Home » Books of interest, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News » Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel’s anti-Darwin book “can’t be ignored by the thinking public”

Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel’s anti-Darwin book “can’t be ignored by the thinking public”

Meanwhile, in Darwin’s corner, there is now an English prof somewhere who was traumatized by growing up in a “Creationist household” (along with a growing army of accusers and litigants?)

Political scientist John West’s essay in The Claremont Review of Books, “Dissent of Man,” is now online here:

It’s not often that a book by a professional philosopher attracts the notice—let alone the ire—of the cultural powers-that-be. One can think of Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind in the 1980s, but other examples are hard to come by. At any rate, Mind & Cosmos is well on its way to becoming a book that can’t be ignored by the thinking public. Thus far, it has been denounced in the Nation and the Huffington Post, dubbed the “most despised science book of 2012″ by the London Guardian, defended in the New Republic (where Nagel’s critics were blasted as “Darwinist dittoheads” and a “mob of materialists”), subjected to a feature story in the New York Times, and put on the cover of the Weekly Standard, which depicted Nagel being burned alive, surrounded by a cabal of demonic-looking men in hoods.

The author has attracted special displeasure from the powers-that-be for using Mind and Cosmos to praise intelligent design proponents such as biochemist Michael Behe and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer. As the New York Times explained, many of Nagel’s fellow academics view him unfavorably “not just for the specifics of his arguments but also for what they see as a dangerous sympathy for intelligent design.” Now there is a revealing comment: academics, typically blasé about everything from justifications of infanticide to pedophilia, have concluded that it is “dangerous” to give a hearing to scholars who think nature displays evidence of intelligent design.

An especially brazen attempt [at Darwin myth-making] is Rebecca Stott’s Darwin’s Ghosts: The Secret History of Evolution. Stott’s book purports to tell “the story of the collective discovery of evolution” starting with Aristotle, medieval Islamic writer Al-Jahiz, and Leonardo da Vinci. If it really accomplished that feat, the book would be extraordinary, given that each of those writers believed in the fixity of species and a natural world imbued with purpose.

Though the author herself, a professor of English at East Anglia University, obviously wants to draw a line from Aristotle, et al., to Darwin, she (unlike her book jacket) is frank enough to concede that the thinkers she discusses for the first hundred pages of her book were not in fact evolutionists, Darwinian or otherwise.

Stott highlights what she sees as the oppressive forces of religion squelching heterodox ideas among the valiant, free-thinking proto-evolutionists. For anyone familiar with 19th-century broadsides like Andrew Dickson White’s The Warfare of Science with Theology, this approach is far from fresh. But writing the book was obviously therapeutic for Stott, who makes clear at the start that she was traumatized by growing up in a “Creationist household.” More.

Note: Full title of the essay is “Dissent of Man: A review of Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, by Thomas Nagel and Darwin’s Ghosts: The Secret History of Evolution, by Rebecca Stott”

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

124 Responses to Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel’s anti-Darwin book “can’t be ignored by the thinking public”

  1. Our Darwinian friends really don’t like this book, its too close to the truth…

  2. The religion of materialism(evolution) has been around for a long time. Look at the ancient greek; Anaximander, (and many of the other prominent mystics of this time) They believed life sprang out of the sea from combinations of hot and cold, developed into small sea creatures, eventually crawled onto land, and further developed into humans. This mysticism followed hand in hand with atomistic beliefs that all the forms of the natural world were blindly arranged clusters of particles.

    These ideologies followed occult schools and mystery religions into modern day, right to Darwin’s own grandfather.

    Anyways… It’s odd that materialism has become so characterized as the antithesis to religion, when materialist/evolutionist worldviews are some of the most superstitious, mystical, pseudo-skeptical belief systems of all time.

  3. I think you are confused about what evolution is. It is most certainly not a religion, and has nothing to do with “materialism.” It is simply the best explanation for the diversity of life that we see today, and is based on extensive amounts of research.

  4. think you are confused about what evolution is.

    Why don’t you define evolution. That would be a start to a discussion.

    It is simply the best explanation for the diversity of life that we see today, and is based on extensive amounts of research.

    What research? Why don’t you point out some of it. Be specific.

  5. I’m going to assume you don’t have much of a background in biology so I will point you to a good source for recent studies in the field of evolutionary biology that a layperson can understand.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/ne.....evolution/

    For more of an in-depth education, feel free to read a evolutionary biology textbook or go crazy and read a general biology textbook; preferably college-level if you think you can handle it.

  6. feel free to read a evolutionary biology textbook

    I have read Futuyma’s book on evolutionary biology. It does not explain the origin of complex novelties which is what the debate is all about.

    Why don’t you define evolution. That way people could be on the same page as you.

    Also instead of pointing to a table of contents of something, why don’t you pick the studies that best support your definition of evolution and why they do so.

  7. 7
    sagebrush gardener

    AVS wrote:

    I’m going to assume you don’t have much of a background in biology…

    You’re new here, aren’t you?

  8. ‘Anyways… It’s odd that materialism has become so characterized as the antithesis to religion, when materialist/evolutionist worldviews are some of the most superstitious, mystical, pseudo-skeptical belief systems of all time.’

    There’s a poignancy to their ingenuous disappointment at being categorized as ‘religious’, though, isn’t there? Simple souls, who don’t deserve the trauma they’ll soon be facing, as they try to explain away their highly emotional, desperately misconceived dogmatism.

  9. AVS

    Definitely you are the confused party.

    To see why Evolution is a religion you may be enlightened and also have fun (as I had a lot) by watching this video:

    Evolution vs. God

  10. Oh, so an introductory-level book did not explain every little detail of the topic? I never would have guessed.
    If you want to talk about the complexities of biology, you have a lot of learning and reading to do.
    Like I said, Evolution is science’s explanation for the diversity of life that we see today. It takes into account discoveries made by thousands of scientists in every field of biology in the last 200 years or so.
    I did not point you to a table of contents, I pointed you to a website that summarizes recent scientific studies in just about every field of science imaginable, including evolution.

  11. Evolution: make a claim, back it with evidence
    Religion: make a claim, point to a book
    The two are very different.

  12. AVS:

    [evolution] is simply the best explanation for the diversity of life that we see today

    No it isn’t. It’s a materialist-creationism story. It makes no sense from any kind of scientific or empirical point of view. Evolution is one superstitious claim after the other.

  13. Yes, you would love everyone to believe that wouldn’t you? Unfortunately for you, there a a lot of people in this world who are able to think for themselves, and require evidence for what others claim. Evolution is backed by more science than you can imagine; the fact that you ignore it does not make it go away. I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but its not a belief in evolution; it’s a problem of acceptance. Some people refuse to accept evolution because it doesn’t jive with their beliefs or it makes them think about things that they don’t want to think about. I’m sorry if you’re one of those people, but luckily for you, you can just keep on plugging your ears and screaming in ignorance.

  14. Like I said, Evolution is science’s explanation for the diversity of life that we see today.

    You still haven’t defined evolution. I told you I have read Futuyama’s book and several college biology texts on evolution.

    So I would start with a definition of the term you have used several times.

  15. Evolution: make a claim, back it with evidence

    Don’t you mean,

    Evolution: make a claim, and whatever the data shows, evolution did it.

    ?

    Evolution is the epitome of non-falsifiable, ad-hoc, zombie science. No matter how many holes you put in it, it will sustain anything and keep on going.

  16. Evolution is backed by more science than you can imagine

    welp, i’m convinced! how can someone ignore such overwhelming evidence as that!

    Some people refuse to question evolution because it doesn’t jive with their beliefs or it makes them think about things that they don’t want to think about. I’m sorry if you’re one of those people, but luckily for you, you can just keep on plugging your ears and screaming in ignorance.

    fix’d

  17. Evolution is backed by more science than you can imagine

    No it isn’t. That just something people say a lot. It’s called a mantra.

