumption that radioactive decay didn't dramatically shift in rate throughout history, but mathematically, this assumption has not run into issues yet.

Your bias here is that assume that human variation isn't taken into consideration or studied. It's been discussed in every single bio-anthropology course that I've taken. It's studied quite intensely by thousands of scholars. Do a search on dissertations in anthropology that focus on human variation and you should be quite satisfied.
Take a look at the bioarchaeological and forensics literature and you will see a plethora of work done on disease, trauma and diet. My advisor is actually currently doing research in Egypt on diet and disease of ancient working class people.
The fact is that we have all of the data that you are requiring, and it has been taken into account. These fossils do not fit within modern human variation.

As far as the figurines go, I haven't heard anything about them in any of my archaeology courses, but a quick search led me to this: "However, there is no reliable evidence for the validity of the Acámbaro figures as actual ancient artifacts; they are accepted by no credible scholar of archaeology or paleontology, and many have questioned the motives of those who argue for their validity."

With regard to the stegosaur carving...there are plenty of reptiles that could be represented in that image (Meller's chameleons, Horned lizards), it could be a mythical creature (like the the spiked lizard creature that the god Varuna rode), or we could simply be misinterpreting it. If it is a stegosaur, we have no means of verifying it. Wall carvings are not a scientific means of dating the existence of a biological species.


I would like to make it known that I don't hold evolution as dogma. There are questions that I have regarding it for which I still do not have answers. Michael Behe's idea of irreducibly complex systems is something that definitely raises doubts. There are still gaps in the fossil record. I acknowledge these things, but I also acknowledge that vast amount of data supporting the theory. I will not ignore its flaws, but I cannot ignore the evidence either.

 

[Ronald]

It's my personal belief that the DNA sequence and evolution is such a perfect mechanism it's hard to believe such perfection came about by chance.

1. DNA is information. Where did the information come from? Darwin thought a cell was a jelly-like substance and simple. The cell is vastly complex. The motor activity of the flagella (tail of a paramecium) is more complex than the space shuttle. Even non-living molecular structures and irreducibly complex. Organs and systems cannot be piece by piece fashoned over generations, they need to exist simultaneously to survive. The eye is a pure example, it needs all it's parts for vision to be beneficial. Parts of the eye would not be beneficial if they didn't work, therefore they would not be passed down --according to "natural selection" theory.
2. Mutations are defects. Does anyone really refer to them as beneficial changes other than evolutionists? No. Mutations are almost always harmful to the specie. Even if one out of 10,000 were beneficial, the organism would still have to survive the harmful and sometimes deadly ones before getting to a beneficial one.
3. Natural Selection implies that nature has a mind! Chemicals, biology, electrical, gravitational, nuclear, electromagnetic energies, etc. do not have a mind to pick and choose and order things. chemicals + energy + time does not = life
Life comes from life.
4. Darwin expected millions of transitional forms to be found and realized that if they weren't, that would be a major problem for his theory.

The "mechanism" of this evolutionary process is flawed, it doesn't work and that is a vital part of what science is. It appears that micro-evolution can be seen: changes within a specie, but not macro-evolution - a specie changing into a different specie. But the micro-evolution itself is still not correct under the natural selection process of mutations. The specie has in its code adaptive mechanisms already in place, so that these changes due to climate or food, etc. were not the result of beneficial mutations passed down over generations.
I can go on, but that's enough for now. I can offer you a perspective of life that you cannot deny, one that you won't need answers to the orgins to accept.

 

[berachah]

Dating methods are not guesswork. They may not always be precise, but they are not guesswork. The science behind it is solid. I will agree that we must make the assumption that radioactive decay didn't dramatically shift in rate throughout history, but mathematically, this assumption has not run into issues yet.

I disagree. Dating of fossils is largely dependent on where and how deep the fossils were found, and which specimens that are believed to be. The bad news for dating is we dont know how time,climate/weather and other conditions impact the decay rates of measured isotopes/ minerals...(although everyone is quick to state climate has been vastly different over various times in recent history, never mind the hundreds of thousands / milliions of years that are supposedly involved - of which there is no knowledge of AT ALL. Stating the age of fossils beyond a few thousand years (with any certainty) is pure fiction.

