Home » Intelligent Design » Nick Matzke Admits His Quote Mining Accusation Was False; Instead of Apologizing Tries to Change the Definition of “Quote Mining” to “Refusing to Agree With Me”

Nick Matzke Admits His Quote Mining Accusation Was False; Instead of Apologizing Tries to Change the Definition of “Quote Mining” to “Refusing to Agree With Me”

I am sorry if it appears that I am beating this horse long after it has expired, but I think it is important to expose the perfidy of prominent Darwinists and the depths to which they will sink when it is plain for all to see. By exposing their shenanigans on a matter that is plain to everyone, we will be able to judge their credibility better when they are arguing more subtle issues.

Nick Matzke is one such prominent Darwinist, and his false allegation of quote mining is a case in point. To review, in a previous post I argued that the fossil record did not turn out the way Darwin expected it would. Of course, I will be the first to admit that I am no expert on Darwin’s views, and there is no reason for anyone to care particularly what I say about that topic. So I quoted Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall:

Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.

Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46.

Note that I am not arguing here that Darwinian evolution did not occur (though I have views on that). Nor am I arguing that there are no fossils demonstrating transitions between major groups as opposed to sister species (though I have views on that as well). I am asserting a VERY narrow point: The fossil record did not turn out the way Darwin expected it would. And I am quoting Eldredge to support that point.

Matzke came onto these pages and accused me of “quote mining,” which is the deceptive use of an out-of-context quote to make it appear that the author agrees with the proposition one is advancing when they really did not. It is a form of lying and is morally reprehensible.

In a nutshell, Matzke has accused me of morally reprehensible conduct in an internet forum that anyone on the planet with access to a computer can access. That charge is very serious and highly public.

But in order for Matzke’s charge to be true, Eldredge and Tattersall would have had to, in context, mean something other than the proposition for which I quoted them, i.e., that the fossil record did not turn out as Darwin expected. But that is exactly what they meant. Therefore, the quote mining charge is false.

I pointed this out to Matzke and asked him to retract/apologize. He has steadfastly refused.

Nick, I know you are a moral relativist, but even relatively speaking wouldn’t you admit that coming into a highly public forum and accusing someone of lying when they did not is wrong? Again, the only right thing for you to do is to man up, admit you were wrong and apologize.

Of course, Matzke knows his conduct is morally indefensible, but instead of retracting and apologizing he has gone into “full Darwinist spin mode.”

He writes:

As long as you keep refusing to admit the context of the Eldredge quote, you will be guilty of quote-mining when you use it to argue that the fossil record doesn’t support evolution.

(emphasis mine)

If I had argued that the fossil record does not support evolution this statement might have some force. I made no such argument (As I said above, I have views on that matter, but that is beside the point.) I argued something completely different. I argued that the fossil record did not turn out the way Darwin expected it to.

Keep in mind that for purposes of Matzke’s quote mining charge it does not matter whether I am right. It does not matter whether Eldredge was right. What matters is that I advanced a proposition and quoted Eldredge in support of it. The quote mining charge would be true only if I quoted Eldredge out of context and he did not really mean what the sentence I quoted apparently says. But that is exactly what Eldredge meant. He meant to say that the fossil record did not turn out the way Darwin expected, and that is what I meant to quote him for. I plainly did not quote him for some broader proposition.

Matzke goes on:

It wasn’t deliberately deceptive when you first did it,

Then why don’t you withdraw your charge and apologize Nick? Because Nick has his own personal definition of quote mining. You see, it turns out that Nick thinks Eldredge was wrong:

we’ve already been over what Darwin said he expected from the fossil record, and Eldredge got that bit wrong.

Now we get to the bottom of it. It is not that I misquoted Eldredge. My quote was perfectly accurate. Nick just disagrees with Eldredge on the point for which I quoted him, and under his personal definition of the term that makes me guilty of quote mining.

Nick, you don’t get to have a personal definition of phrases. “Quote mining” has a universally accepted meaning. You now admit that under that universally accepted meaning I did not quote mine Eldredge.

I call on you once again to man up, admit you were wrong, and apologize. Stop with the spinning Nick. It only gets you deeper and deeper into the hole.