  18. AVS This site provides a list of almost 1000 Darwin skeptics … You must have a Ph.D or M.D. to sign it.

    They come from many disciplines… By signing the list you acknowledge that you doubt that random mutation plus natural selection could account for all of the diversity of life.

    http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

  19. With every post you make Jerry, the number of biology books you have read increases. You must be a very fast reader!
    And no, life, I meant exactly what I said.
    I’m sorry you guys live in your own ignorant little worlds, but the science is all there. It’s undeniable once you look at just a fraction of some of the most basic evidence. I have studied biology for the last three years and I will now continue to do so. If you guys would like to talk about biology in depth, I suggest you guys put the money up and get an education on it first. I will warn you though, it isn’t easy.
    Or of course, you can continue to mock me and think that because you have some basic biology knowledge, that you can talk about its complexities. Which is what I am sure you all will do.

  20. That’s cute Johnny. Last I heard, half of those people don’t even know they’re on that list and the other half are computer scientists.
    And not even 1000? Cmon. In comparison to your “almost 1000″ there are thousands of Universities, all with numerous faculty and researchers who laugh at that list along with me.

  21. With every post you make Jerry, the number of biology books you have read increases. You must be a very fast reader!

    You suggested I did not know anything. I told you some of what I have read. I first started studying this area, 15 years ago.

    I asked you for a definition so we can have a discussion based on science. The response is ad hominems and snarky comments. If the science is so obvious and all there, then provide some of it. We will be polite and are willing to listen.

  22. You’ve been studying what for 15 years? You mean you’ve been reading basic textbooks in your free time and immediately forgetting what you didn’t ignore? Are you pursuing a degree in a field of biology, or just doing it for fun? Oh you’re doing it in order to prove to yourself how ludicrous evolution is, gotcha. Well I’m sure with taht thought in mind you are going to get very far. Congrats.

  23. Well I’m sure with taht thought in mind you are going to get very far. Congrats.

    Again, you are mostly throwing ad hominems. No one supports an argument by telling the other person how stupid they are. That is all you have done so far.

    Why don’t you provide a definition for evolution so people can understand the basis for your comments. Maybe a discussion could start.

  24. Evolution: the only fact-based explanation for the diversity of life that we see today.
    And in my book, that means it is the best explanation. For others, who like to ignore facts and talk out of their ass, it is just an idea that they think they can twist into whatever they like and hand to the uneducated; much like this site does.

  25. 25
    sagebrush gardener

    AVS,

    I hate to say this, but you are not coming across as a very intelligent (or mature) individual. Several people have tried to engage you in conversation about the issues discussed here and you have not given even one substantive response. The people you are talking to are in fact well educated (and very patient). They do not reject Darwinism because they are ignorant of it, but because they have studied the theory and found it lacking. We might have an interesting and productive conversation if you were willing to engage in an adult discussion of the issues, but sadly, it appears that you are just here to amuse us with your trolling.

    “When a wise man contends with a fool, the fool only rages and mocks and there is no resolution.”

  26. Evolution: the only fact-based explanation for the diversity of life that we see today.

    That is not a definition.

  27. No worries, I didn’t come here to show off my intelligence level. Although I like to think I am quite intelligent, and numerous standardized test scores, my GPA, scholarships, and the like make a pretty good argument. I have returned to this site out of boredom for the most part and will not be here long.
    Anyways, as for you jerry, care to give me another explanation for the diversity of life that we see today that is also fact-based?

  28. AVS you say that:
    “Evolution: make a claim, back it with evidence
    Religion: make a claim, point to a book
    The two are very different.”

    Yet when asked for such evidence of evolution you point us to a book. Perhaps religion and evolution aren’t so different after all?

  29. AVS, please could you explain for us uneducated folks, in your own words, the evidence you feel best supports evolution. If you could start from the beginning and avoid links to technical articles, articles we cannot possibly comprehend, I sure would be grateful.

    I’m particularly interested in the facts you seem to have that we don’t.

  30. AVS @ 20 just here to troll I see. Otherwise why are you here. Your remarks reflect that you have not read the list nor have you in anyway verified that half of the signers do not know their names are on the list … please cite examples or shut up.

    There are very few computer scientists on the list which should not be down played … because if you had read those biology books you might know that cells have data processing capabilities.

  31. Good point Mr Six, although my books are about scientific facts that support the theory of evolution. They are the results of many years of study by many scientists, scientists whose claims are then peer reviewed by others. My books present claims based on closely scrutinized data collection and conclusion.
    Religion’s books are stories passed down by the men before us and galvanized by mob mentality throughout history.
    Your bible is nothing but the first edition of chicken soup for the soul.
    It makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but in the end it doesn’t really get you anywhere

  32. And yes AVS you are both highly educated and indoctrinated … indoctrination these days is an important aspect of higher education.

    This site is more about open critical thinking without regards to where it leads… unlike evolutionary science where facts are distorted to fit the paradigm.

  33. AVS, I’ve noticed between ad hominems that you made against people that you made this statement:

    Evolution: the only fact-based explanation for the diversity of life that we see today.

    And exactly what facts would you be alluding to AVS? The origin of ‘simple’ life by purely material processes?

    To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers – July 2012
    Excerpt: Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That’s a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes.,,,
    The bioengineers, led by Stanford’s Markus Covert, succeeded in modeling the bacterium, and published their work last week in the journal Cell. What’s fascinating is how much horsepower they needed to partially simulate this simple organism. It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell’s lifecycle processes.,,,
    ,,the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore’s Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that’s only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.,,,
    http://www.theatlantic.com/tec.....rs/260198/

    DID LIFE START BY CHANCE?
    Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Horold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias)
    http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/chance.html

    Punctured cell will never reassemble – Jonathan Wells – 2:40 mark of video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKoiivfe_mo

    Well that ‘fact’ doesn’t help you much. How about we let the almighty power of natural selection in on ‘simple’ life and see what we can get:

    Scant search for the Maker
    Excerpt: 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. –
    Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.
    http://www.timeshighereducatio.....ode=159282

    “Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some 2 to 10 million species on earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between 3 and 5 million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations (new species) .. every decade.”
    Keith Stewart Thomson, Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University (Nov. -Dec. American Scientist, 1997 pg. 516)

    “Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation. And in computer life, where the term “species” does not yet have meaning, we see no cascading emergence of entirely new kinds of variety beyond an initial burst. In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species.”
    Kevin Kelly from his book, “Out of Control”

    Dang, no ‘facts’ there to help you. How about the fossil record? Surely you can make a case there out of ‘facts’?!?

    A Graduate Student (Nick Matzke) Writes – David Berlinski July 9, 2013
    Excerpt: Representatives of twenty-three of the roughly twenty-seven fossilized animal phyla, and the roughly thirty-six animal phyla overall, are present in the Cambrian fossil record. Twenty of these twenty-three major groups make their appearance with no discernible ancestral forms in either earlier Cambrian or Precambrian strata. Representatives of the remaining three or so animal phyla originate in the late Precambrian, but they do so as abruptly as the animals that appeared first in Cambrian. Moreover, these late Precambrian animals lack clear affinities with the representatives of the twenty or so phyla that first appear in the Cambrian.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74221.html

    The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism – David Tyler – May 2011
    Excerpt: The pervasive pattern of natural history: disparity precedes diversity,,,, The summary of results for phyla is as follows. The pattern reinforces earlier research that concluded the Explosion is not an artefact of sampling. Much the same finding applies to the appearance of classes. These data are presented in Figures 1 and 2 in the paper.
    http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.....niformitar

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    “A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.”
    Dr. Ian Tattersall: – paleoanthropologist – emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History – (Masters of the Planet, 2012)

    Dang, no ‘facts’ there to help you. How about some good ole genetic evidence, certainly there are some ‘facts’ there to help you out:

    Darwin’s Tree of Life is a Tangled Bramble Bush – May 15, 2013
    Excerpt: ,,, One whole subsection in the paper is titled, “All gene trees differ from species phylogeny.” Another is titled, “Standard practices do not reduce incongruence.” A third, “Standard practices can mislead.” One of their major findings was “extensive conflict in certain internodes.”
    The authors not only advised throwing out some standard practices of tree-building, but (amazingly) proposed evolutionists throw out the “uninformative” conflicting data and only use data that seems to support the Darwinian tree: “the subset of genes with strong phylogenetic signal is more informative than the full set of genes, suggesting that phylogenomic analyses using conditional combination approaches, rather than approaches based on total evidence, may be more powerful.”,,,
    ,,,tossing out “uninformative” data sets and only using data that appear to support their foreordained conclusion. Were you told this in biology class? Did your textbook mention this?
    http://crev.info/2013/05/darwi.....mble-bush/

    Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution – Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree. – Elie Dolgin – 27 June 2012
    Excerpt: “I’ve looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can’t find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. “…they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants.” (Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution, Nature 486,460–462, 28 June 2012) (molecular palaeobiologist – Kevin Peterson)
    Mark Springer, (a molecular phylogeneticist working in DNA states),,, “There have to be other explanations,” he says.
    Peterson and his team are now going back to mammalian genomes to investigate why DNA and microRNAs give such different evolutionary trajectories. “What we know at this stage is that we do have a very serious incongruence,” says Davide Pisani, a phylogeneticist at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth, who is collaborating on the project. “It looks like either the mammal microRNAs evolved in a totally different way or the traditional topology is wrong.
    http://www.nature.com/news/phy.....on-1.10885

  34. Tell you what AVS, seeing as you are so much smarter than us IDiots, can you please make it REAL SIMPLE for us and just show us where JUST ONE molecular machine was created by neo-Darwinian processes?

    in spite of the fact of finding molecular motors permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system.

    “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 of such a vast subject.”
    James Shapiro – Molecular Biologist

    The following expert doesn’t even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,,

    ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,,

    Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,,

    ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’
    Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.
    *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA

    Michael Behe – No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/

    Also of note, Dr. James Tour, who builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world,,,

    Science & Faith — Dr. James Tour – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdU5ojTpyzg

    ,,will buy lunch for anyone who can explain to him exactly how Darwinian evolution works:

    Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows That Evolution Doesn’t Work – James Tour, Phd. – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyAOCesHv0

  35. This site is about critical thinking? Ha, good one. I don’t see much thinking going on at all here. Let’s take Mr. bornagain who just posted a lovely mile long essay to me. Most of it is copy and pasted stuff i’ve seen him post numerous times.
    Mr. Bornagain, the first thing you did in trying to talk about evolution was bring up abiogenesis. Try to stay on topic here please or I’m not even going to bother reading your bullshit.
    You want evidence for evolution? Why don’t you ask Jerry? He must have read every biology book by now.

  36. Oh wow Bornagain, you sent me to the video of the guy who pokes a hole in a cell and then says “well it didn’t reassemble, there must be a god.”
    Wow, you are even worse off than I thought.
    You just can’t fix stupid.

  37. Damn BA77, that’s a lot of hurt… :) I think by now, our new padawan has his fingers in his ears chanting “evolution is true, evolution is true, because… because…. Well because the scientists say so”.

  38. Oh and you cited a curator of the American Museum of Natural History who thinks there is no evidence in the fossil record of hominid skulls showing our evolution? That’s strange because I was just in that museum this summer and they have a huge exhibit on human origins. Try telling that to the scientists in the Sackler lab there, let me know how that one goes.

  39. Or, he’ll continue to throw insults instead of the evidence we’ve requested. But this is what we’ve come to expect from the Darwin faithful.

    Come now AVS. A free thinking intelligent individual like you must surely be able to provide at least one piece of evidence to support your claims?

  40. Some other interesting quotes by Dr Tatterstall on paleontology:
    “As I said right at the beginning, what we think today depends very largely on what we thought yesterday. If the entire human fossil record were to be discovered tomorrow, and studied by experienced paleontologists who had developed their skills in the absence of preconceptions about human origins, I am pretty sure that (after the inevitable bout of intellectual indigestion) a range of interpretations would emerge that is very different from those on offer now.”
    Tattersall (1995) The Fossil Trail pages 226-227

    “When you’re out there selling such complicated narratives, normal scientific testability just isn’t an issue: how many of your colleagues or others buy your story depends principally on how convincing or forceful a storyteller you are–and on how willing your audience is to believe the kind of thing you are saying”
    Page 169

    So apparently science doesn’t matter to evolution, only good storytelling does!

  41. Hmm okay, since our friend Jason Bornagain here brought up human origins, lets talk about that.
    When we look at primate evolution, we look at the presence of nails, independent movement of digits, opposable thumbs/grasping hand, and stereoscopic vision/ depth perception to name a few. The first extinct taxa I’ll talk about is the anthropoids. They had post orbital closures, less sutures in their skulls, and lacked a grooming claw among other things. Next in line is the hominoids, they had large canines and a gap between their canines and incisors along with a pronounced brow ridge and sagittal crest. They also did not have tails and were quadripedal. Hominids are bipedal, had short/broad pelvises and more outward femur angles along with a reduced sagittal crest and the loss of the opposable toe. Fossil hominids, the australopiths and homos, began to increase in cranial capacity, size, became fully bipedal, went from oval birth canal to circular, lost the brow ridge, with a rounder flatter face. As we have discovered these species, we have not only taken note of their anatomical features but also of the places where they have been discovered, showing the migration of early man, as well as the habits of early man such as the use of tools and home bases, fire, etc.
    This is just a small piece of the origin of man pie ladies and gents. Like I said, feel free to educate yourselves.

  42. AVS why would evolution select for circular birth canal over oval shape ? And why would a rounder flatter face be selected for ? And is there a correlation between cranial capacity and intelligence ? We really would like to know why these minor traits would be selected for ?

  43. AVS -

    I admit, I’m guessing, what are you first or maybe second year grad student in biology. You have a lot to learn. Please humble yourself and stop sounding like an immature brat. Maybe then we can have an intelligent conversation.

  44. And you forgot to mention Piltdown man …. we know a lot about him also

  45. And since you bring up cranial capacity, it is known that humans only use about 10% of their capacity. So why would evolution select for larger capacity if we do not use it anyway.

    Perhaps your biology professor could help you answer these questions.

  46. Well Johnny, if you look at your head shape, you will see that it is quite circular and if you remember I mentioned how our cranial capacity were increasing. This makes the birth canal shape change and subsequent size increase along with our overall size very important. As for the selection of a rounder flatter and flatter face, that I do not know (I don’t know everything sorry). As for cranial capacity, I don’t think it is a direct correlation, there’s a lot more at work there, but I think it definitely does play a role; more neurons in your brain for memories and the like could never hurt.
    Thanks JDH I’ll take that as a compliment, as I’ve said I am only just starting my senior year. Yes I do have a lot to learn, yes I am immature here on your website, but most of all I am enjoying very much the fact that I presented a bit of the evidence that your friends here have asked for and what do I get?…Nothing, apparently we still cannot have an intelligent conversation after I provide the evidence you guys ask for…perhaps the lack of intelligence is not on my side of the table?
    Food for thought.

  47. Johnny, perhaps if you had listened to a word your bio teachers ever said you would know that the 10% myth of brain usage is nothing more than that…a myth.
    You should really stop talking now.

  48. AVS,

    As we have discovered these species, we have not only taken note of their anatomical features but also of the places where they have been discovered, showing the migration of early man, as well as the habits of early man such as the use of tools and home bases, fire, etc.
    This is just a small piece of the origin of man pie ladies and gents

    Darwinian mysticism in action.

    Data + the assumption that “Evolution is the explanation no matter what”
    = Confirmation. It works every time.

  49. Do you have a specific problem with what I said or are you just going to make broad, baseless claims Mr psy?

  50. AVS @ 47

    I did listen to what my science HS science teacher said (way back about 1967) …. was not a myth then. Besides my background is in plant sciences. I see you like to Wiki.

    But we do have way more mental capacity than would be needed to just survive…. and thus I do not see how increased mental ability would have been selected for …. and I am not certain we know if mental capability is an inherited trait. We do know Hitler thought it was and intended to create super humans via selective breeding.