Your bias here is that assume that human variation isn't taken into consideration or studied. It's been discussed in every single bio-anthropology course that I've taken. It's studied quite intensely by thousands of scholars. Do a search on dissertations in anthropology that focus on human variation and you should be quite satisfied.
Take a look at the bioarchaeological and forensics literature and you will see a plethora of work done on disease, trauma and diet. My advisor is actually currently doing research in Egypt on diet and disease of ancient working class people.
The fact is that we have all of the data that you are requiring, and it has been taken into account. These fossils do not fit within modern human variation.

I would be surprised if this is done with a truly open mind because I studied the images of some of the fossils you referred to and compared them to images of gorillas and other apes (skeletons) and frankly there was mimimal difference. Clearly the doctrine behid your studies is already decided and that being evolution is fact. Hardly conducive to recognizing other possibilities...

As far as the figurines go, I haven't heard anything about them in any of my archaeology courses, but a quick search led me to this: "However, there is no reliable evidence for the validity of the Acámbaro figures as actual ancient artifacts; they are accepted by no credible scholar of archaeology or paleontology, and many have questioned the motives of those who argue for their validity."

With all the evidence that is available on the net that is all you see and thereby dismiss the matter. I rest my case. Evolutionists are not seriously interested in investigating anything that contradicts their belief system. Anyone with an open mind and interested in both sides of the debate should check the below link for the full details of this amazing discovery. (and pay special attention to the responses from those when they discover that the dating results contradicts their doctrine of evolution) World Site of Dinosaur Figurines of Mexico: evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted!
One can also understand how deceitfully those in authority deal with anything that contradicts the accepted doctrine of this age..

I would like to make it known that I don't hold evolution as dogma. There are questions that I have regarding it for which I still do not have answers. Michael Behe's idea of irreducibly complex systems is something that definitely raises doubts. There are still gaps in the fossil record. I acknowledge these things, but I also acknowledge that vast amount of data supporting the theory. I will not ignore its flaws, but I cannot ignore the evidence either.

The very same stance I take on the Bible.

 

[sfs]

Let's look at these one at a time.

by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.
Fish supposedly evolved into people by gene mutations, but a recent report shows that mutations have disastrous effects.1 Not only are individual genes essential, but when they are inhibited, entire gene networks are disrupted, resulting in severe growth and development problems in the organism.
One of the main model organisms used to study gene and genome function is the small soil worm called a nematode. Nematodes are the most abundant type of animal on earth and live in many different environments. They also make excellent test animals for genetic study in the lab because they are easy to raise, have a small genome size, and much is known about their biology.
In the past, scientists used a variety of technologies to sequentially inhibit individual genes in the nematode genome.2, 3 Their goal was to ascertain which genes are essential to its survival. However, in these early studies, researchers only analyzed the effects of gene mutation by looking at individual nematodes for observable changes. They also only evaluated the effects of mutation on a single generation. Therefore, they missed detecting the results of disabling genes where the effects were subtle.
In this recent study, scientists observed the effects of 550 sequentially inhibited genes on the overall fitness of nematodes over eight generations. Fitness is the ability of a population of organisms to grow and reproduce over time compared to a control population that does not have the mutation. Fitness can also be tested in different environments that apply various stresses.
In the majority of cases, the disruption of single genes reduced the fitness of the nematode populations. This was an effect that kept increasing with successive generations. Theoretically, this would have eventually led to extinction.
As a result, researchers concluded that most every gene tested was essential to survival of the nematode. Because the mutant worms' fitness decreased over successive generations, the researchers also concluded that even single mutations negatively impact entire gene networks.
The researchers wrote,
In contrast to previous estimates, we find that, in these multigeneration population assays, the majority of genes affect fitness, and this suggests that genetic networks are not robust to mutation. Our results demonstrate that, in a single environmental condition, most animal genes play essential roles.1
In the biological evolution model, the process of genome mutation not only involves the hypothetical alteration of gene sequences, but the idea that not all genes are essential to life. In other words, there is room in the cell system for DNA to randomly change, so that once in a while it can spit out some useful new gene sequence to advance evolutionary progress. However, this new study shows that even though the cell systems in roundworms are dynamic and environmentally responsive, the fine-tuned DNA-based informational system that underlies it cannot be corrupted without diminishing its ability to survive.
So in addition to refuting evolution, nematode gene networks show every sign of carefully crafted system engineering.