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

19 Responses to Nick Matzke Admits His Quote Mining Accusation Was False; Instead of Apologizing Tries to Change the Definition of “Quote Mining” to “Refusing to Agree With Me”

  1. Barry, Matzke (I don’t believe in God because he’s nasty) will only be confused by reasoning, as is invariably the case with atheist polemicists. He will sincerely apologise when figs grow on thorns.

  2. Barry,

    It took me many years to come to the following realization: there are people in this world who are apparently physically incapable of following a logical argument. Their brains are just not wired for it. You can walk them, step by step, from premise to conclusion… and they will respond with some maddening emotional non sequitur. It’s like trying to nail jello to a wall.

    Nick Matzke cannot help himself.

  3. Nick Matzke understands the arguments presented by Arrington and others perfectly well. He’s just a jerk and honor has no meaning to him. Typical of vociferous Darwinists everywhere.

  4. Whatever came of Matzke’s visiting Dr. Tour for the purpose of explaining how evolution works?

  5. My long response to this is in moderation, probably because of all the links.

  6. Re: James Tour, we had a long phone conversation just before Thanksgiving. I’m going to send him some material on molecular evolution when I get a chance.

  7. Why, look, a whole special issue of Evolution: Education and Outreach, devoted to transitional fossils, and edited by Niles Eldredge himself!

    In his introduction, Eldredge even comments on Simpson’s views!

    Evolution: Education and Outreach

    10.1007/s12052-009-0124-5

    Editor’s Corner

    A Question of Individuality: Charles Darwin, George Gaylord Simpson and Transitional Fossils

    [...]

    Simpson provides such novel theory. At the heart of the matter lies the common pattern of the relatively abrupt appearance of higher taxa — such as turtles, bats, armadillos, rabbits, and whales (Simpson 1944, p. 126). Simpson sticks by his conventional Darwinian guns, affirming his conviction that species and genera evolve gradually through time — and that the reason why good examples of such gradually evolving lineages are hard to find is to be chalked up to vagaries of the fossilization process. But the amount of evolution required to transform, say, a terrestrial mammal into a whale, Simpson reasoned, was too great to happen in the slow, steady pace that Darwin taught us to expect for the evolutionary process. Otherwise we would find transitional fossils galore.

    Simpson concluded that the typical absence of transitional fossils between major groups reflected true evolutionary “signal” in addition to the “noise” of the missing data of a poor fossil record. New groups must evolve relatively quickly, in restricted areas in the world, and often in environments not typical of the habitats of either the ancestors or the fully-fledged, adaptively modified descendants. Think of it: terrestrial artiodactyls have a rich fossil record from the basins in which they lived; likewise, whales have a good fossil record in marine sediments. But perhaps the species transitional between terrestrial artiodactyls and fully aquatic whales lived along the strand line, sometimes in, and sometimes out of, the water. Beach deposits are not unknown in the geological record — but they are far less common than both fresh water basinal and marine deposits. Those transitional species must have existed (Archaeopteryx establishes that much insofar as bird evolution is concerned), but the sheer rapidity of the evolutionary transition in marginal environments virtually ensures that good sequences of transitional fossils will remain hard to come by, or so Simpson reasoned.

    Simpson would have been delighted to see the many examples that have been discovered since his day that are highlighted in this current issue: he knew they must have existed. But his suspicion that transitions typically involve rates of above-average evolutionary change is by no means automatically invalidated simply because the hard work of paleontologists has paid off with such rich dividends, with so many well-documented sequences of transitional fossils now on the table — and in this issue.

  8. 8
    TheisticEvolutionist

    NickMatzke what do you think about the extended evolutionary synthesis?

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/E....._synthesis

    Massimo Pigliucci, Eva Jablonka and Gerd B. Müller accept it, but Jerry Coyne rejects it… what’s your position?

  9. Evolution? Are they telling us that Audrey Hepburn evolved?

  10. Nick Matzke as to:

    James Tour, we had a long phone conversation just before Thanksgiving. I’m going to send him some material on molecular evolution when I get a chance.