  51. My oh my those are some impressive ‘facts’ you got there AVS. Guess its an open an shut case that we randomly evolved from some chimp-like creature. But I’m not quite so convinced that it happened the way you imagine it dis even though you sneering attitude and juvenile insults have certainly almost made the scientific case for you.,,, I still have a few questions if you don’t mind educating us poor dumb IDiots a little more. If the ‘fact’ that we randomly evolved from apes is so ironclad then why did the recent pig-chimp hybrid theory of human origins created such a stir among Darwinists??

    i.e. Physorg had an article up showing that the pig-chimp hybrid theory for human origins is much harder to shoot down than Darwinists had first supposed it would be:

    Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence – July 25, 2013
    Excerpt: There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy,,,By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy.
    ,,,Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs. You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-h.....dence.html

    Of course your piggish behavior towards us would be explained quite well by this pig-chimp theory! :) ,,, Moreover AVS, despite your claim to the contrary, I don’t think the fossil record is nearly as strong as you think it is for your position:

    Read Your References Carefully: Paul McBride’s Prized Citation on Skull-Sizes Supports My Thesis, Not His – Casey Luskin – August 31, 2012
    Excerpt of Conclusion: This has been a long article, but I hope it is instructive in showing how evolutionists deal with the fossil hominin evidence. As we’ve seen, multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin. And that suite of characteristics has remained remarkably constant from the time Homo appears until the present day with you, me, and the rest of modern humanity. The one possible exception to this is brain size, where there are some skulls of intermediate cranial capacity, and there is some increase over time. But even there, when Homo appears, it does so with an abrupt increase in skull-size. ,,,
    The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....63841.html

    as to skull sizes, well where we have the most complete fossil record, that is certainly not another ‘fact’ in your favor either:

    If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? – January 20, 2011
    Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.”
    “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,,
    He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.”
    http://discovermagazine.com/20.....-shrinking

    As to the gradual emerging of humanlike traits, well that is another ‘fact’ that does not materialize for you:

    Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffery H. Schwartz, May 2009
    Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.”,,,,
    “Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate.”
    http://www.annualreviews.org/d.....208.100202

    Moreover AVS, Darwinists can’t even explain how a single neuron of the human brain evolved in the first place, much less how an entire brain was reconfigured from a chimp-like brain to produce our unique ‘humanness’

    Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth – November 2010
    Excerpt: They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: …One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-2708.....2-247.html

  52. No sir, I do not need to wiki much at all thank you. I did some fact-checking when I said that stuff about primate evolution but for the most part everything I say is from what I learned in class.
    As for the evolution of our intelligence you can google the FOXP2 gene I think it is, there was some interesting stuff I read about that.
    Also, if you really don’t see how increased mental ability would be selected for….well you should have your head checked.
    I think it is safe to say that being smarter would most definitely be an advantage in just about every situation I can think of. But hey, what do I know?

  53. Which brings us back to Thomas Nagel’s contention that evolutionary biology cannot explain consciousness in the first place:

    Mind and Cosmos – Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False – Thomas Nagel
    Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history.
    http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/pro.....9919758.do

    “I have argued patiently against the prevailing form of naturalism, a reductive materialism that purports to capture life and mind through its neo-Darwinian extension.” “…, I find this view antecedently unbelievable—a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense”.
    Thomas Nagel – “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False” – pg.128

    New Thoughts on Evolution (1910)
    Views of Professor Alfred Russel Wallace, O.M., F.R.S.
    “Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.”
    Alfred Russel Wallace – An interview by Harold Begbie printed on page four of The Daily Chronicle (London) issues of 3 November and 4 November 1910.

    Moreover, due to advances in quantum mechanics, which is a far more powerful theory of science than Darwinism is,,

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

    It is found that consciousness precedes material reality and does not ‘emerge’ from it

    1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

    Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

    “It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality” -
    Eugene Wigner – (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 – received Nobel Prize in 1963 for ‘Quantum Symmetries’

    “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
    (Max Planck, as cited in de Purucker, Gottfried. 1940. The Esoteric Tradition. California: Theosophical University Press, ch. 13).

    “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
    (Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.)

    So as hopefully you can now see AVS, I need you to enlighten me as to how all this can be reconciled with your atheistic materialism for as far as the scientific ‘facts’ themselves are concerned I hold your worldview to now be falsified.

    Music and verse:

    Apocalypitca – Nothing Else Matters -
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSMXMv0noY4

    Genesis 2:7
    Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

  54. AVS btw which cane first… the round head or the oval shaped birth canal. If the oval shaped canal had evolved to accommodate an oval shaped heads then a larger round head would not be able to pass through and unfortunately the “round headed” genes would not have survived birth.

    Now go and discuss this with you biology professor since he is so well indoctrinated !!!

  55. AVS @ 52

    Dumber has not been eliminated from the gene pool …. in fact is getting dumber ….

    Maybe Genetic Entropy ? Yes ?

    or maybe it is time for us to dump our genetic load ? Yes ?

  56. When we look at different types of primates and humans, we look at the presence of nails, independent movement of digits, opposable thumbs/grasping hand, and stereoscopic vision/ depth perception to name a few. The first extinct taxa I’ll talk about is the anthropoids. They had post orbital closures, less sutures in their skulls, and lacked a grooming claw among other things. Next in line is the hominoids, they had large canines and a gap between their canines and incisors along with a pronounced brow ridge and sagittal crest. They also did not have tails and were quadripedal. Hominids are bipedal, had short/broad pelvises and more outward femur angles along with a reduced sagittal crest and the loss of the opposable toe. Fossil hominids, the australopiths and homos, began to increase in cranial capacity, size, became fully bipedal, went from oval birth canal to circular, lost the brow ridge, with a rounder flatter face. As we have discovered these species, we have not only taken note of their anatomical features but also of the places where they have been discovered, showing the migration of early man, as well as the habits of early man such as the use of tools and home bases, fire, etc.
    This is just a small piece of the record of where primates and humans lived and died ladies and gents.

    There, I changed two sentences. I simply removed your bald assertions that evolution was the explanation, and nothing happened to the substance. What we are left with are observations of the fossil record, minus your religious claims.

  57. Thanks guys, that was all I needed to hear.
    Johnny, you require the remains of every living thing to have ever lived to be arranged in the order that they lived to accept evolution.
    Psy, you require a human baby to be popped out of a chimp to accept evolution.
    I assure you both that neither of these things will ever happen, and I really hope you guys are not crime scene investigators or do anything that requires much thinking for that matter.
    Good day.

  58. AVS you should hang around here ….
    we do not indoctrinate …. only enlighten

    also many here do believe in evolution but not Darwin Kind

    …. I believe in special creation.

  59. I believe, that you can believe whatever you like gramps.

  60. AVS, you are very intellectually dishonest.

    Simply declaring something to be the best explanation does it make it so. The similarities between living things do not support any particular conclusion. Nor does the fact that living things are flexible to some degree. This does not distinguish living things from I suppose it does qualify as “best” if one’s criteria is to refuse any worldviews that one finds unpleasant.

    The minor details (natural selection, sexual selection, new variations in highly similar organisms but without radical innovation etc.) that the atheistic evolutionary worldview claims to explain were already explained by many theistic naturalists before Darwin. Darwin just claimed that these mechanisms can also drive radical innovation and the origin of life itself. It has not done this. Normally, this has to be established before an idea becomes accepted and then it becomes a theory. The athiestic evolutionary worldview hasn’t even passed phase 1.

    You cannot dismiss abiogenesis and call that a different subject. It isn’t. It is the foundation for the current mainstream worldview so sweeping it under the rug or shifting the burden elsewhere is simply wrong. Why hasn’t it been verified? There isn’t even a detailed speculative model let alone an experimental result which is absolutely unacceptable in science. Vague assertions don’t count.

    It is also absolutely unacceptable to dismiss important features as mere details. Science is supposed to love delving into details and leaving no stone unturned. And yet somehow it is acceptable that there is no model, not even a speculative one how exactly organ systems and body plans originated. These are not mere details, these are crucial to your worldview.

    In forensic science, not every moment needs to be reconstructed but this is an extremely poor analogy. If you can pinpoint the footsteps of a murderer a few minutes before/during/after a crime but can’t explain how the criminal reached the scene in the first place, then you have an extremely faulty idea about what happened and how.

    Atheistic Abiogenesis+Common Descent isn’t “the only game in town”. Its just the only one some people are willing to play.

