Home » Intelligent Design » Darwinism: Pathetically Low Standards of Evidence, Unacceptable Anywhere Else

Darwinism: Pathetically Low Standards of Evidence, Unacceptable Anywhere Else

In my work in aerospace R&D I produce computer simulations using what is arguably the most sophisticated Finite Element Analysis program ever developed: LS-DYNA. It was originally conceived and developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the mid-1970s for research into variable-yield nuclear weapons. For more than 35 years it has been under constant refinement and development by the best and the brightest in the field.

This computational tool is phenomenally valuable and powerful, because it can tell you what is likely to work and what is not. However, it is not a perfect representation of reality — simplifying assumptions must be made or the computational overhead will become insurmountable. The trick is knowing and identifying what simplifying assumptions can be made and which cannot, in order to produce a valid computational result that conforms with physical reality.

I’ve just completed a series of FEA simulations at work, and I have empirical verification that my simulations are accurate for part of the simulation suite, but I cannot be sure that the rest of the simulation is accurate concerning the components for which I have no empirical validation.

We will therefore produce physical tests to validate the accuracy of the simulations. The value of the simulations is that we can hopefully destroy one thing at minimal cost, as opposed to destroying many things at a huge cost in order to get it right by iterative destruction and refinement of real, expensive, physical stuff.

Despite the incredible sophistication of LS-DYNA, empirical tests are always required to validate the results.

Where is such a standard of empirical validation for Darwinian “scientists”? They tell stories, invent weasel computer programs that have nothing to do with physical or evolutionary reality, pontificate, and tell intelligent people who point out the rationally ludicrous nature of their propositions that such people “just don’t understand evolutionary theory” (meaning, of course, the power of the Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection to explain all of biological reality).

I understand it just fine, and it’s logically, mathematically, and empirically totally vacuous.

The answer is: Darwinism is pseudoscience. It has some measure of truth (random mutations and natural selection can do some stuff), but is held to a low standard of evidence that would be laughed at and ridiculed by any legitimate scientist in any rigorous field of scientific endeavor.

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

39 Responses to Darwinism: Pathetically Low Standards of Evidence, Unacceptable Anywhere Else

  1. I agree, and to elaborate a little, it is my view that the heart of Darwinism is not really random mutation/natural selection, but rather it is the proposition that all major changes to living organisms can and have come about through long series of minor changes. It is this proposition for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence, not in laboratory studies, observations in nature, nor in the fossil record.

    Indeed, when you pin Darwinists down, they can’t even come up with detailed hypothetical scenarios for such Darwinian evolutionary paths, not for the bacterial flagellum, nor the feather, nor the avian lung, nor the life cycle of the sheep liver fluke, nor the evolution of whales, etc., etc., etc.

  2. Gil,

    “I understand it just fine, and it’s logically, mathematically, and empirically totally vacuous.”

    I totally agree. When I talk to people now I say I object to evolution on scientific grounds. This usually ends the conversation successfully. If they understand the science they don’t disagree. If they don’t understand the science they are afraid to debate. It works for me.

  3. The problem with the Darwinian position is easily diagnosed: it is a clear case of hasty generalization followed by a shifting of the burden coupled with the demand for an unreasonable standard of “disproof”.

    Because RM & NS can generate some biological variance, it is assumed that they can generate all biological variance found today and in the fossil record. That is clearly a case of hasty generalization.

    Then, they shift the burden. Instead of formally (empirically or through a valid mathematical analysis) demonstrating RM & NS to be at least plausibly capable of producing a variety of biological target features (winged flight, the bacterial flagellum), they assert only the bare possibility that RM & NS could have generated it, then expect critics to prove that it is impossible for RM & NS to generate the feature in question.

    These are very easily-recognizable logical fallacies. It is not up to critics to prove it is impossible for RM & NS to generate the flagellum or winged flight; it is up to advocates to formally demonstrate the scientific plausibility of RM & NS to generate those features.

    That has not been done, yet it is claimed as a scientific fact.

    It is really a mind-boggling case of ideological bias.

  4. Naturalists can afford to keep their standard of evidence low, because on their view, evolution must be true regardless of any evidence. There is no other possible explanation on the table for them to consider.

    It ought to be a matter of concern to naturalistic evolutionists that their worldview forces their conclusions: that where there are anomalies in the expected evidence for evolution, they must find ways to explain them within the evolutionary paradigm, because they have absolutely no other option.

    I wonder if they ask themselves, “Am I inferring that x has an evolutionary explanation because the evidence supports that inference, or because I have to infer an evolutionary explanation regardless of the evidence?”

    More to the point, I wonder if they have thought through any means by which to discern which is the case. Other than blatant chronological anomalies (a human footprint in a dinosaur track, for example) I have never seen any such test proposed. But the absence of chronological anomalies can be consistent with non-naturalistic Darwinian accounts as well.

    If they have not worked out that method of discernment, then it seems they really ought to be concerned about the possibility of deceiving themselves concerning evolution—because if they haven’t done that work, then they haven’t done what it takes to know the difference between a valid inference and a self-deceptive one.

  5. One of the obfuscations that Darwinists use is to conflate the entirety of evolutionary theory with the specific capacity of RM & NS to plausibly generate what they are claimed to generate.

    When asked for formal predictions, they often point to predictions about what kind of fossils will be found where, and in what strata, or point out predictions of so-called intermediary fossils or genetic connections found in the lab, such as the amount of genetic similarity found between apes and humans; or they point out that all living creatures share some similar DNA.

    Those references are non-sequiturs; they have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not RM & NS have been shown to be able to produce what they are claimed to have in fact produced. A footprint where it doesn’t belong doesn’t invalidate RM & NS theory; a perfect lineage of transitional fossils of every living creature doesn’t support RM & NS theory one iota. The ability to predict how much DNA is shared between two species – again – doesn’t demonstrate RM & NS to be capable of doing what it is claimed to do.

    Darwinist often conflate evidence for common descent and the current evolutionary timeline with evidence for the creative power of RM & NS.

  6. OT: Gil I think you may really appreciate the honesty in this article:

    Life on death row
    Excerpt: I stopped cold with a shirt half folded in my hand when I became aware of my reaction. Where did that come from? How on earth could I, a middle-class girl who’s never even been to the county jail, have the faintest idea what a former death row penitentiary inmate was talking about?

    And then I realized: because when I was an atheist, I lived on death row.
    http://www.conversiondiary.com.....h-row.html

  7. Gil,

    I wonder if you could confirm an intuition I have?