    Nick seeing as you have a bit of a checkered past in this area, as to being able to behave honestly, I hope that you don’t mind that I just sent the following heads up to Dr. Tour to warn him about your seemingly pathological need to mislead people:

    Calling Nick Matzke’s literature bluff on molecular machines – DonaldM UD blogger – April 2013
    Excerpt: One of the main claims that Behe made (in 1996 In Darwin’s Black Box), and the one that really roiled the waters in the Darwinian camp was that there was not a single peer reviewed research study in any relevant scientific journal providing any sort of step-by-Darwian-step explanation for how Darwinian evolution accounted for the bacterial flagellum. Many Darwinists, including Matzke (as well as Ken Miller and others) wrote books and articles and made posts on the internet not only saying that Behe was dead wrong, but also providing lists of supposed studies that…oopsies…Behe somehow missed. Of course, it was rightly pointed out that all this was little more than literature bluffing, as none of the studies in these lists provided the explanation to which Behe was referring.
    So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along.
    Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard.
    Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-453291

    Supplemental notes:

    Dr. James Tour, who, in my honest opinion, currently builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world (even surpassing the Harvard Wyss group in that regards),,,

    Science & Faith — Dr. James Tour – video (At the two minute mark of the following video, you can see a nano-car that was built by Dr. James Tour’s team)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdU5ojTpyzg

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

    “I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”
    James Tour – one of the leading nano-tech engineers in the world – Strobel, Lee (2000), The Case For Faith, p. 111

    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

    also of note;

    “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

    ,,,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/

    DNA – Replication, Wrapping & Mitosis – video
    https://vimeo.com/33882804

  11. corrected link:

    Science & Faith — Dr. James Tour – video (At the two minute mark of the following video, you can see a nano-car that was built by Dr. James Tour’s team)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR4QhNFTtyw

  12. 12

    8
    TheisticEvolutionistDecember 7, 2013 at 2:47 pm
    NickMatzke what do you think about the extended evolutionary synthesis?

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/E….._synthesis

    Massimo Pigliucci, Eva Jablonka and Gerd B. Müller accept it, but Jerry Coyne rejects it… what’s your position?

    It’s a combination of moderately interesting additions to modern evolutionary theory, plus some hype by people tooting their own horns. On top of that there is some absolutely insane creationist propaganda about the “Altenberg 16″ overthrowing evolutionary theory, yadda yadda, which is totally crazy if you know anything about it.

    The really peculiar thing about the “extended synthesis” is that they always forget to include phylogenetics, although this is really the biggest revolution that has happened in evolutionary biology in the last few decades. Apparently phylogenetics hasn’t had promoters of the same sort.

  13. 13
    TheisticEvolutionist

    Yes it’s mentioned here (as well as a quote from you):

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/A.....ontroversy

    The creationists have embarrassed themselves on this one!

    BornAgain, you quote an engineer as saying:

    “I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation.”

    What about parasitic microbes? Why did the Christian God create them? Will you in awe of God for them?

    “If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”

    I agree and if that is the case then God has to be natural. If God is science then there’s no supernatural. Pantheism is my friend, have you read Spinoza bornagain?

  14. TheisticEvolutionist:

    What about parasitic microbes? Why did the Christian God create them? Will you in awe of God for them?

    And what is wrong with parasitic microbes? Personally, I think they are beautiful and complex little lifeforms, doing exactly what they’re supposed to do.

  15. (Pan)TheisticEvolutionist asks

    What about parasitic microbes? Why did the Christian God create them? Will you in awe of God for them?

    That is a Theological/Philosophical argument from evil. That is not a scientific argument for evolution. It is an interesting argument when you take it apart since it turns out in order to make a judgement of something as evil someone must first have some absolute standard of good in mind so as to be able to make the judgement. As C.S. Lewis put it:

    “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”
    - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

    Much the same can be said for the argument from reason in that a standard outside the natural/material order is required in order for someone to be able to make judgements on the natural/material order that are binding and true:

    “One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.”
    —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason)

    also see:

    Alvin Plantinga – Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8

    Content and Natural Selection – Alvin Plantinga – 2011
    http://www.andrewmbailey.com/a.....ection.pdf

    This would seem to be trouble for your preferred Pantheistic view as well since, I believe, Pantheism grounds its perspective within the natural order as well.

    Of related interest to a ‘perspective outside the natural/material order’

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time ….
    Interviewer:… Come again(?) …
    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.”