Note that this has little to do with supporting your claim, which was that mutations are invariably bad. What the cited study showed was that mutations that completely knock out a gene are almost always bad. Mutations that disable a gene are a tiny minority, however -- less than 1% of all mutations. They're also the mutations that are most likely to be harmful; genes exist for a reason, of course, and disabling one is unlikely to be a good thing. (Even so, this kind of mutation can be beneficial and selected for on occassion, e.g. the Duffy null mutation in humans that confers complete resistance to vivax malaria.)

Your claim was, in fact, false. Numerous beneficial mutations have been identified in many species. Just in humans, for example, regulatory mutations near the gene for lactase confer lactose tolerance on adults; these mutations have occurred multiple times in different populations. A mutation in the gene SLC24A5 is largely responsible for Europeans' light skin pigmentation; it is one of many mutations that give non-Africans their lighter skin, mutations that have spread because of natural selection.

Even though Tomkins's remarks were not really relevant to your claim, they're still worth looking at in more detail. My complaint, you will recall, is that creationists misrepresent science. So how does Tomkins do? He accurately reports the conclusion of a study: knocking out almost any gene in a species of worm proved to be deleterious. His interpretation of the result is completely wrong, however. He claims that the evolutionary expectation was that it should often be possible to knock out genes without ill effects. In reality, the expectation is the opposite: the genes are only there because they're important. If they weren't, mutation would quickly make them nonfunctional. The evolutionary mystery, in fact, was that many genes didn't appear to be essential. This study clears that mystery up by showing that eliminating the genes really is bad for the organism.

Tomkins, then, has taken a study that confirms an evolutionary prediction, and treated it as if it contradicted evolution. It's not a matter of ignorance, either. The very paper he's citing lays out the real evolutionary expectation quite clearly:"Almost all genes encoded in eukaryotic genomes are conserved over long evolutionary timescales. This high level of conservation suggests that almost all genes play important roles in the biology of the organism and further predicts that a loss-of-function mutation in any one of these highly conserved genes should have a deleterious effect."

Conclusion: Tomkins badly misrepresented the science here.

Many Americans believe that the big-picture story of evolution, as biology professors routinely expound it, is false.1 Basically, they haven't bought into the concept that all life descended from one common ancestor that miraculously sprang into being millions of years ago. And that makes sense, considering there are no real examples of that kind of evolution.
If evolutionary biologists could document such evolution in action, they could vindicate their worldview and cite real research to support their surreal claims. In 1980, this search for proof led researchers to painstakingly and purposefully mutate each core gene involved in fruit fly development. The now classic work, for which the authors won the Nobel Prize in 1995, was published in Nature.2 The experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genes―mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creature―merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies. This therefore showed that fruit flies could not evolve.

It's the same story here: the study itself is accurately reported, but the implication he tries to draw from the study is obviously false. Yes, mutating any of these core developmental genes is fatal to the fruit fly. No, mutating these genes is not necessary for the fruit fly to evolve into something else -- as can easily be seen from the fact that these genes are identical in other insects. So you don't need to change these genes to evolve. In fact, these genes are almost the same in humans.

Score: two studies cited, two misrepresented.

Similarly, Michigan State University evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations.3 In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative.

This one is worse. As far as I can tell, the last sentence here is simply a bald-faced lie. After 40,000 generations, Lenski's bacteria had accumulated many mutations, virtually all of which were beneficial to the bacteria in their artificial environment. Far from being hobbled, the bacteria grew much better than they did at the beginning. The study also says nothing about degenerative changes: the mutations included deletions (which might be considered degenerative), but also insertions and single-base substitutions.

Score: three studies, three misrepresented.

I'll continue in another post. How will the last study fare? I don't know, since I haven't looked at it yet.