    I am a retired electrical engineer. Part of my career I was a logic design engineer. I designed the logic circuits for chips that went into computers. The design process included a phase in which the design was submitted to an emulation program. The program emulated physical and electrical reality. It provided a “real world” test of the operation of the chip – most importantly, the correct logical operation. All electrical and physical parameters (capacitance, inductance, etc.) were represented in the emulation. If my chip did not pass the emulation, it was back to the drawing board.

    My intuition is that an “evolution emulation” would not work, even if some fundamental hurdles could be overcome. My envisioned “EE” program would be run by varying all possible environmental variables that a subject organism would be exposed to, i.e., temperature, humidity, chemical composition of the environment – and the list goes on and on. (I don’t envision a simple program.)

    In other words, let’s create a computer organism consisting of real proteins and subject it to real environmental changes.

    These are some fundamental hurdles I see:

    *Relating a new protein to a given genetic change. (The foldability problem.)

    *Relating a new protein to its selectability by a given set of environmental variables.

    *Relating a complex of new proteins to a morphological change.

    I am suspicious that if science knew enough to be able to write such a program, the program would not be necessary. Evolution would be falsified during the design phase of the project.

  8. Mr. Dodgen:
    The trick is knowing and identifying what simplifying assumptions can be made and which cannot, in order to produce a valid computational result that conforms with physical reality.

    And therein lies the essential difference between an Engineer and a Scientist. Most (if not all) pure scientists risk only their reputations and future grant money if they’re mistaken, let alone careless or even fraudulent in their findings. Engineers, OTOH, risk peoples lives and property. When Engineers are careless, bridges collapse, buildings fall, planes crash etc. Engineers often must pass rigorous certification and licensing exams as a prequisite to working in many industries, long before they ever get a chance to prove out a design. We care very much that our engineers be right, but our scientists not so much.

    Darwinism is pseudoscience. … is held to a low standard of evidence that would be laughed at and ridiculed by any legitimate scientist in any rigorous field of scientific endeavor.

    As would most engineers, and there are more engineers than scientists with a far more realistic grasp of physical complexity and the difference between design (what engineers do) and accident (what engineers avoid).

    I have often wondered why ID seemingly constrains itself to discourse within the “scientific” community when the engineering community is just as savvy in theory and more sophisticated in the application of theory to reality, and often has far more credibility with society because engineered things objectvely, predictibly and provably “work” whereas most scientific endeavors merely “study”, the findings of which often meet no standard of objectivity.

    Engineers, I would think, are generally a much more receptive audience to inconvenient facts and omissions than are scientists.

  9. A follow up point:

    If engineers clung to alchemy the way biologists cling to Darwinism, we’d still be living in (leaky, drafty) grass huts.

    If ever there was a self-correcting discipline, it is engineering. If anyone follows the evidence where it leads, it is the engineer.

  10. Charles,

    and if I like my leaky drafty grass hut, what then? :)

  11. Charles, great point vis-a-vis the engineers. And Collin is welcome to his hut. :-)

  12. Collin:

    and if I like my leaky drafty grass hut, what then?

    Lol – then don’t posit a multi-verse in which your grass hut accidently evolved into a condo.

    People who live in grass huts shouldn’t advertise timeshares.

  13. you still don’t get it guys, engineers? you’re not scientists, and if you were, you still have to be biologists, but that’s not enough either, you must be evolutionists, or you couldn’t possibly understand the issues.

    UNLESS, you DO buy in to evolution, and then you could be a hollywood script writer, OR anything else, and your opinions are as valid as those of Darwin.

    aside:

    when they googled and bing-ed
    the phrase: mbzrxpgjys

    they got the same results;

    google CLAIMS this means bing
    is “borrowing” their algorithm,
    but I’m sure bing’s algorithm
    evolved independently to produce
    the same result. It’s no where near as complex as a genome, so why not?

    Oh yeah, you can only infer design
    if you already know a designer exists! That’s the ticket!

  14. Dr. Dogen writes: “They tell stories, invent weasel computer programs that have nothing to do with physical or evolutionary reality, pontificate, and tell intelligent people who point out the rationally ludicrous nature of their propositions that such people “just don’t understand evolutionary theory” (meaning, of course, the power of the Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection to explain all of biological reality).”

    That is nice if you have evidence to support your statements but Dr. Dodgen provides absolutely none. Why are we to take an aerospace engineer at his word when his comments seem to indicate that he has had no education in biology or geology? There are thousands of testable hypotheses that evolution has passed with flying colors—from the biogeographical evidence of marsupial radiation, to the appearance of the earliest tetrapods which were predicted by evolutionary theory to shared genetic mistakes, just to name three.

    There are thousands of other tests that have been done revealing that evolutionary theory is one of the most robust theories in science. Just ask creationist Todd Wood. Anyone who throws around derogatory comments and thinks that evolutionary explanations are just “stories” is talking through his hat.

  15. jimpithecus,

    actually you yourself just provided conformational evidence that ‘intelligence’ can generate information far in excess of what can reasonably be expected from the entire ‘natural’ material processes of the universe, over the entire history of the universe, with just your short post.

    H.P. Yockey also notes in the Journal of Theoretical Biology:
    It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical:
    “Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory,” J. Theoret. Biol.

    Book Review – Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.
    Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren’t chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome.
    So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it’s a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail.
    http://www.fourmilab.ch/docume.....k_726.html

    You see Mr. Pithecus, no one has ever seen material processes, evolutionary processes in particular, generate functional ‘prescriptive’ information:

    The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency – Dr David L. Abel – November 2010
    Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
    http://www.scitopics.com/The_L.....iency.html

    The GS (genetic selection) Principle – David L. Abel – 2009
    Excerpt: Stunningly, information has been shown not to increase in the coding regions of DNA with evolution. Mutations do not produce increased information. Mira et al (65) showed that the amount of coding in DNA actually decreases with evolution of bacterial genomes, not increases. This paper parallels Petrov’s papers starting with (66) showing a net DNA loss with Drosophila evolution (67). Konopka (68) found strong evidence against the contention of Subba Rao et al (69, 70) that information increases with mutations. The information content of the coding regions in DNA does not tend to increase with evolution as hypothesized. Konopka also found Shannon complexity not to be a suitable indicator of evolutionary progress over a wide range of evolving genes. Konopka’s work applies Shannon theory to known functional text. Kok et al. (71) also found that information does not increase in DNA with evolution. As with Konopka, this finding is in the context of the change in mere Shannon uncertainty. The latter is a far more forgiving definition of information than that required for prescriptive information (PI) (21, 22, 33, 72). It is all the more significant that mutations do not program increased PI. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces formal function. No increase in Shannon or Prescriptive information occurs in duplication. What the above papers show is that not even variation of the duplication produces new information, not even Shannon “information.”
    http://www.scitopics.com/The_G.....ciple.html
    http://www.us.net/life/index.htm