  61. PS:

    People look at ID the wrong way. Instead of thinking “God is mystery, we reject mystery, therefore we reject god”.

    Compare instead, Human designed systems.

    Human designed systems see variations upon a theme (e.g cars-station wagons, sports cars, rally cars, utility vehicles etc.), variation over time (e,g differing styles in cars), common ancestors (e.g Model T Ford, Wright Bros Flyre 1, also multiple vehicles for different roles based on a common chassis are/were extremely common, especially during WW2),adaption (e.g merchant ships rebuilt for war), convergent evolution (rocket plane and jet plane), transitional forms (e.g mixed propulsion planes from the 1940s and autogyros which are functionally transitional between helicopters and fix-winged prop-driven planes).

    There are countless parallels even though different Humans are responsible in different times, different places, used different (but overlapping) knowledge in different ways. So if a single person made it all, even more unity would be expected.

  62. Look Jul, they begged me for some evidence of evolution, I talked them through some of the basics of primate evolution, then they either tried to BS a response or flatout ignored it. It doesnt get any more intellectually dishonest than the people you find on here. Trying to show science in a bad light because you cant handle that your little religion is a load of bullshit is just sad.

  63. Actually the evidence is “primates existed”. Building a picture around the evidence isn’t the same thing, it is an inference based on a metaphysical belief system. Pointing this out doesn’t count as ignoring the evidence. I haven’t read this entire thread but I cannot see where the accusations that science is being shown in a bad light is coming from.

  64. Wow ok if all you got from what I said before is that “primates existed,” then you are hopeless. Also, I was referring to this site as a whole when I said it shows science in a bad light.

  65. That is an oversimplification, to be more complete, the evidence would be summarized as “primates existed and different primates have distinguishing features but also different degrees of similarity”. This doesn’t change the validity of my point as indicated in previous posts.

    Being able to tell the difference between different types of knowledge is extremely important.

  66. So its just a coincidence that we have found numerous fossils that show a transition from ape-like to human-like features in different species of primates?

  67. This is the logical fallacy known as the false dichotomy. The alternatives to “common descent with modification without any end-purpose” do not solely consist of ‘coincidence’. This was already explained.

  68. I’ve no idea what you are talking about. If you cant look at the info on the numerous species of primates, especially the hominids, and say they look like transitional species then I dont know what to tell you.
    That is all.

  69. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. All the features of biological evolution are abundant in Human design. Do you go to car yard and expect that since they are designed, no transitional forms will ever be found?

  70. So your god is constantly improving his design, is that what you think?
    Dont we, as humans, in our designs always try to come up with the most simple solution to a problem? I dont think anyone will tell you that much of the cell and especially the cell as a whole is simple at all.
    You cannot compare living things to inanimate objects like that. Thats another mistake you guys on here make all the time.

  71. Perfection isn’t rigid, it depends on the specified design goals. If design goals change, then a new design or a modified existing one is warranted. Thinking about perfection and design in such rigid terms is an historical outgrowth of the Greek geometric concept of perfection.

    A biplane at first glance seems inferior to a jet, but only the biplane can be used for crop dusting.

    The comparison between living things and Human design things has nothing to do with complexity. It has to do with the fundamental aspects of what design is and how people develop designs. Saying that ‘this thing is complex THEREFORE it isn’t designed is hugely problematic. At best you could say ‘it is complex and is not designed’. Otherwise, it would be impossible to say that the wedge and the airplane are both designed.

  72. Whatever you say buddy, keep doing your little dance, but youre gonna have to find somebody else to have a philosophical argument with. Adios.

  73. LMAO! AVS, buddy, not only do you engage in fallacy after fallacy, but your Neo-Darwinian arguments are sophomoric at best. The truly thoughtful ND proponents that visit the side, I would think, would view your paltry performance with shame.

    What is hilarious is you claim the responses to you are dodging ‘facts’ yet you can only respond to BornAgain with ad hominem, failing to address a single point with a cogent argument. Some might say, dodging.

    You’re HILARIOUS, bro. You claim to be far more educated but engage in typical tactics (especially seen on the internet) of one who fills their lack of an argument, and information, with ridicule. A tactic that works on the slight of mind, however it betrays your own educational development.

    You mock BornAgain for the length of his post? That’s clown-tactics, bro. You cannot refute his points so you mock any little thing you can grab, and the only refutation made is a strawman, and a poor one at that.

    Further, as more resist your little troll-bait you claim, “Whatever…Later.” It is the internet equivalent of a white flag. This type of interaction is better suited to YouTube.

    So why would such an ‘educated’ individual employ such stereotypical and ignorant tactics?

    Oh, and if you respond with an insult claiming that “we are below you and don’t deserve your best” you’ll only prove my point further.

    Cheers.

  74. @AVS – AVS, I have been thinking, trying to figure out something to say to you that will help you without sounding condescending. Anyway here it is:

    You seem to suffer from an extreme form of confirmation bias:

    1. You enthusiastically read many articles, books, anything you can get your hands on, that supports the position you agree with. You only respect people who state arguments you agree with.
    2. You a priori dismiss as stupid and ignorant anything that disagrees with the position you agree with. You mock anyone who holds the contrary position.

    This is no way to become educated. To become educated you must hear the challenges to your position, and take them head on. Sometimes this will educate you about your position – and sometimes it will lead you to intelligently by the weight of the evidence, change your mind. Its dangerous, but it will keep you from staying in your current state of immaturity.

    I sincerely hope that helps.

    In humility,
    JDH

  75. Great advice JDH.

    Sadly many, even seasoned scholars, never learn this. It requires a certain level of humility, patience and open mindedness, qualities these new atheist types seem to lack.

  76. AVS:

    I’ve no idea what you are talking about. If you cant look at the info on the numerous species of primates, especially the hominids, and say they look like transitional species then I dont know what to tell you.

    Let me see if I’ve got this right. The incontrovertible evidence for evolution that you’d like to present here is that you can cherry pick various species of primates (based, no doubt, on the fact that they look similar) and conclude that “they look like transitional species.” At the same time, it appears that you are taking for granted that morphological similarity is a sure indicator that a species is transitional. Is that about right?

  77. No Phinehas, you have it all wrong.

    It is because you cannot recognize that they look like transitional species that evolution must be true.

  78. Phineas, I tried to walk through some of the very basics of the evidence for the evolution of man. There are many fossil species that have been extensively studied and carefully organized in a coherent order based on large amounts of data collection. I assure you, it is not just “well they look similar,” although Im sure they repeatedly tell you on here that that is how evolutionary biology works.
    Like I told Mung, if you want to learn science, get it from a reputable source. This is not a reputable source.

  79. AVS is obviously unacquainted with the absolute paucity of hominid “fossils.”

    I have to admit, I’ve never even seen a photograph of a hominid fossil. I have to wonder what “evidence” AVS has in mind.

  80. AVS @ 41
    Seems there is no consensus that cranial capacity correlates with intelligence.

    And as for intelligence being selected for …. intelligent cultures have become extinct and aboriginal cultures exist to this day. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to survive !!!

    I think you would be wise to do some contemplating on natural selection. Is it rational to think that minor changes would make enough difference to be selected for? (meaning these genes become segregated enough to become fixed in a population)

  81. So not only do you have no idea what you are talking about, Mung, but you also havent even bothered to research the topic? Sounds about right.
    Johnny, I already told you that intelligence does not directly correlate to cranial capacity, there is a lot more at play. Maybe intelligence really doesn’t affect survival, after all youre still here.

    Have a nice day.