 

[KTskater]

I disagree. Dating of fossils is largely dependent on where and how deep the fossils were found, and which specimens that are believed to be. The bad news for dating is we dont know how time,climate/weather and other conditions impact the decay rates of measured isotopes/ minerals...(although everyone is quick to state climate has been vastly different over various times in recent history, never mind the hundreds of thousands / milliions of years that are supposedly involved - of which there is no knowledge of AT ALL. Stating the age of fossils beyond a few thousand years (with any certainty) is pure fiction.

Then it appears that we will have to agree to disagree. Currently, the physics behind radioactive decay shows that it is not affected by any physical or chemical change. So climate change, as far as we can currently tell, wouldn't have any affect on the rate of decay.
And I'm quite aware of how fossils are dated, which dating techniques are used to for what, how far back each technique works, and what other techniques are used to check the date.

I would be surprised if this is done with a truly open mind because I studied the images of some of the fossils you referred to and compared them to images of gorillas and other apes (skeletons) and frankly there was mimimal difference. Clearly the doctrine behid your studies is already decided and that being evolution is fact. Hardly conducive to recognizing other possibilities...

Your assumptions about bias exist due to your own bias.
I've done the same comparisons with the physical fossils, and there are clear differences. Have you studied human and ape anatomy and physiology? There are definitely things that pop out. Muscle attachments, skeletal landmarks, as well as the overall shape and morphology have clear differences to me. This was even clear to me in high school when I first saw the images and had no interest in anthropology yet.

With all the evidence that is available on the net that is all you see and thereby dismiss the matter. I rest my case. Evolutionists are not seriously interested in investigating anything that contradicts their belief system. Anyone with an open mind and interested in both sides of the debate should check the below link for the full details of this amazing discovery. (and pay special attention to the responses from those when they discover that the dating results contradicts their doctrine of evolution) World Site of Dinosaur Figurines of Mexico: evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted!
One can also understand how deceitfully those in authority deal with anything that contradicts the accepted doctrine of this age..

I'll check out your website when I've got a bit more time for reading. The issue that I always run into is that these findings haven't been researched by academics. I can never seem to find any peer-reviewed work on most of these claims, or even professional-esque writing in sharing the information. They also usually lack the involvement of anyone mentioned in academic circles. However, that could simply be my own ignorance. Acámboro is not too far removed from Mexico City, so I may ask a couple of the post-docs doing research in the area if they've ever heard of this.
There are those who may be shady in their dealings. However, I've had the pleasure of working with individuals who are some of the most open minded people I've met. They've all been quite accepting of my faith, and a couple grad students have even wanted to sit down and chat about it. I know this is not the case with most biology or chemistry departments, but part of one's training as an anthropologist is to be both culturally and scientifically unbiased. Perhaps I will run into more of what you are talking about as I spend more time in academia.
Also, you may want to be careful about grouping everyone who finds the evidence compelling as "evolutionists" as though they all share the exact same beliefs and have the same goals. Blanket statements and generalizations are not friends of fellowship.

The very same stance I take on the Bible.

Interesting. That's not the typical attitude that I find in evangelical circles.

 

[sfs]

The fourth study:

In a recent study, also published in Nature, University of California Irvine researcher Molly Burke led research into the genetic changes that occurred over the course of 600 fruit fly generations. The UCI lab had been breeding fruit flies since 1991, separating fast growers with short life spans from slow growers with longer life spans.5
The UCI scientists compared the DNA sequences affecting fruit fly growth and longevity between the two groups. After the equivalent of 12,000 years of human evolution, the fruit flies showed surprisingly few differences.

"Surprisingly few differences"? They found 662 genetic variants that probably contributed to the (quite substantial) evolution they saw in development time, in a total of 506 genes -- and those were only the ones that they could identify with confidence. That's not surprisingly few; that's a lot. As the authors put it, "it is apparent that allele frequencies in a large portion of the genome have been affected following selection on development time, suggesting a highly multigenic adaptive response."

This can be accurately described as "creationist ignores paper and just makes stuff up".