    Dr. Don Johnson explains the difference between Shannon Information and Prescriptive Information, as well as explaining ‘the cybernetic cut’, in this following Podcast:

    Programming of Life – Dr. Donald Johnson interviewed by Casey Luskin – audio podcast
    http://www.idthefuture.com/201....._life.html

    and even though no one has seen evolutionary processes generate information, life is filled to overflowing with ‘information,:

    “a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-363647

  16. And Mr. Pithecus, to show you how flimsy your evidence is, you state:

    ‘the appearance of the earliest tetrapods which were predicted by evolutionary theory’

    Yet when we look closer we find:

    The supposed ‘evidence’ for the evolution of fish to land dwelling creatures is not even close to the conclusive evidence evolutionists pretend that it is:

    Tiktaalik- Out Of Order
    Excerpt: One of the problems with an evolutionary interpretation of the fishapods is that these creatures appear to be out of order.
    http://www.reasons.org/OutofOrder

    Tiktaalik Blown “Out of the Water” by Earlier Tetrapod Fossil Footprints – January 2010
    Excerpt: The tracks predate the oldest tetrapod skeletal remains by 18 Myr and, more surprisingly, the earliest elpistostegalian fishes by about 10 Myr.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....e_wat.html

    This following article has a excellent summary of the ‘less than forthright’ manner in which Darwinists handle anyone who dares to tell of falsifications to their paltry evidence for ‘transitional’ fossils:

    Evolutionary Biologists Are Unaware of Their Own Arguments: Reappraising Nature’s Prized “Gem,” Tiktaalik – Casey Luskin – September 2010
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....38261.html

    Mr, Pithecus as ‘proof’ you also state:

    ‘shared genetic mistakes’

    Yet when we look closer:

    Pseudogenes and the Origin of Humanity: A Response to the Venema Critique of the RTB Human Origins Model, Part 7 – Vitamin C refutation
    Excerpt: Yet, as biologist Peter Borger points out, fifty percent of the mutations in the primate and guinea pig exon X sequence are identical. In addition, the guinea pig exon X region shows a mutation at position 97, the location in the primate genomes where a deletion took place. These shared features could not have resulted because guinea pigs and primates shared a common ancestor. Instead, they must reflect nonrandom, reproducible changes.
    http://www.reasons.org/pseudog.....del-part-7

    Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVS) A Case for Common Descent or A Case for Incorrect Presupposition?
    http://www.whoisyourcreator.co.....ruses.html

    Endogenous retroviruses regulate periimplantation placental growth and differentiation
    http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14390.abstract

    Refutation Of Endogenous Retrovirus – Richard Sternberg PhD. – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4094119/

    Mr. Pithecus, I would really be careful of putting all your eggs in that ‘junk DNA’ basket in the first place:

    Francis Collins, Darwin of the Gaps, and the Fallacy Of Junk DNA – video
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....40361.html

    And Mr. Pithecus, why do you only pay attention to the flimsy genetic evidence that supports your position whilst ignoring the stronger evidence which disconfirms it?

    Human Evolution? – The Compelling Genetic, Fossil Evidence & Tool Making For Adam and Eve
    Dr. Fazale Rana – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4284482

    Dr. Rana defends the integrity of the genetic evidence for Adam and Eve, on page 4 of the following site, from some pretty high level criticism:

    Were They Real? The Scientific Case for Adam and Eve by Fazale Rana – November 2010
    http://www.reasons.org/files/e.....010-04.pdf

    The “Eve” Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence – John Sanford
    Excerpt: Given the high mutation rate within mitochondria and the large geographic separation among the individuals within our dataset, we did not expect to find the original human mitochondrial sequence to be so well preserved within modern populations. With the exception of a very few ambiguous nucleotides, the consensus sequence clearly represents Eve’s mitochondrial DNA sequence.
    http://www.icr.org/article/mit.....-sequence/

  17. And Mr. Pithecus, to show you how flimsy your evidence is, you state:

    ‘the appearance of the earliest tetrapods which were predicted by evolutionary theory’

    Yet when we look closer we find:

    The supposed ‘evidence’ for the evolution of fish to land dwelling creatures is not even close to the conclusive evidence evolutionists pretend that it is:

    Tiktaalik- Out Of Order
    Excerpt: One of the problems with an evolutionary interpretation of the fishapods is that these creatures appear to be out of order.
    http://www.reasons.org/OutofOrder

    Tiktaalik Blown “Out of the Water” by Earlier Tetrapod Fossil Footprints – January 2010
    Excerpt: The tracks predate the oldest tetrapod skeletal remains by 18 Myr and, more surprisingly, the earliest elpistostegalian fishes by about 10 Myr.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....e_wat.html

    This following article has a excellent summary of the ‘less than forthright’ manner in which Darwinists handle anyone who dares to tell of falsifications to their paltry evidence for ‘transitional’ fossils:

    Evolutionary Biologists Are Unaware of Their Own Arguments: Reappraising Nature’s Prized “Gem,” Tiktaalik – Casey Luskin – September 2010
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....38261.html

    Mr, Pithecus as ‘proof’ you also state:

    ‘shared genetic mistakes’

    Yet when we look closer:

    Pseudogenes and the Origin of Humanity: A Response to the Venema Critique of the RTB Human Origins Model, Part 7 – Vitamin C refutation
    Excerpt: Yet, as biologist Peter Borger points out, fifty percent of the mutations in the primate and guinea pig exon X sequence are identical. In addition, the guinea pig exon X region shows a mutation at position 97, the location in the primate genomes where a deletion took place. These shared features could not have resulted because guinea pigs and primates shared a common ancestor. Instead, they must reflect nonrandom, reproducible changes.
    http://www.reasons.org/pseudog.....del-part-7

    Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVS) A Case for Common Descent or A Case for Incorrect Presupposition?
    http://www.whoisyourcreator.co.....ruses.html

    Endogenous retroviruses regulate periimplantation placental growth and differentiation
    http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14390.abstract

    Refutation Of Endogenous Retrovirus – Richard Sternberg PhD. – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4094119/

    Mr. Pithecus, I would really be careful of putting all your eggs in that ‘junk DNA’ basket in the first place:

    Francis Collins, Darwin of the Gaps, and the Fallacy Of Junk DNA – video
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....40361.html

  18. Bornagain, you proceed from a false assumption. I am not an atheist, nor do I believe that evolution acts in a vacuum. I am an evolutionary creationist.