  82. AVS, you seem to consider yourself an exceptionally intelligent hombre who has no use for less intelligent people. Thus I was wondering if you could help me with a little problem I have trouble understanding. You see AVS, no one can seem to come up with an example of Darwinian processes creating a new protein, nor can anyone seem to find an example of Darwinian processes transforming an existing protein of a particular function into any other protein of another function even if the protein sequences are very similar:

    Doug Axe PhD. on the Rarity and ‘non-Evolvability’ of Functional Proteins – video (notes in video description)
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/9243592/

    Corticosteroid Receptors in Vertebrates: Luck or Design? – Ann Gauger – October 11, 2011
    Excerpt: if merely changing binding preferences is hard, even when you start with the right ancestral form, then converting an enzyme to a new function is completely beyond the reach of unguided evolution, no matter where you start.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....51801.html

    Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. October 2009
    Excerpt: The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability,,
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19765975

    This ‘problem’ AVS, (if there truly is such a thing as a ‘problem’ for all-mighty power of evolution), has recently been exasperated by the finding of completely unique ORFan gene/proteins in humans that are not found in chimps (nor found in anything else for that matter):

    Human Gene Count Tumbles Again – 2008
    Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences.,,, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....161406.htm

    “More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren’t found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps.”
    Jerry Coyne – ardent and ‘angry’ neo-Darwinist – professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics (and inquisition style censorship of ID proponents).

    Mechanisms and dynamics of orphan gene emergence in insect genomes – January 2013
    Excerpt: Orphans are an enigmatic portion of the genome since their origin and function are mostly unknown and they typically make up 10 to 30% of all genes in a genome.
    http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/.....l.pdf+html

    “However, with the advent of sequencing of full genomes, it became clear that approximately 20–40% of the identified genes could not be associated with a gene family that was known before. Such genes were originally called ‘orphan’ genes” – May 2013
    http://ccsb.dfci.harvard.edu/w.....S_2013.pdf

    Moreover, many of new ORFans are also found in the brain:

    De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes – 2011
    Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee, supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. It is inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is rare. RNA–seq data indicate that these de novo originated genes have their highest expression in the cerebral cortex and testes, suggesting these genes may contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as development of cognitive ability. Therefore, the importance of de novo origination needs greater appreciation.
    http://www.plosgenetics.org/ar.....en.1002379

    The last paper was interesting because explaining human brain evolution by Darwinian processes has become much more complicated, not less complicated, the more that has been discovered about the phenotypic differences between chimps and humans:

    Human brain evolution: From gene discovery to phenotype discovery – Todd M. Preuss – February 2012
    Excerpt: It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical.,,,
    ,,our understanding of the relationship between genetic changes and phenotypic changes is tenuous. This is true even for the most intensively studied gene, FOXP2,,
    In part, the difficulty of connecting genes to phenotypes reflects our generally poor knowledge of human phenotypic specializations, as well as the difficulty of interpreting the consequences of genetic changes in species that are not amenable to invasive research.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/10.....9.full.pdf

    Now AVS, seeing as you have so much pride in your highly evolved brain, I was hoping that you could shed a little light for us lesser evolved creatures and tell us exactly how your highly evolved brain came to be in the first place:

    “Complexity Brake” Defies Evolution – August 2012
    Excerpt: “This is bad news. Consider a neuronal synapse — the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse — about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years…, even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.”,,,
    Even with shortcuts like averaging, “any possible technological advance is overwhelmed by the relentless growth of interactions among all components of the system,” Koch said. “It is not feasible to understand evolved organisms by exhaustively cataloging all interactions in a comprehensive, bottom-up manner.” He described the concept of the Complexity Brake:,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62961.html

    note:

    “The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.”
    Kurt Gödel, was a preeminent mathematician/logician who is considered one of the greatest to have ever lived. Of Note: Godel was a Christian Theist!

  83. “The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.”

    Surely, less likely, since relapse from order to chaos – don’t you bods call it ‘entropy’? – is normal; while matter in a process of ‘living design’ is, well… intelligent and purposeful.

  84. I don’t mean to be presumptuous, Kurt, if you’re listening. But I expect I am.

  85. Mr Bornagain, when you say “no one,” do you mean “no one on this here website of esteemed intellectuals” or do you mean no one on Earth?
    Try googling the proteins alpha-lactalbumin and lysozyme, then get back to me on that one. They are perfect examples of a functionally different protein arising from a few small changes to an ancestral protein.
    Maybe next time you should try learning about a topic before posting about it. Ive mentioned this exact example to you Im quite sure already.

  86. AVS, I know you probably consider it beneath yourself, and the theory of evolution, to have to actually provide an actual demonstration of evolution in action instead of a mere sequence comparison as you did here:

    Molecular divergence of lysozymes and alpha-lactalbumin.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9307874

    But if you could be so kind as to provide an actual example instead of a sequence comparison I think you might have a much more convincing argument with us IDiots:

    When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.
    http://www.biologicinstitute.o.....nt-collide

    “Biologist Douglas Axe on Evolution’s (non) Ability to Produce New (Protein) Functions ” – video
    Quote: It turns out once you get above the number six [changes in amino acids] — and even at lower numbers actually — but once you get above the number six you can pretty decisively rule out an evolutionary transition because it would take far more time than there is on planet Earth and larger populations than there are on planet Earth.
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....5_14-07_00

    Dr. Axe challenges a Darwinist to create a single new gene by Darwinian processes:

    Show Me: A Challenge for Martin Poenie – Douglas Axe August 16, 2013
    Excerpt: Poenie want to be free to appeal to evolutionary processes for explaining past events without shouldering any responsibility for demonstrating that these processes actually work in the present. That clearly isn’t valid. Unless we want to rewrite the rules of science, we have to assume that what doesn’t work didn’t work.
    It isn’t valid to think that evolution did create new enzymes if it hasn’t been demonstrated that it can create new enzymes. And if Poenie really thinks this has been done, then I’d like to present him with an opportunity to prove it. He says, “Recombination can do all the things that Axe thinks are impossible.” Can it really? Please show me, Martin!
    I’ll send you a strain of E. coli that lacks the bioF gene, and you show me how recombination, or any other natural process operating in that strain, can create a new gene that does the job of bioF within a few billion years.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75611.html

  87. Why does everyone keep feeding the troll (AVS)?

  88. Mr. Bornagain, you asked for “an example of Darwinian processes creating a new protein.” I gave you exactly that: An example of one functional protein sequence arising from another by just a small number of mutations.
    Now of course after I do that, you move the goalpost and ask for “an actual demonstration of evolution in action.”
    And again I will give you an example of this:
    Rapid speciation of Helianthus anomalus was predicted to have occured by hybridization of H. annus and H. petorialis. H. anomalus is a distinct species from the two parental species as it cannot reproduce with the either of the parental species. This was modeled in the lab by hybridizing the two parental species, producing offspring that was largely infertile. However, the small percentage that were fertile, after just four generations of hybrid mating, the new species had a fertility rate over 90%.
    In summary a new, distinct species was formed (speciation) also known as macroevolution.

    Now, lets watch you reword your question and then copy/paste a mile-long nonsensical response about quantum electrodynamics and obscure quotes.

  89. Do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation Barb?

  90. Funny you ask me that, while you’ve added nothing but ad hominem arguments yourself.

  91. You know, I keep hearing that, and yet I am the only one who is presenting scientific information in a coherent manner.

  92. Why does everyone keep feeding the troll (AVS)?

    Because if you feed it enough it eventually explodes in an amazing display of self-righteous indignation. Definitely worth the price of admission.

  93. Funny how he says “Adios” in post #72, yet he’s still here posting. Does he not understand the meaning of the word? Or has he not exploded yet?

  94. Barb, you just went zero to ad hominem, in 3.6 seconds. Congrats. Right after telling me I “add nothing but ad hominem” myself no less.
    Let me know when you guys have something intelligent to say.

  95. AVS,

    Considering the subject of the OP, have you read Nagel’s book?

  96. AVS, let us know when you actually plan on leaving. You know, like you said you were going to do several posts ago.

  97. I know you guys would like that so you can continue your circlejerk that ya got goin here but Im just having too much fun.

  98. Give the kid a chance … remember it took Dean Kenyon (coauthor of Biochemical Predestination) three years to detox completely from Darwinism ….

  99. Interestingly, I found this quote from a review of Nagel’s book: “Joan Roughgarden, an ecologist and evolutionary biologist at the ­Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, agrees that evolutionary biologists can be nasty when crossed. “I mean, these guys are impervious to contrary evidence and alternative formulations,” she says. “What we see in evolution is stasis—conceptual stasis, in my view—where people are ardently defending their formulations from the early 70s.”