One requirement for Darwin's theory is that the mutational changes that supposedly fuel evolution somehow have to be "fixed" into the population. Otherwise, the DNA changes quickly drift right back out of the population. The researchers found no evidence that mutational changes relevant to longevity had been fixed into the fruit fly populations.

Note that "fixed" just means that the genetic variant has completely replaced alternative variants.

The study's authors wrote, "In our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with 'classic' sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed."5
They suggested that perhaps there has not been enough time for the relevant mutations to have become fixed. They also suggested an alternative—that natural selection could be acting on already existing variations. But this is not evolution, and it is actually what creation studies have been demonstrating for many years.6

This is another case where we see accurate reporting of the study results, followed by a real whopper. Selection acting on existing variation is (of course) evolution. It matters very little whether mutations occurred before selection began acting on a trait (selection on standing variation) or afterwards (selection on a new variant). To say that the former is not evolution is just ludicrous. Once again, an accurate context was provided by the study's authors but ignored by the creationist commenter: "Adaptation in [asexual species] is driven by so-called classic selective sweeps, or the fixation of newly arising beneficial mutations. . . By contrast, an obligate sexually reproducing system can harbour a great deal of standing genetic variation on which selection can act. Standing variation is theoretically predicted to lead to rapid evolution in novel environments8, and case studies of ecologically relevant genes bear out this prediction. The idea that short-term evolution may act primarily on pre-existing intermediate-frequency genetic variants that are swept the remainder of the way to fixation has been termed a soft sweep model."

Score: four studies, four misrepresented by creationists.

clearly scientific numbers....

Do you have some objection to the studies measuring the mutation rate in humans?

And using your figures with the same looseness you find acceptable, I guess the coelacanth should have had roughly 300 000 000 000 mutations since it first evolved, so you obvioucly have an explanation why it is still the same fish today..?

More like 30,000,000,000, assuming they have mutation rates comparable to humans (I don't know their mutation rate). Why should that make them change? Mutations that are deleterious are weeded out by natural selection. Since coelacanths seem to be very good at being coelacanths, why would selection have let them change?

Creationists are engaged in all the same fields of science

There are creationists who are scientists. There are virtually no creationists who are using creationism to do science. Robert Gentry's work on polonium haloes would count, and maybe Michael Behe's paper on protein evolution. Can you think of any others?

and actually the evolution theory predicts nothing. (mostly it supposes and thats why it is a theory - in spite of attempts to call it fact)

Really, you shouldn't make claims like this when you don't have the knowledge to base them on. In the real world of real scientists, evolution makes all kinds of predictions about genetic data (among other things), predictions that are routinely borne out. Of course it's a theory -- that's what explanatory frameworks are called in science, including ones that have enormous amounts of evidence for their validity. Were you under the impression that the germ theory of disease, or the atomic theory were "supposes"?

No, I think that is probably your strength....

Really? What have I done that would lead the scientifically literate to think less of me or my beliefs? You've read my scientific publications?

 

[sfs]

1. DNA is information. Where did the information come from? Darwin thought a cell was a jelly-like substance and simple. The cell is vastly complex. The motor activity of the flagella (tail of a paramecium) is more complex than the space shuttle. Even non-living molecular structures and irreducibly complex. Organs and systems cannot be piece by piece fashoned over generations, they need to exist simultaneously to survive. The eye is a pure example, it needs all it's parts for vision to be beneficial. Parts of the eye would not be beneficial if they didn't work, therefore they would not be passed down --according to "natural selection" theory.

Many statements in this paragraph is false. DNA is not information: it's a molecule. You can view it as carrying information, but it's trivial to see where the information comes from. Few, if any, molecular structures are irreducibly complex. Organs and systems can change bit by bit, as can easily be seen by all of the slight variations they have in related species. The eye certainly doesn't need all of its part to function, since functioning eyes or eyespots often lack those parts.

2. Mutations are defects. Does anyone really refer to them as beneficial changes other than evolutionists? No. Mutations are almost always harmful to the specie. Even if one out of 10,000 were beneficial, the organism would still have to survive the harmful and sometimes deadly ones before getting to a beneficial one.