    Bringing “origins of life” questions into this is inappropriate. Evolutionary theory does not address those. You should also read the review of Dr. Meyer’s book by Steve Matheson at Quintessence of Dust. He is not complementary. In any event, that was not the subject of my post.

    Dr. Abel addresses the “GS Principle” and then trashes it. Fair enough. That is not how palaentologists think anyway. Selection acts on the phenotype, not the genotype. His “Physicodynamic Insufficiency” assumes a neutral selection environment. This is the same sort of fuzzy thinking that William Dembski uses to argue that selection will never amount to any new information. It is a pity he never addresses the criticisms to his work, such as that here.

    If you think that selection, acting in the presence of mutation does not generate new forms, try talking to some biologists who know otherwise. Studies that show the effects of selection on different environments are commonplace. Google Scholar (not Google) listed over two hundred thousand within the last ten years alone.

  19. Well. Mr. Pithecus I have been asking the same question for several years now, and since you seem to be well versed in these matters, perhaps you are the one to answer it,,,,

    Mr. Pithecus, will you please show me the evidence for ‘vertical’ evolution???, i.e. Please show me the evidence that material ‘evolutionary’ processes can generate functional prescriptive information over and above that which was already present.,,, Since the information in life greatly outclasses the sophistication of even what our best programmers can produce, I am sure you should have no problem producing thousands upon thousands of examples for ‘vertical’ evolution,,,, but to save time can you please just present the ‘concrete’ one that can withstand our scrutiny?,,, as well can you Preferably show me one that has violated the ‘fitness’ test:

    Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? – ‘The Fitness Test’ – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248

    further note:

    Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria – 2008
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....-drugstore

    Thank Goodness the NCSE Is Wrong: Fitness Costs Are Important to Evolutionary Microbiology
    Excerpt: it (an antibiotic resistant bacterium) reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....s_wro.html

    List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
    http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

    The following study is far more extensive than the preceding study, and solidly backs up the preceding conclusion:

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net ‘fitness gain’ within a ‘stressed’ environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more ‘fit’)
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

    Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast:

    Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time – December 2010
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....3_46-08_00

    The previously listed ‘fitness test’, and paper by Dr. Behe, fairly conclusively demonstrates ‘optimal information’ was originally encoded within a parent bacteria/bacterium by God, and has not been added to by any ‘teleological’ methods in the beneficial adaptations of the sub-species of bacteria. Thus the inference to Genetic Entropy, i.e. that God has not specifically moved within nature in a teleological manner, to gradually increase the functional information of a genome, still holds as true for the principle of Genetic Entropy.

  20. “8

    Charles

    02/01/2011

    11:31 am

    A follow up point:

    If engineers clung to alchemy the way biologists cling to Darwinism, we’d still be living in (leaky, drafty) grass huts.

    If ever there was a self-correcting discipline, it is engineering. If anyone follows the evidence where it leads, it is the engineer.”

    Exactly. No way engineers could ever work with evolutionary biologists. I’ve worked in an engineering environment for about 14 years now I can attest that when things break…they have to be fixed. Now time for theories, conferences or blogging.

  21. Mr. Pithecus,

    Here is a response to Matheson’s ‘fact free’ rebuttal of Dr. Meyer:

    The Fact-Free “Science” of Matheson, Hunt and Moran: Ridicule Instead of Reason, Authority Instead of Evidence
    Excerpt: One might think that professors Matheson, Hunt and Moran would address the conceptual issue calmly, rationally, and collegially. But they don’t; instead, they stoop to misrepresentation and ridicule. And one might think that they would address the empirical issue by citing published scientific evidence. But they don’t; instead, they simply proclaim themselves the only authorities on the subject.

    Who you gonna believe, them or your own eyes?
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....35521.html

  22. Jimpithecus:

    If you think that selection, acting in the presence of mutation does not generate new forms, try talking to some biologists who know otherwise.

    There aren’t any such biologists. No one has ever observed selection, acting in the presence of mutation, constructing anything.

    The best you can offer is what Lenski et al have published.

    The theory of evolution makes vague predictions but not one based on genetic accidents/ errors/ mistakes. It sure as heck doesn’t predict shared mistakes- that is just nonsense- as if a mistake is going to stay around all the while other mutations are having a party.

  23. Jimpithecus: “Dr. Dogen writes:”

    Thanks for the honorary Ph.D.! I’ve always wanted one. Unfortunately, my three college degrees are in music (concert pianist) and foreign language and literature (French).

    I am completely self-taught concerning software engineering (including artificial-intelligence, which first inspired my interest in this discipline). See here:

    http://www.worldchampionshipcheckers.com/

    I am also completely self-taught concerning mechanical, aeronautical, and multiple other engineering disciplines. I enjoy learning new stuff and figuring things out on my own. I undoubtedly got this penchant from my father, who is the most brilliant scientist I have ever known:

    http://www.wsu.edu/nrc/nrc_dodgen.html

    Once I was inspired to investigate the claims of Darwinists (step-by-tiny-step gradualism and the creative powers of the Darwinian mechanism) it became immediately obvious that this stuff is utterly ludicrous speculation, unsupported by any convincing empirical evidence or even the most superficial analytical scrutiny.

  24. As a footnote concerning engineering versus theoretical science:

    I love theoretical science, especially mathematics. Euler’s identity and the fact that the laws of physics can be represented with relatively simple mathematical formulae are perpetually fascinating and intriguing.

    However, engineering puts one in touch with the messiness of everyday reality, and is therefore perhaps a much higher scientific calling. This is something for which philosophically committed Darwinists have no apparent appreciation. Dawkins, Hitchens, and others of their ilk live in what David Berlinski has accurately described as a “smoke-filled room” of unsubstantiated speculation.

  25. Jimpithecus:

    Anyone who throws around derogatory comments and thinks that evolutionary explanations are just “stories” is talking through his hat.

    Strange, I am a MD, I have been talking about these points here and elsewhere in great details form a stricty biological point of view, and I don’t feel that I have been “talking through my hat”.

    Are you interested in a detailed debate, or are you “talking through your hat”?

    That is nice if you have evidence to support your statements but Dr. Dodgen provides absolutely none.

    Maybe Gil has not given evidence in this particular post, which is rather a general comment, but he, and the rest of us, have presented evidence for years here.

    Why are we to take an aerospace engineer at his word when his comments seem to indicate that he has had no education in biology or geology?

    Maybe because he says things that are true? Or are you among those who think that having a degree is a licence to say falsities?

    There are thousands of testable hypotheses that evolution has passed with flying colors—from the biogeographical evidence of marsupial radiation, to the appearance of the earliest tetrapods which were predicted by evolutionary theory to shared genetic mistakes, just to name three.