    (https://chronicle.com/article/Where-Thomas-Nagel-Went-Wrong/139129/)

  100. Hey Johnny, I figured it out. Your little confusion about the 10% brain usage myth is understandable as you actually do only use 10% of your brain, unlike the rest of us.

  101. AVS, do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation?

    Guess not. Back under the bridge, troll.

  102. Yeah, actually if you scroll up this page, the only science to be found is in things I have posted.

  103. AVS, I know a man of your intellect probably speaks a dozen or so languages fluently, and English is probably not your first language, so when you state,,,

    Mr. Bornagain, you asked for “an example of Darwinian processes creating a new protein.” I gave you exactly that: An example of one functional protein sequence arising from another by just a small number of mutations.
    Now of course after I do that, you move the goalpost and ask for “an actual demonstration of evolution in action.”

    ,,,it is understandable that you do not fully comprehend the English meaning that when I ask for “an example of Darwinian processes creating a new protein” I mean exactly that, I mean I want to see an actual example of Darwinian processes creating a new protein. I do not want you to point to one sequence and then point to another sequence and proclaim that one sequence evolved from the other. That, as I’m sure you are well aware, is called ‘assuming your conclusion into your presupposition’. Sorry for any confusion and good luck on picking up English as a second language.

    As to your other claim about hybridization

    Plants, Polyploidy, and Evolutionary Dead Ends
    Casey Luskin January 27, 2012
    Excerpt: The notion that flowering plants can be crossed to produce polyploid hybrids is nothing new. It’s long been known that polyploidy occurs commonly in flowering plants.

    But duplicating a chromosome doesn’t necessarily produce new genetic information, and polyploidy plants generally have small small-scale differences from their haploid counterparts. As Jonathan Wells observes regarding this example:

    “There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants — all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or ‘polyploidy.’ In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced without hybridization. Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy ‘does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera’ or higher levels in the biological hierarchy.2″

    Speciation by polyploidy does not produce new morphological characteristics,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....k9ll4.dpuf

    As well AVS, did you know that Dr. John Sanford, who invented the ‘gene gun’, and is/was one of the world’s leading experts in plant breeding and trans-genetic crops, never recorded the origination of a single gene by Darwinian processes in all those years of research? In fact, Dr. John Sanford after all those years of research in plant breeding, wrote a book called ‘Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome’ in which he holds (since Darwinian processes cannot create new genetic information) that genetic information of life is slowly eroding:

    Genetic Entropy – Dr. John Sanford – Evolution vs. Reality – video (Notes in video description)
    http://vimeo.com/35088933

    Moreover AVS, did you know that Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, who is Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany, stated that:

    A. L. Hughes’s New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago – Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – December 2011
    Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species’ particular environment….By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became “heritable”. — As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The “remainder” has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) — in the formation of secondary species.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....53881.html

    ,,Moreover AVS, there is also the little problem of the entire foundation, which undergirds neo-Darwinism, which you are defending, now being shown to be false:

    Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False – Denis Nobel – President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/10395212

    Physiology moves back onto centre stage: a new synthesis with evolutionary biology – Denis Nobel – July 2013 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzD1daWq4ng

    Here is the paper that accompanies the preceding video:

    Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology – Denis Noble – 17 MAY 2013
    Excerpt: The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.,,, We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual.,,,
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.....4/abstract

    “The genome is an ‘organ of the cell’, not its dictator”
    – Denis Nobel – President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences
    http://musicoflife.co.uk/

  104. Ok, so I have to spell it out for you Mr Bornagain? No problem, I’ll try to make it as simple as possible for you (and I’ll stick with english, dont mention it)
    So first we take our lysozyme gene, then we mutate it. Now, incase you didnt know, mutations are an important part of evolution (theres your “darwinian processes”). Now, after just a small number of mutations, the lysozyme gene produces a protein that has a different amino acid sequence, and this new protein sequence folds into a completely different proetin, alpha-lactalbumin.

    As for your supposed “rebuttal” of my Helianthus example, if you had done a little research you would know that every single plant I mentioned had the same number of chromosomes. There was no polyploids present whatsoever. The two parent species and the new species all had the same number of chromosomes (2N=34 incase you were wondering).
    A+ for effort though.

  105. AVS, as to the sunflower in general, it may interest you to know that sunflowers are so well designed that it inspired this innovation:

    Biologically inspired design: How sunflowers could reshape solar power – By Kirsten Korosec | January 11, 2012
    Excerpt: The key to building an efficient concentrated solar power plant that uses less land may just lie within the face of a sunflower. Researchers at Massachusets Institute of Technology in collaboration with RWTH Aachen University in Germany found they could reduce the footprint of a CSP install by nearly 16 percent percent and increase the amount of sunlight collected by arranging the mirrors — otherwise known as heliostats — in a pattern similar to the spirals on the face of a sunflower.,,
    Take a look at the face of a sunflower and you’ll notice the florets are arranged in a spiral pattern, known as the Fermat or parabolic spiral. (Play the animation from Flickr user Rob Ireton for a look at a growing sunflower and how it maintains the same pattern). The criss-crossing spiral can be represented by a fraction describing the angle. The angle of each floret in a sunflower is relative to the next at a degree of 137.51, otherwise known as the golden angle. The result is a pattern of interconnecting spirals, where the number of left and right spirals are successive Fibonacci numbers. The Fibonacci sequence can be found in pine cones, branching plants, seed heads and even sea shell shapes.

    Researchers copied this pattern and angled each mirror at about 137 degrees relative to its neighbor, according to MIT. The result was a compact, efficient pattern.
    http://www.smartplanet.com/blo.....ower/12016

    Of related note to the ‘top down’ Fibonacci design of the sunflower is this beautifully done video:

    Nature by Numbers – video
    http://vimeo.com/9953368

    Quote:

    Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.
    Galileo Galilei

  106. So your response is a post that has nothing to do with what we are talking about? Figures.
    99% of it wasnt even your own words.
    Its ok, your friends here will all console you and trash-talk AVS the troll, dont worry. Just know that when you and your buddies are confronted with real science, you have nothing to say.

  107. AVS you claim that you have an demonstrated example???

    So first we take our lysozyme gene, then we mutate it. Now, incase you didnt know, mutations are an important part of evolution (theres your “darwinian processes”). Now, after just a small number of mutations, the lysozyme gene produces a protein that has a different amino acid sequence, and this new protein sequence folds into a completely different proetin, alpha-lactalbumin.

    Yet they did no such thing! They merely compared sequences and claimed that one evolved from the other!

    Molecular divergence of lysozymes and alpha-lactalbumin.
    Excerpt: Lysozyme C gene also gave rise, after gene duplication 300 to 400 million years ago, to a gene that currently codes for alpha-lactalbumin, a protein expressed only in the lactating mammary gland of all but a few species of mammals
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9307874

    Perhaps your reading of English is trailing your writing of it AVS because that is certainly not a demonstrated example? In fact all such claimed proofs for evolution turn out to be ‘just so’ story telling which does nothing but assumes as a conclusion the very thing being debated.

  108. Mr Bornagain, youre getting senile in your old age. You asked for “an example of Darwinian processes creating a new protein,” that was what the lysozyme example was to. Then you asked for a “demonstrated example” and I gave you the helianthus example.
    The issue is not with my command of the English language, but your failing memory.

  109. AVS, now, now, I know you think you got this whole English as a second language thing down, but when I ask for a example of Darwinian processes creating a protein, I mean exactly that, I want an actual example (i.e. a demonstration) of Darwinian processes creating a protein. I don’t want you claiming (lying about) laboratory work which they have not done, and I don’t want you pointing to sequence similarities between different proteins, and I don’t want you pointing to plant hybridization which created no new genetic information, I want you to put your money where your mouth is and show me just one example of purely Darwinian processes creating a new protein. This should be a piece of cake for you. You should literally have thousands upon thousands (if not millions) of examples you could produce to silence Darwin critics, but you have none! Why is this AVS and why do you resort to such underhanded tactics (of misdirection and deception) to try to make it look like you have actual evidence for Darwinism when you have none?