Geneticists, the people who study mutations, certainly think that some of them are beneficial, and with good reason. Yes, most mutations are either neutral (having no significant effect on the organism) or harmful. The harmful ones are eliminated by natural selection.

3. Natural Selection implies that nature has a mind! Chemicals, biology, electrical, gravitational, nuclear, electromagnetic energies, etc. do not have a mind to pick and choose and order things.

This is just silly. At least make some minimal attempt to understand the science you're attacking. Do you have any idea what natural selection is? It has nothing to do with a mind consciously choosing something.

4. Darwin expected millions of transitional forms to be found and realized that if they weren't, that would be a major problem for his theory.

Evidence, please?

The "mechanism" of this evolutionary process is flawed, it doesn't work and that is a vital part of what science is. It appears that micro-evolution can be seen: changes within a specie,

But you just said that the two most important components that make up microevolution -- beneficial mutations and natural selection -- don't exist.

but not macro-evolution - a specie changing into a different specie. But the micro-evolution itself is still not correct under the natural selection process of mutations. The specie has in its code adaptive mechanisms already in place, so that these changes due to climate or food, etc. were not the result of beneficial mutations passed down over generations.

That's not microevolution; that's acclimatization.

I can go on, but that's enough for now.

Please don't go on. You don't understand evolution. You should try learning about it before you attack it; otherwise your comments will have nothing to do with reality.

 

[sfs]

I'm not crazy about some of the geology and thermodynamics arguments, they just seem a little obscure.

The thermodynamic argument isn't just obscure: it's wrong. That's a bit more important.

I really don't know where you are getting that Creationism supports some kind of a flat earth, I've never seen that and even the ancient Greeks knew the earth was round.

"Fiat", not "flat". Fiat creation = creation from nothing.

What the Scriptures speak to expressly is the creation of the universe (Gen. 1:1), life (Genesis 1:21) and man (Gen. 1:27).

Also the creation of seas, dry land, sea creatures, birds, animals, the sun, moon and stars, and the first woman (working from memory).

Creationism as doctrine never really goes beyond that. The created kinds are very general but obvious classifications of birds, mammals and sea life are about as specific as the Genesis account gets.

Creationism frequently goes beyond that, to include claims about the creation of the earth and of the sun and moon and stars, about the age of the earth, about how long life has been on the earth, about how long humans have been around, and so on.

Is that fair?

Well, yeah, I think it's fair, or I wouldn't have said it.

Would it be fair for me to say that Theistic Evolution does not reflect sound doctrine?

I have no objection to you saying it. It's not really analogous, however, since there's only one physical reality, while there are thousands of versions of "sound doctrine", depending on who you ask. Theistic evolution is consistent with the historic creeds of the Church but inconsistent with the doctrinal positions of fundamentalists and many evangelicals.

Depends on what you consider definitive proof, homology arguments don't do much to convince me. There has to be a base line for determining whether or not a transition from apes to humans is feasible. As far as I can tell, it is simply assumed beyond skepticism.

I'm not going to engage you on scientific details. I have no interest in beating my head against that particular wall again.

The same could be said for Talk Origins, the whole topic is riddled with false positives.

There may well be scientific errors in talkorigins, but I don't have any confidence in your ability to detect them.

Creationist ministries are at least affirming the reliability of Scripture which is something Theistic Evolutionist groups have not the slightest interest in.

The theistic evolution groups I'm familiar with are very concerned about both the reliability and the appropriate interpretation of the Bible.

That's simply not true, Creationist ministries have been pretty responsible about keeping their facts straight.

This is false when it comes to science. I have seldom seen a statement from a creationist ministry about some area of science I was familiar with that was not wrong in whole or in part. I just went through the exercise in this thread of looking at four of their statements, and every one was incorrect in important ways. I'm not talking about interpreting facts differently: I'm talking about creationists simply making stuff up about articles. There's no excuse for that kind of behavior from anyone. Coming from Christians who claim to be representing the God of truth, it is just appalling.

It is because it's an expression of the Christian faith, Creationism is essential Christianity.

As I said, that's just not true. I'm a Christian working in science, and I know quite a few other Christians in science. There is some prejudice against believers, to be sure, but the scorn for creationism goes far, far beyond that.