    Please, explain in detail how any of thsoe is evidence of the neo-darwinian explanatory mechanisms, and I will comment on what you say.

    There are thousands of other tests that have been done revealing that evolutionary theory is one of the most robust theories in science.

    Interesting. Let’s start with one, please.

    Just ask creationist Todd Wood.

    I ask you. You are making those statements here.

  26. Gil,

    I think its very cool that you are self taught in software engineering. I wish that I could have taught myself the law instead of paying 87 grand for the education. It was a good education, but still…

  27. Ernst Mayr worked for years with butterflies in the American Museum of Natural History leading him to come up with the “Biological Species Concept.” George Gaylord Simpson worked with populations of extinct mammals and traced their migration patterns through the fossil record. Sewall Wright used his work with livestock to devise the “inbreeding coefficient” and concepts of evolution involving genetic drift. Verne Grant used his work in botany to write over 146 papers involving evolution and selection.

    “Interesting. Let’s start with one, please.” Sure. Charles Darwin predicted that the earliest ancestors of humans would be found in Africa because that is where the closest relatives of humans currently reside. In the early 1920s, that is exactly what we found. Raymond Dart discovered Australopithecus africanus and touched off a wave of discoveries that continues to this day.

    It was predicted that if humans and great apes share a common ancestry, they should share common genetic mistakes. That was corroborated with by discoveries of shared endogenous retroviral DNA, the shared lack of a working gene to create vitamin C, and the fusion of two ape chromosomes to create chromosome two in humans. All of these were predicted before they were found.

    In response to asking why an aerospace engineer should be believed, gpuccio wrote:“Maybe because he says things that are true? Or are you among those who think that having a degree is a licence to say falsities?”

    That is just it. All I read were derogatory comments without any evidence to back them up. I work with a bunch of physicists and materials scientists. They don’t, as a rule, know much about evolution, nor do they pretend to.

    Bornagain77 cites the RTB critique of the human/ape genome data. Here is what Todd Wood has to say about that: “As far as I’m concerned, RTB’s credibility is completely shot (read my analysis of their handling of the Neandertal genome for more evidence of errors and exaggerations on the part of Ross, Rana, and Samples: parts one, two, three). I would recommend that no one accept any of RTB’s arguments without fact-checking their claims first. I do not know whether these problems are due to lazy scholarship, ignorance, intentional deception, or ideological blinders. What I do know is that you cannot trust Reasons to Believe.”

  28. Jimpithecus:

    Sorry, probably I was not specific enough. I am not interested in evidence for common descent. I believe in common descent. That’s a point about which BA and I disagree.

    I am interested in discussing the neo darwinian explanatory model, not common descent. ID is not, in itself, about common descent, but about the causal explanation of biological information.

    You mixed uo the two things in your posts. I should have specified the difference from the beginning.

    Well, I have done it now.

  29. Jimpithecus:

    Anyway, Gil’s post was about biological informnation, not about CD, That’s why I supposed that your arguments were about that too.

  30. Jimpithecus, as far as reliability, I certainly trust RTB more than I trust evolutionists as far as to coherently explain the evidence.

    As far as evidence goes let’s see what you got in the fossil record when we strip away all your hype:

    “Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” – George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.

    “Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether”. Evolutionist Henry Gee, Nature 2001
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....131a0.html

    New study suggests big bang theory of human evolution – U of M Press Release
    Excerpt: “The earliest H. sapiens (Human-like) remains differ significantly from australopithecines (ape-like) in both size and anatomical details. Insofar as we can tell, these changes were sudden and not gradual.”
    University of Michigan anthropologist Milford Wolpoff
    http://www.ns.umich.edu/Releas.....1000b.html

    “If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving”.
    Richard Leakey, world’s foremost paleo-anthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990.
    http://www.wasdarwinright.com/earlyman.htm

    The supposed next step for ‘human evolution’ does not fair any better for the evolutionists than Lucy did:

    The changing face of genus Homo – Wood; Collard
    Excerpt: the current criteria for identifying species of Homo are difficult, if not impossible, to operate using paleoanthropological evidence. We discuss alternative, verifiable, criteria, and show that when these new criteria are applied to Homo, two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, fail to meet them.
    http://www3.interscience.wiley.....0/abstract

    Human evolution?
    Excerpt: Some scientists have proposed moving this species (habilis) out of Homo and into Australopithecus (ape) due to the morphology of its skeleton being more adapted to living on trees rather than to moving on two legs like H. sapiens.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.....Genus_Homo

    New findings raise questions about who evolved from whom
    Excerpt: The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years,,, The two species lived near each other, but probably didn’t interact with each other, each having their own “ecological niche,” Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian and Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and apes, “they’d just avoid each other, they don’t feel comfortable in each other’s company,” he said.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20178936/

    The Truth About Human Origins:
    Excerpt: “It is practically impossible to determine which “family tree” (for human evolution) one should accept. Richard Leakey (of the famed fossil hunting family from Africa) has proposed one. His late mother, Mary Leakey, proposed another. Donald Johanson, former president of the Institute of Human Origins in Berkeley, California, has proposed yet another. And as late as 2001, Meave Leakey (Richard’s wife) has proposed still another.,,”
    http://books.google.com/books?.....8;lpg=PT28

    A 2004 book by leading evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr stated that “The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus (Lucy) by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”
    Misrepresentations of the Evidence for Human Evolutionary Origins:
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2......html#more

    Even though the preceding comment from a leading evolutionist in the field is crushing, to the smooth transition needed for the materialist to make his case for human evolution, you would think a materialist would at least have some sort of evidence he could cling to with the Homo erectus and the Homo rudolfensis fossils Mayr alluded to. Yet when we look at the evidence presented by the materialists themselves, for the proposed evolution of Homo Rudolfensis and erectus, the evidence is anything but straight forward and appears to be, once again, ‘shoehorned’ to fit their preconceived philosophical bias:

    “Dr. Leakey produced a biased reconstruction (of 1470/ Homo Rudolfensis) based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development,” Dr. Timothy Bromage
    http://www.geneticarchaeology......lieved.asp