  110. AVS:

    So first we take our lysozyme gene, then we mutate it. … Now, after just a small number of mutations, the lysozyme gene produces a protein that has a different amino acid sequence, and this new protein sequence folds into a completely different proetin, alpha-lactalbumin.

    If that’s true, it’s definitely of interest.

    This is a gene that was transcribed to mRNA and translated into a protein?

    As this lysozyme gene mutated, what happened to it’s fitness? Each mutation to the gene resulted in more copies in each subsequent generation? What happened to the carriers of the original gene? Selected against? Reduced in numbers as a total of the population?

    Now, after just a small number of mutations, the lysozyme gene produces a protein that has a different amino acid sequence, and this new protein sequence folds into a completely different proetin, alpha-lactalbumin.

    If that were true they would call it the alpha-lactalbumin gene.

    The alpha-lactalbumin is a subunit of lactose-synthase, an enzyme responsible for lactose production, a disaccharide that influences milk production

    You seem to be asserting that some gene (lysozyme) evolved into a subunit of some other gene (lactose-synthase).

    I’ll stop now and give you an opportunity to explain.

    Of primary interest is your claim that this alleged transformation involved a new protein fold.

    AVS:

    this new protein sequence folds into a completely different proetin

  111. Oh Im sorry, you want an “actual example”…riiighttt.
    Look, Im not sure what is so confusing about this, our genes undergo mutation, its a fact of biology. If the alpha-lactalbumin gene is mutated in a small number of places, you get the lysozyme gene. What is so hard about that? Why do you need me to come to your house, set up a lab, and show you how this works? Is this why you failed all your science classes? Probably.
    “Created no new genetic material”? Really? Are you serious? A whole new species came about. You want all these examples, but you cant even understand or accept the most basic of them. Its like talking to a wall.
    By the way, was that your first copy/paste/random quote-free post ever? Wow. Its a big day for you.

  112. AVS, when you get done answering mung’s specific and interesting questions, I also want you to focus on the specific question I asked you (use a dictionary if it helps):

    ‘could you be so kind as to provide an actual example of Darwinian processes creating a new protein instead of assuming your conclusion with sequence comparisons?’

    note:

    The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds – Douglas Axe – 2010
    Excerpt Pg. 11: “Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin.”
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2010.1

  113. AVS:

    Look, Im not sure what is so confusing about this, our genes undergo mutation, its a fact of biology. If the alpha-lactalbumin gene is mutated in a small number of places, you get the lysozyme gene. What is so hard about that?

    Permit me to explain.

    Earlier you claimed that it was the lysozyme gene that underwent mutation in order to produce the alpha-lactalbumin gene.

    But now you assert that it is the alpha-lactalbumin gene that is mutated in a small number of places to get the lysozyme gene.

    Troll much?

  114. Or maybe I switched the two accidentally? I know its hard to imagine, but even Im not perfect. If you guys really cant put two and two together to realize that, then this is hopeless.
    No matter what I say, you guys are gonna dance your way around it and BS you way through a response.
    If you want to learn, pay for an education. When you get your science info from unscientific sources, this is what happens.
    Now enjoy having the last words here because I have better things to do than teach you guys.
    Adios.
    And this is for real barb. Hope you finally dug that stick out of your rear. Doesnt look like it though.

  115. Take care AVS, and I hope you finally lose that shallow ego of yours so as to be more friendly. It really is unbecoming for you to wall yourself off like that from other people. Underneath that gruff facade you put on you seem to have a very decent sense of humor,,

    poem:

    Ocean Sunset
    The deep stirring sounds of the ocean surf
    And the breathtaking hues of the setting sun’s sky
    Speaks a tension between time and timeless
    That brings a holiness to mind and eye
    Surely its a spatial dimension that
    We barely perceive but do not yet possess
    An apparent sheen on the near side of infinity
    We are allowed to see but not yet transgress
    The overwhelming beauty of this translucent
    Continuum strips the veil of my shallow ego
    And these moments of spiritual transcendence
    Have been as much immortality as I know
    For I come suddenly upon a awareness
    Of the force of life and love that is shared within me
    And the strange but perfect exhilaration that
    God made both this ocean sunset and me to be

  116. 116

    AVS @ 68 you state “I’ve no idea what you are talking about. If you cant look at the info on the numerous species of primates, especially the hominids, and say they look like transitional species then I dont know what to tell you.
    That is all.”

    These transitions you speak of are slight modifications of the same basic skeletal plan. Little is known about how genetics causes these slight variations during embryo development or even how vulnerable they are to mutation. Same goes with instinctive behaviors… Little is known about how and where this inherited information is stored and if it is even subject to mutation. But for evolution to be true it must be assumed that shapes and sizes of morphological features along with inherited behavioral traits are subject to mutation. Where is the proof ? Perhaps the natural variation in the gene pool is not the result of mutation but is found to be fixed in the species.

    Now admittedly it might not be so hard (who knows?) to stretch or distort a existing feature already providing some function. This is the easier to do kind of evolution. Much more difficult is to evolve new innovations which require new tissues (and thus new proteins) along with genetically controlled shaping of the parts during embryo development along with development of new inherited behaviors which might be necessary for this new feature to function.

    Since you know so much about biology I would like to move onto something more difficult to explain. How about explaining to us dummies how invertebrates transitioned into vertebrates …. since your specialty seems to be vertebrate forms.

  117. AVS:

    Now enjoy having the last words here because I have better things to do than teach you guys.
    Adios.

    You leave us wondering whether it was the lysozyme gene that underwent mutation in order to produce the alpha-lactalbumin gene or it was the the alpha-lactalbumin gene that was mutated in a small number of places to get the lysozyme gene.

    “Maybe I switched the two accidentally” is not an explanation.

    Adios. Troll.

  118. FACTS SUCK! IF YOU’RE A LIAR.

  119. My my, did I strike a nerve?
    Just to clear up my simple mistake, it was lysozyme that gave rise to alpha-lactalbumin.
    I wouldnt want you to be anymore confused than you already are Mung.
    Mr. Johnny, please do everyone a favor and stop talking about science.
    And thanks for the well-wishes Mr Bornagain, have a goodone.
    Bye guys <3

  120. AVS,

    We can only hope for the evolution of a troll nerve. Until then, it’s not at all likely that you struck a nerve that has not yet evolved.

    AVS:

    Just to clear up my simple mistake, it was lysozyme that gave rise to alpha-lactalbumin.

    Yet the source I cited says:

    The alpha-lactalbumin is a subunit of lactose-synthase, an enzyme responsible for lactose production, a disaccharide that influences milk production

  121. 121

    AVS @ 114

    “I have better things to do than teach you guys.
    Adios.”

    Sorry you have to go …. but thanks for teaching us how to effectively overuse ad hominem and insult.

  122. AVS: “And this is for real barb. Hope you finally dug that stick out of your rear. Doesnt look like it though.”

    More pathetically-worded ad hominems from an unintelligent troll. Got anything substantial to add? No? Begone.

  123. 123

    What is so pathetic is that this one is such a true believer ??

  124. A point to be made on AVS’s comments about new species being formed: one definition of “kind” is “a family or group of living creatures or things that are interfertile among themselves, but not fertile with others outside their family. (That is, whose sex cells will unite to form, or begin to form, an offspring; but with those of another ‘kind’ or family are absolutely incompatible and unable to unite.)” This definition is the same as the old definition once given to “species.”

    Then “species” was used to mean the offspring of a single specially created pair. But with the advent of the theory of evolution “species” has changed meaning and according to present-day scientific usage numerous species may all be of the one Biblical kind. When variations occur within the one kind evolutionists speak of some of them as new species and as evidence that species change; according to their narrowed-down definition of “species” it is true, but species do not change if we hold to the old definition of the term and which coincides with the above definition of the Biblical kind.

    Any hybrids he may be able to produce through breeding experiments are not really evidence of evolution in action, simply because if plants or animals are interfertile and produce offspring they are of the same kind; there is no stepping over the kind boundary. It is impossible to overstep this boundary, because two different kinds are not interfertile and no offspring could result. Through selective breeding and cross-breeding and mutations a great variety of plants or animals may be developed, but they are all within the boundary of their kind. Science is without evidence to successfully dispute this.

Leave a Reply