That's because there are two things going on here at once. The natural science that is working with living systems and learning their intricacies are never criticized by Creationists at large. Darwinism on the other hand is just one long argument against special creation and it continues to this day. It's not so much that there are common ancestors but that it goes all the way back to primordial common ancestors and never allows for God as the cause of anything.

Darwinism is one of the tools that many of us who are "working with living systems and learning their intricacies" go about our jobs -- so yes, creationists really do attack us and what we're doing. Evolutionary biology is not an attack on special creation; most biologists couldn't care less about creationism, any more than scientists care about other long-discarded ideas. We use evolution because it works to explain and predict data. Creationism doesn't, which is why it was discarded. (And biology doesn't say anything about whether God is the cause for something.)

I've challenged evolutionists for years to tell me how a beneficial effect could occur from a mutation in a brain related gene. Now, disease and disorder are pretty easy to itemize but improved fitness from a change in a brain related gene seems unlikely, at least I've never heard tell of one.

Do you think that intelligence has any genetic component at all? That is, that some of the differences between individuals in IQ are the result of different genetic variants?

More importantly and you can take this any way you see fit. Creationism is grounded in the clear testimony of Scripture, Old and New Testament and is clearly foundational. Disparaging Creationism with no regard for it's vital doctrinal foundation is not something a mature believer would do. Genesis is an historical narrative and a divine revelation, in fact, the very oracles of God. Genesis, John's Gospel, Hebrews and the Nicene Creed all discuss creation in absolute and unambiguous terms.

As you have done so often, Mark, you've conflated two quite different things. As you've been told before: the doctrine of creation is foundational to Christianity. The claim of creationism -- about the age of the earth, about how the earth was created, about how plants, animals and humans were created -- are not foundational. They are not part of the creeds, they are not essential for any Christian doctrine. You really should try reading a wider range of people on Genesis. Try reading John Walton's Lost World of Genesis One. Walton is an Old Testament professor at Wheaton College.

In order to be a Christian you must be a Creationist,

As you are well aware, "Creationist" does not mean "accepts the doctrine of God as creator". It means something much more specific. Christians do not need to be creationists.

to call Creationists liars with poorly grounded reasons for their skepticism is self deprecating for any Christian.

It would be a lot easier for me to stop calling professional creationists liars if they would just stop saying so many things that were blatantly untrue.

Anyway, nice to chat with you again Steve. A very Merry Christmas to you and your's this holiday season.

Merry Christmas to you, and to all.

 

[berachah]

Let's look at these one at a time.
Note that this has little to do with supporting your claim, which was that mutations are invariably bad. What the cited study showed was that mutations that completely knock out a gene are almost always bad. Mutations that disable a gene are a tiny minority, however -- less than 1% of all mutations. They're also the mutations that are most likely to be harmful; genes exist for a reason, of course, and disabling one is unlikely to be a good thing. (Even so, this kind of mutation can be beneficial and selected for on occassion, e.g. the Duffy null mutation in humans that confers complete resistance to vivax malaria.)

Firstly according to your doctrine all genes of current species are a result of millions upon mutations anyway.. Over millions of years the entire dna structure of any creature is as a result of a mass of mutations of mutations.. In the 1st reference Tomkin was saying that if you mutate any part of a gene it affects the whole dna in some way, which will eventually leads to its death, so I dont agree with what you are trying to say.

And why must the Duffy genetic variences be a mutation? I believe and accept adaptation as quite in line with creationism. At the end of the day, those individuals will not mutate into another species because they have this allele. Rather the body because of its dynamic state, its defense mechanisms and through breeding with other survivors of malaria has reacted to its environment. With your logic people who live in Africa are in the early stages of evolving into another species because they have responded to produce large amounts of melamine to protect from the sun.

Your claim was, in fact, false. Numerous beneficial mutations have been identified in many species. Just in humans, for example, regulatory mutations near the gene for lactase confer lactose tolerance on adults; these mutations have occurred multiple times in different populations. A mutation in the gene SLC24A5 is largely responsible for Europeans' light skin pigmentation; it is one of many mutations that give non-Africans their lighter skin, mutations that have spread because of natural selection.