  31. further note Jimpithecus,

    Hominids, Homonyms, and Homo sapiens – 05/27/2009 – Creation Safaris:
    Excerpt: Homo erectus is particularly controversial, because it is such a broad classification. Tattersall and Schwartz find no clear connection between the Asian, European and African specimens lumped into this class. “In his 1950 review, Ernst Mayr placed all of these forms firmly within the species Homo erectus,” they explained. “Subsequently, Homo erectus became the standard-issue ‘hominid in the middle,’ expanding to include not only the fossils just mentioned, but others of the same general period….”. They discussed the arbitrariness of this classification: “Put together, all these fossils (which span almost 2 myr) make a very heterogeneous assortment indeed; and placing them all together in the same species only makes any conceivable sense in the context of the ecumenical view of Homo erectus as the middle stage of the single hypervariable hominid lineage envisioned by Mayr (on the basis of a much slenderer record). Viewed from the morphological angle, however, the practice of cramming all of this material into a single Old World-wide species is highly questionable. Indeed, the stuffing process has only been rendered possible by a sort of ratchet effect, in which fossils allocated to Homo erectus almost regardless of their morphology have subsequently been cited as proof of just how variable the species can be.” By “ratchet effect,” they appear to mean something like a self-fulfilling prophecy: i.e., “Let’s put everything from this 2-million-year period into one class that we will call Homo erectus.” Someone complains, “But this fossil from Singapore is very different from the others.” The first responds, “That just shows how variable the species Homo erectus can be.”
    http://creationsafaris.com/cre.....#20090527a

    Icon Of Evolution – Ape To Man – The Ultimate Deception – Jonathan Wells – video
    http://vimeo.com/19080087

    When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor.
    Richard Lewontin – Harvard Zoologist
    http://www.discovery.org/a/9961

    Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Tattersall, 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.”
    http://arjournals.annualreview.....208.100202

    Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr
    http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=home_more4

    “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.”
    Anthropologist Ian Tattersall
    (curator at the American Museum of Natural History)

    “But what is the basis for the human evolution thesis put forward by evolutionists? It is the existence of plenty of fossils on which evolutionists are able to build imaginary interpretations. Throughout history, more than 6,000 species of ape have lived, and most of them have become extinct. Today, only 120 species live on the earth. These 6,000 or so species of ape, most of which are extinct, constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists to build imaginary interpretations with.”
    http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man.html

    Human Evolution? – The Compelling Genetic Case For Adam and Eve
    Dr. Fazale Rana – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4284482

    Were They Real? The Scientific Case for Adam and Eve by Fazale Rana – November 2010
    http://www.reasons.org/files/e.....010-04.pdf

  32. further note pithecus;

    Fearfully and Wonderfully Made – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5289335/

    In Barrow and Tippler’s book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, they list ten steps necessary in the course of human evolution, each of which, is so improbable that if left to happen by chance alone, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have incinerated the earth. They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God. William Lane Craig

    William Lane Craig – If Human Evolution Did Occur It Was A Miracle – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUxm8dXLRpA

    Darwin and the Mathematicians – David Berlinski
    “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 who is considered one of the greatest to have ever lived. Of Note: Godel was a Theist!
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....cians.html

    “Darwin’s theory is easily the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science.”
    Granville Sewell – Professor Of Mathematics – University Of Texas – El Paso

    Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe
    Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’’ (Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/9461

    Chimpanzee?
    10-10-2008 – Dr Richard Buggs – research geneticist at the University of Florida
    …Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.
    http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Chimpanzee.pdf

    …DNA Comparisons between Humans and Chimps – Fazale Rana
    Excerpt: It is interesting that when evolutionary biologists discuss genetic comparisons between human and chimpanzee genomes, the fact that, again, as much as 25 percent of the two genomes won’t align receives no mention. Instead, the focus is only on the portions of the genome that display a high-degree of similarity. This distorted emphasis makes the case for the evolutionary connection between humans and chimps seem more compelling than it may actually be.
    http://www.reasons.org/dna-com.....del-part-2

    A simple statistical test for the alleged “99% genetic identity” between humans and chimps – September 2010
    Excerpt: The results obtained are statistically valid. The same test was previously run on a sampling of 1,000 random 30-base patterns and the percentages obtained were almost identical with those obtained in the final test, with 10,000 random 30-base patterns. When human and chimp genomes are compared, the X chromosome is the one showing the highest degree of 30BPM similarity (72.37%), while the Y chromosome shows the lowest degree of 30BPM similarity (30.29%). On average the overall 30BPM similarity, when all chromosomes are taken into consideration, is approximately 62%.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nd-chimps/

    Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
    Excerpt: the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.]
    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070

    Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans,,, – Jan. 2010
    Excerpt: A Nature paper from January, 2010 titled, “Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content,” found that Y chromosomes in humans and chimps “differ radically in sequence structure and gene content,” showing “extraordinary divergence” where “wholesale renovation is the paramount theme.”,,, “Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa,,,”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....shows.html

    Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected – Jan. 2010
    Excerpt: “The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content.,,, The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes.
    http://www.physorg.com/news182605704.html

    The evolutionary scientists of the preceding paper offered some evolutionary ‘just so’ stories of ‘dramatically sped up evolution’ for why there are such significant differences in the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans, yet when the Y chromosome is looked at for its rate of change we find there is hardly any evidence for any change at all, much less the massive changes the evolutionists are required to explain.

    CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS
    Excerpt: To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry.
    http://www.reasons.org/interpr.....lutionists

    ,,,and with the genetic similarity between apes and humans shown not to be as close as evolutionists pretend it to be, these following studies completely remove any basis of reasoning Darwinists may have had in the first place:

    More Questions for Evolutionists – August 2010
    Excerpt: First of all, we have 65% of the gene number of humans in little old sponges—an organism that appears as far back as 635 million years ago, about as old as you can get [except for bacte...ria]. This kind of demolishes Darwin’s argument about what he called the pre-Silurian (pre-Cambrian). 635 mya predates both the Cambrian AND the Edicarian, which comes before the Cambrian (i.e., the pre-Cambrian) IOW, out of nowhere, 18,000 animal genes. Darwinian gradualism is dealt a death blow here (unless you’re a ‘true believer”!). Here’s a quote: “It means there was an elaborate machinery in place that already had some function. What I want to know now is what were all these genes doing prior to the advent of sponge.” (Charles Marshall, director of the University of California Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley.) I want to know, too!
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....utionists/

    Kangaroo genes close to humans
    Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” ,,,”We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,”
    http://www.reuters.com/article.....P020081118

  33. further note pithecus;

    In Barrow and Tippler’s book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, they list ten steps necessary in the course of human evolution, each of which, is so improbable that if left to happen by chance alone, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have incinerated the earth. They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God. William Lane Craig

    William Lane Craig – If Human Evolution Did Occur It Was A Miracle – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUxm8dXLRpA

    Darwin and the Mathematicians – David Berlinski
    “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 who is considered one of the greatest to have ever lived. Of Note: Godel was a Theist!
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....cians.html

    “Darwin’s theory is easily the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science.”
    Granville Sewell – Professor Of Mathematics – University Of Texas – El Paso

    Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe
    Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’’ (Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/9461

    Chimpanzee?
    10-10-2008 – Dr Richard Buggs – research geneticist at the University of Florida
    …Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.
    http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Chimpanzee.pdf

    …DNA Comparisons between Humans and Chimps – Fazale Rana
    Excerpt: It is interesting that when evolutionary biologists discuss genetic comparisons between human and chimpanzee genomes, the fact that, again, as much as 25 percent of the two genomes won’t align receives no mention. Instead, the focus is only on the portions of the genome that display a high-degree of similarity. This distorted emphasis makes the case for the evolutionary connection between humans and chimps seem more compelling than it may actually be.
    http://www.reasons.org/dna-com.....del-part-2

    A simple statistical test for the alleged “99% genetic identity” between humans and chimps – September 2010
    Excerpt: The results obtained are statistically valid. The same test was previously run on a sampling of 1,000 random 30-base patterns and the percentages obtained were almost identical with those obtained in the final test, with 10,000 random 30-base patterns. When human and chimp genomes are compared, the X chromosome is the one showing the highest degree of 30BPM similarity (72.37%), while the Y chromosome shows the lowest degree of 30BPM similarity (30.29%). On average the overall 30BPM similarity, when all chromosomes are taken into consideration, is approximately 62%.

    Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
    Excerpt: the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.]
    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070

    Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans,,, – Jan. 2010
    Excerpt: A Nature paper from January, 2010 titled, “Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content,” found that Y chromosomes in humans and chimps “differ radically in sequence structure and gene content,” showing “extraordinary divergence” where “wholesale renovation is the paramount theme.”,,, “Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa,,,”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....shows.html

    Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected – Jan. 2010
    Excerpt: “The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content.,,, The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes.
    http://www.physorg.com/news182605704.html

    The evolutionary scientists of the preceding paper offered some evolutionary ‘just so’ stories of ‘dramatically sped up evolution’ for why there are such significant differences in the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans, yet when the Y chromosome is looked at for its rate of change we find there is hardly any evidence for any change at all, much less the massive changes the evolutionists are required to explain.

    CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS
    Excerpt: To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry.
    http://www.reasons.org/interpr.....lutionists

    ,,,and with the genetic similarity between apes and humans shown not to be as close as evolutionists pretend it to be, these following studies completely remove any basis of reasoning Darwinists may have had in the first place:

    More Questions for Evolutionists – August 2010
    Excerpt: First of all, we have 65% of the gene number of humans in little old sponges—an organism that appears as far back as 635 million years ago, about as old as you can get [except for bacte...ria]. This kind of demolishes Darwin’s argument about what he called the pre-Silurian (pre-Cambrian). 635 mya predates both the Cambrian AND the Edicarian, which comes before the Cambrian (i.e., the pre-Cambrian) IOW, out of nowhere, 18,000 animal genes. Darwinian gradualism is dealt a death blow here (unless you’re a ‘true believer”!). Here’s a quote: “It means there was an elaborate machinery in place that already had some function. What I want to know now is what were all these genes doing prior to the advent of sponge.” (Charles Marshall, director of the University of California Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley.) I want to know, too!
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....utionists/

    Kangaroo genes close to humans
    Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” ,,,”We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,”
    http://www.reuters.com/article.....P020081118

  34. further note pithecus;

    In Barrow and Tippler’s book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, they list ten steps necessary in the course of human evolution, each of which, is so improbable that if left to happen by chance alone, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have incinerated the earth. They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God. William Lane Craig

    William Lane Craig – If Human Evolution Did Occur It Was A Miracle – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUxm8dXLRpA

    Darwin and the Mathematicians – David Berlinski
    “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 who is considered one of the greatest to have ever lived. Of Note: Godel was a Theist!
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....cians.html

    “Darwin’s theory is easily the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science.”
    Granville Sewell – Professor Of Mathematics – University Of Texas – El Paso

    Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe
    Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’’ (Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/9461

    Chimpanzee?
    10-10-2008 – Dr Richard Buggs – research geneticist at the University of Florida
    …Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.
    http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Chimpanzee.pdf

    …DNA Comparisons between Humans and Chimps – Fazale Rana
    Excerpt: It is interesting that when evolutionary biologists discuss genetic comparisons between human and chimpanzee genomes, the fact that, again, as much as 25 percent of the two genomes won’t align receives no mention. Instead, the focus is only on the portions of the genome that display a high-degree of similarity. This distorted emphasis makes the case for the evolutionary connection between humans and chimps seem more compelling than it may actually be.
    http://www.reasons.org/dna-com.....del-part-2

    A simple statistical test for the alleged “99% genetic identity” between humans and chimps – September 2010
    Excerpt: The results obtained are statistically valid. The same test was previously run on a sampling of 1,000 random 30-base patterns and the percentages obtained were almost identical with those obtained in the final test, with 10,000 random 30-base patterns. When human and chimp genomes are compared, the X chromosome is the one showing the highest degree of 30BPM similarity (72.37%), while the Y chromosome shows the lowest degree of 30BPM similarity (30.29%). On average the overall 30BPM similarity, when all chromosomes are taken into consideration, is approximately 62%.

    Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
    Excerpt: the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.]
    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070

    Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans,,, – Jan. 2010
    Excerpt: A Nature paper from January, 2010 titled, “Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content,” found that Y chromosomes in humans and chimps “differ radically in sequence structure and gene content,” showing “extraordinary divergence” where “wholesale renovation is the paramount theme.”,,, “Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa,,,”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....shows.html

    Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected – Jan. 2010
    Excerpt: “The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content.,,, The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes.
    http://www.physorg.com/news182605704.html

    The evolutionary scientists of the preceding paper offered some evolutionary ‘just so’ stories of ‘dramatically sped up evolution’ for why there are such significant differences in the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans, yet when the Y chromosome is looked at for its rate of change we find there is hardly any evidence for any change at all, much less the massive changes the evolutionists are required to explain.

    CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS
    Excerpt: To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry.
    http://www.reasons.org/interpr.....lutionists

  35. ,,,and with the genetic similarity between apes and humans shown not to be nearly as close as evolutionists pretend it to be, these following studies completely remove any basis of reasoning Darwinists may have had in the first place:

    More Questions for Evolutionists – August 2010
    Excerpt: First of all, we have 65% of the gene number of humans in little old sponges—an organism that appears as far back as 635 million years ago, about as old as you can get [except for bacteria]. This kind of demolishes Darwin’s argument about what he called the pre-Silurian (pre-Cambrian). 635 mya predates both the Cambrian AND the Edicarian, which comes before the Cambrian (i.e., the pre-Cambrian) IOW, out of nowhere, 18,000 animal genes. Darwinian gradualism is dealt a death blow here (unless you’re a ‘true believer”!). Here’s a quote: “It means there was an elaborate machinery in place that already had some function. What I want to know now is what were all these genes doing prior to the advent of sponge.” (Charles Marshall, director of the University of California Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley.) I want to know, too!
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....utionists/

    Kangaroo genes close to humans
    Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” ,,,”We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,”
    http://www.reuters.com/article.....P020081118

    further note:

    Evolutionists cannot even explain the origination of 1 gene, yet man is found to have at least 1077 genes which are completely unique to him:

    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. These orphans looked like proteins because of their open reading frames, but were not found in either the mouse or dog genomes. Although this was strong evidence that the sequences were not true protein-coding genes, it was not quite convincing enough to justify their removal from the human gene catalogs. Two other scenarios could, in fact, explain their absence from other mammalian genomes. For instance, the genes could be unique among primates, new inventions that appeared after the divergence of mouse and dog ancestors from primate ancestors. Alternatively, the genes could have been more ancient creations — present in a common mammalian ancestor — that were lost in mouse and dog lineages yet retained in humans. If either of these possibilities were true, then the orphan genes should appear in other primate genomes, in addition to our own. To explore this, 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

    The sheer, and blatant, shoddiness of the science of the preceding study should give everyone who reads it severe pause whenever, in the future, someone tells them that genetic studies have proven evolution to be true.

    This following site has a brief discussion on the biased methodology of the preceding study:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-358505

    Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references
    http://www.vimeo.com/17135166

    As well, completely contrary to evolutionary thought, these ‘new’ ORFan genes are found to be just as essential as ‘old’ genes for maintaining life:

    Age doesn’t matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones – December 2010
    Excerpt: “A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age,” said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. “New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142523.htm

    New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. – December 2010
    Excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cont.....2.abstract

  36. Jimpithecus:

    It was predicted that if humans and great apes share a common ancestry, they should share common genetic mistakes. That was corroborated with by discoveries of shared endogenous retroviral DNA, the shared lack of a working gene to create vitamin C, and the fusion of two ape chromosomes to create chromosome two in humans. All of these were predicted before they were found.

    Two things. First, could you, please, quote the actual paper where these predictions were written down? It would be educational for me to read them.

    Second: Have you ever thought what assumptions you need for the retroviral DNA to stand as proof for common ancestry? The argument normally goes like:

    Humans and chimps share a DNA sequence at a similar place in their genome that looks like a retrovirus. Assuming that

    - this sequence is the result of an infection, and not functional part of the genome
    - and the insertion point of the viral DNA is random

    it is highly unlikely that the same infections would happen the same way independently. Therefore, it must have happened once, and the following generations just got the genome with this error in it.

    None of the assumptions can be proven without doubt. Moreover, in sheep, blocking a particular retroviral sequence resulted in high likelihood of miscarriage, so it is simply essential for the species to survive.

    But let’s assume that the whole story is true. In that case, all humans and chimps have one particular specimen as their common ancestor. Now how likely is that both species have diverged from an extreme genetic bottleneck? Or all the others, who did not have this error in their genome died, leaving no trace whatsoever?

    And this same guy had the “coding error” in the Vitamin C gene. Again: is it an error, and if so, is it the process of evenly distributed random mutations? What about the others, who’s genes were not shot down?

    And what mechanism do you propose to generate the differences between the human and chimp genome?

    The whole argument of “common copying errors” is extremely weak to me, yet they think that this is a really strong argument for common ancestry…

  37. Jimpithecus, you seem to value correct predictions, but don’t you find it the least bit suspicious when the myriad of failed predictions for Darwinian evolution are completely ignored by evolutionists??, whilst only a few weak ‘cherry picked’, and I might add shoe-horned, predictions are stressed??? Here is a fairly comprehensive list of the myriad of failed predictions of Darwinism:

    Darwin’s Predictions – Cornelius Hunter PhD.
    Excerpt: Failed expectations are not necessarily a problem for a theory. [1] But what if fundamental predictions are consistently falsified? As we shall see this is the case with the theory of evolution. Evolutionists are commonly surprised by the scientific evidences from biology. The evidences do not fit the evolutionary expectations.
    http://www.darwinspredictions.com/

  38. Jimpithecus:

    It was predicted that if humans and great apes share a common ancestry, they should share common genetic mistakes.

    Nonsense. Heck if apes and humans had a common design we would expect to see genetic similarities.

    That was corroborated with by discoveries of shared endogenous retroviral DNA, the shared lack of a working gene to create vitamin C, and the fusion of two ape chromosomes to create chromosome two in humans. All of these were predicted before they were found.

    The fusion was not predicted before it was found. Not only that other scenarios can explain that same evidence.

    Not only that not one of those alleged predictions have anything to do with the proposed mechanisms.

    What you don’t have is any evidence that demonstrates the transformations required are even possible.

    And as other people have pointed out evidence for universal common descent is not evidence for any mechanism.

    It appears the theory of evolution is devoid of content = empty. The evidence for that is found in the following avoided questions:

    1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    If Jimpithecus would answer those questions it would go a long way to supporting bhis claim that his position is scientific.

  39. Jimpithecus, I just ran across another paper that puts a severe crimp in your myth of ape-man similarity/ancestry:

    Interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints in primates. – 2009
    Excerpt: Although their function has not yet been clearly elucidated, interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) have been cytogenetically associated with chromosomal reorganizations, fragile sites, and recombination hotspots. In this paper, we show that ITSs are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints of the inversions between human and chimpanzee and between human and rhesus macaque chromosomes. We proved that ITSs are not signs of repair in the breakpoints of the chromosome reorganizations analyzed. We found ITSs in the region (0.7-2.7 Mb) flanking one of the two breakpoints in all the inversions assessed. The presence of ITSs in those locations is not by chance. They are short (up to 7.83 repeats) and almost perfect (82.5-97.1% matches). The ITSs are conserved in the species compared, showing that they were present before the reorganizations occurred.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu.....t=Abstract

    as Jonathan McLatchie comments:

    ‘This paper from 2009 seems to substantially undermine a common argument for the shared ancestry between humans and chimps — that is, the argument from the 2q13 interstitial telomeric sequence associated with a fusion event. If, indeed, 2q13 is the only interstitial telomeric sequence (among many) which squares up with chromosomal fusions or breakpoints in primates, might such an argument be a case of cherry picking?’ ,,, I agree with Jonathan, it is a severe case of cherry picking.

Leave a Reply