    A footnote to the Theological argument from evil that atheists unwittingly continually use, instead of using actual scientific evidence, in their attempt to justify Darwinism as plausible, is the following humorous episode. In the following quote, Dr. John Avise explicitly uses the theologically based argument from evil in order to try to make his case for Darwinism:

    It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species – Cornelius Hunter – June 2012
    Excerpt: “Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]” – Dr. John Avise – “Inside The Human Genome”
    There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way. – Dr. Hunter
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....it-is.html

    What is completely humorous in the preceding argument FOR evolution is that, without Darwinian theological binders on, the overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations compared to beneficial mutations (Behe; Sanford) is actually a VERY powerful SCIENTIFIC argument AGAINST Darwinian evolution ever occurring:

    Dr. John Avise helpfully supplies us with the rope for his own hanging here:

    “Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens.”
    John C. Avise – Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57

    I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:

    HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone!
    http://www.hgmd.org/

    To be more specific as to the insurmountable ‘scientific’ problem this presents to neo-Darwinism,,,

    *3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body
    * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations
    *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations
    Reproductive cells are ‘designed’ so that, early on in development, they are ‘set aside’ and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,,
    *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation. -
    per Dr. John Sanford

    But population genetics shows us that that a mutation rate of 60-175 per generation is far greater than what even leading population geneticists agree is an acceptable mutation rate, since detrimental mutations will accumulate far faster than ‘selection’ can eliminate them in any given genome:

    Human evolution or extinction – discussion on the extremely low acceptable mutation rate per generation for humans (with clips from Dr. John Sanford) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC_NyFZG7pM

    Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy – Andy McIntosh – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086

    Even bacteria, which are far more tolerant of a higher mutation rate than humans are, cannot bear a rate of 60 to 175 per generation:

    Beyond A ‘Speed Limit’ On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction
    Excerpt: Shakhnovich’s group found that for most organisms, including viruses and bacteria, an organism’s rate of genome mutation must stay below 6 mutations per genome per generation to prevent the accumulation of too many potentially lethal changes in genetic material.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....172753.htm

    This has all been worked out in computer simulation and the results, no matter how the simulation is tweaked to support Darwinian claims, do not support Darwinian claims:

    Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load:
    Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space.
    http://bioinformatics.cau.edu......aproof.pdf
    MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE
    http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net

    Genetic Entropy – Dr. John Sanford – Evolution vs. Reality – video
    https://vimeo.com/35088933

    Thus, if one wants to argue from evil to support Darwinian evolution, I suggest going to a priest or to a pastor to make the argument and not to the lab, for as far as the science itself is concerned, the argument is turned on its head and fails big time!

  16. (Pan)TheisticEvolutionist asks

    What about parasitic microbes? Why did the Christian God create them? Will you in awe of God for them?

    That is a Theological/Philosophical argument from evil. That is not a scientific argument for evolution. It is an interesting argument when you take it apart since it turns out in order to make a judgement of something as evil someone must first have some absolute standard of good in mind so as to be able to make the judgement. As C.S. Lewis put it:

    “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”
    - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

    Much the same can be said for the argument from reason in that a standard outside the natural/material order is required in order for someone to be able to make judgements on the natural/material order that are binding and true:

    “One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.”
    —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason)

    also see:

    Alvin Plantinga – Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8

    Content and Natural Selection – Alvin Plantinga – 2011
    http://www.andrewmbailey.com/a.....ection.pdf

    This would seem to be trouble for your preferred Pantheistic view as well since, I believe, Pantheism grounds its perspective within the natural order as well.

    Of related interest to a ‘perspective outside the natural/material order’

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time ….
    Interviewer:… Come again(?) …
    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.”

    A footnote to the Theological argument from evil that atheists unwittingly continually use, instead of using actual scientific evidence, in their attempt to justify Darwinism as plausible, is the following humorous episode. In the following quote, Dr. John Avise explicitly uses the theologically based argument from evil in order to try to make his case for Darwinism:

    It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species – Cornelius Hunter – June 2012
    Excerpt: “Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]” – Dr. John Avise – “Inside The Human Genome”
    There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way. – Dr. Hunter
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....it-is.html

    What is completely humorous in the preceding argument FOR evolution is that, without Darwinian theological binders on, the overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations compared to beneficial mutations (Behe; Sanford) is actually a VERY powerful SCIENTIFIC argument AGAINST Darwinian evolution ever occurring:

    Dr. John Avise helpfully supplies us with the rope for his own hanging here:

    “Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens.”
    John C. Avise – Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57

    I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:

    HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone!
    http://www.hgmd.org/

    To be more specific as to the insurmountable ‘scientific’ problem this presents to neo-Darwinism,,,

    *3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body
    * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations
    *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations
    Reproductive cells are ‘designed’ so that, early on in development, they are ‘set aside’ and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,,
    *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation. -
    per Dr. John Sanford

    But population genetics shows us that that a mutation rate of 60-175 per generation is far greater than what even leading population geneticists agree is an acceptable mutation rate, since detrimental mutations will accumulate far faster than ‘selection’ can eliminate them in any given genome:

    Human evolution or extinction – discussion on the extremely low acceptable mutation rate per generation for humans (with clips from Dr. John Sanford) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC_NyFZG7pM

    Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy – Andy McIntosh – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086

    Even bacteria, which are far more tolerant of a higher mutation rate than humans are, cannot bear a rate of 60 to 175 per generation:

    Beyond A ‘Speed Limit’ On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction
    Excerpt: Shakhnovich’s group found that for most organisms, including viruses and bacteria, an organism’s rate of genome mutation must stay below 6 mutations per genome per generation to prevent the accumulation of too many potentially lethal changes in genetic material.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....172753.htm

    This has all been worked out in computer simulation and the results, no matter how the simulation is tweaked to support Darwinian claims, do not support Darwinian claims:

    Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load:
    Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space.
    http://bioinformatics.cau.edu......aproof.pdf
    MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE

    Genetic Entropy – Dr. John Sanford – Evolution vs. Reality – video
    https://vimeo.com/35088933

    Thus, if one wants to argue from evil to support Darwinian evolution, I suggest going to a priest or to a pastor to make the argument and not to the lab, for as far as the science itself is concerned, the argument is turned on its head and fails big time!

  17. TheisticEvolutionist

    What about parasitic microbes? Why did the Christian God create them? Will you in awe of God for them?

    My microbiologist friend believes every microbe has a beneficial role when in it’s prescribed environment, whatever that might be. I don’t claim to know.

    He uses cholera as an example. In the wrong place, it causes horrible sickness. But it’s been shown to aid marine creatures moving from fresh to salt water, or vice versa by pushing sodium out of cells, which also draws out water. It also breaks down chitin and returns it to the carbon cycle. That it moves beyond prescribed environment and causes sickness in people he thinks is a result of man’s sin; bringing the death that was warned of in Genesis which also points to creation being altered because of sin.

    Genesis 3 (ESV)

    17 And to Adam he said,

    “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
    and have eaten of the tree
    of which I commanded you,
    ‘You shall not eat of it,’
    cursed is the ground because of you;
    in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
    18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
    and you shall eat the plants of the field.
    19 By the sweat of your face
    you shall eat bread,
    till you return to the ground,
    for out of it you were taken;
    for you are dust,
    and to dust you shall return.”

  18. Asking why God creates bad microbes along with good microbes is no different than asking why there is left and right or up and down. God also created an immune system that defends against parasitic attacks. Most of the time it works but it can become defective. The body is a machine and, like all machines, it can work flawlessly or it can break down.

    We live in a yin-yang reality. It cannot be any other way. Part of our training on the earth is to experience the good and the bad, happiness and sorrow, health and sickness, pain and pleasure, success and failure, beauty and ugliness, hope and despair, war and peace, etc. We cannot know one without the other.

    Solomon wrote there is a time for everything. Earth is not paradise. It’s serious business. Paradise will come eventually for the chosen ones but now is not the time.

  19. 19

    Nick, your reputation has already been sufficiently tarnished by your contemptible behavior over the last few days. Your comment that hung in mod was just more of the same, and for your own sake that is where it will remain.

    Here’s the bottom line on this whole sordid affair: Apparently Nick Matzke believes being a Darwinist means never having to say you’re sorry, even if you get caught red handed falsely accusing another person of deceit. He believes that if you keep dissembling and distracting attention from the issue and spewing ever longer posts into the combox maybe no one will notice what a detestable boor he is. Sorry Nick. It didn’t work.