Well I have recently developed lactose intolerance...Does that mean my mutated gene has reversed itself.. Every response of the body to the environment is not a mutation.

It's the same story here: the study itself is accurately reported, but the implication he tries to draw from the study is obviously false. Yes, mutating any of these core developmental genes is fatal to the fruit fly. No, mutating these genes is not necessary for the fruit fly to evolve into something else -- as can easily be seen from the fact that these genes are identical in other insects. So you don't need to change these genes to evolve. In fact, these genes are almost the same in humans.

So if changing the genes of the dna does lead to the evolving from one species to another what does? Please dont say natural selection and adaptation to the environment....

This one is worse. As far as I can tell, the last sentence here is simply a bald-faced lie. After 40,000 generations, Lenski's bacteria had accumulated many mutations, virtually all of which were beneficial to the bacteria in their artificial environment. Far from being hobbled, the bacteria grew much better than they did at the beginning. The study also says nothing about degenerative changes: the mutations included deletions (which might be considered degenerative), but also insertions and single-base substitutions.

Essentially they grew better because of the changes of the more suitable and favourable environment they were placed in. Just like any organism would.

In my opinion the body has all the data, capacity and inbuilt ingenuity to respond to various changes in its environment and these are not mutations but responses and adjustments.

 

[berachah]

I'll check out your website when I've got a bit more time for reading. The issue that I always run into is that these findings haven't been researched by academics. I can never seem to find any peer-reviewed work on most of these claims, or even professional-esque writing in sharing the information. They also usually lack the involvement of anyone mentioned in academic circles. However, that could simply be my own ignorance.

Let me explain my experience of how science works. Money is the key factor in the studies of the sciences and those that pay the money do not want to hear about creationism. They do not want archeological evidence that confirms the Bible or creationism, they want evidence of evolution. So currently there are billions of dollars being spent on the latter and nothing on the former.

One person starts by creating an hypothesis and without any scientific proof the next person builds on that. With thousands of people paid to build on that hypothesis you end up with 'fact.'

Anyone that dares to contradict the party direction is rediculed and scoffed at without looking at their contributions.

This has very recently happened with the global warming theory. About 2 decades ago large amounts of money started being paid to scientific bodies to study anthropogenic global warming. Those that disagreed with this theory were slowly sidelined, defunded and dismissed from positions of authority. Eventually there evolved a consensus on the subject.

A document was put out to all the respected scientists for their comments on the theory. Many voiced strong reservations, rejected the findings and actively opposed the conclusions. However all those that received the draft were listed as peer reviewers, although their comments were never added to the final draft. The UN then had a peer reviewed document that has ben used to draft legislation that has and will become binding on all nations.

Anyone that now disagrees is a 'denier', not scientific, in the lunatic fringe minority etc etc. The fact that the earth is actually cooling is irrelevant. Science has declared it to be warming and so a carbon tax is up ahead for all nations, the beneficiaries being the people that funded the initial research and those that are now employed to perpetuate the myth...
That is science as we now know it, so please excuse my suspicion on the matter....

Interesting. That's not the typical attitude that I find in evangelical circles.

I am radical and uncompromising in what I believe but always attempt to study the references others quote. At the end of the day my faith does not stand by the creationism model so I do not have to die by it.

However I have seen too much deceipt practised by evolutionists to not be extremely cautious when studying their claims and their so called 'science'. And unless evolutionists move past the "we do not know' responses everytime they have to face the hard questions they bombard Bible belieiving Christians with, I will continue to consider evolution to be a Godless theory without a truly scientific basis.

A hundred years ago medical science was subjecting patients to horrendous procedures to treal heal them. Now we have moved to more subtle scientific treatments such as lazer treatment and microscopic surgery and as I write their are articles in the media about healing through placebos, positive thinking etc.

My guess is the future we will 'evolve' to speak healing into existence, (like Jesus) we will recognize all the current science as false science (as Paul describes it in the NT) and we will understand the creation model fully and without the misinformation of the lie of evolution and its false science.(as stated in Genesis)

But until then, let us debate..