Stephen Meyer’s Book Ranked #1 in Science/Physics/Cosmology at Amazon

_{Salvador Cordova

August 3, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Over at Amazon in the Physics/Cosmology section, Dr. Meyer’s book got the surprise ranking ahead of Stephen Hawking’s book, A Brief History in Time.

There is a section on cosmology and the origin of life in Signature in the Cell.

Here are the Amazon Stats:

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
Hardcover: 624 pages
Publisher: HarperOne (June 23, 2009)

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #799 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Popular in these categories:

#1 in Books > Science > Astronomy > Cosmology
#1 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Theology > Creationism
#1 in Books > Science > Physics > Cosmology

Congratulations Dr. Meyer!

Comments

I love this quote by a leading expert in the field: 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_more4bornagain77_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

Homo Rudolfensis was unseated recently as a "missing link": “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.nyu.edu/public.affairs/pdf/2007_BROMAGE_IADR_1470.pdfbornagain77_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Lets go back to the fossil record oh open minded Nak, This following quote, by a leading evolutionist in the field, is candid in its admission of the gaps for "human evolution" fossil evidence. 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/2009/04/texas_hold_em_part_ii_calling_1.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 Homo erectus and rudolfensis fossils Mayr cited. Yet when we look at the evidence, presented by the materialists themselves for the proposed evolution of Homo erectus, the evidence is anything but straight forward and appears to be, once again, "shoehorned" to fit their preconceived philosophical bias: 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/crev200905.htm This following quote sums up what materialists appear to be doing with this Homo erectus and rudolfensis, "hominid in the middle", evidence: "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 The first line of the "Evolution of the Genus Homo" paper illustrates the poverty of the fossil record in establishing human evolution: 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.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202bornagain77_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

Nak, You neglect to remember, At a cost of 4% functionality,,,albeit small, but still a indication it came at a cost of functional information... thus you reveal a bias,,,I am surprised you would cling to such a thing, just so you could deny what you disparagingly call "the finger of God". You cite: the fossil record Yet, the Cambrian explosion destroys your foundation rationale to claim this as proof! molecular phylogenies: this is false also: "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009) Excerpt: Even among higher organisms, “the problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,”,,,“despite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most [animal] phyla remained unresolved.” ,,,,Carl Woese, a pioneer of evolutionary molecular systematics, observed that these problems extend well beyond the base of the tree of life: “Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.”,,,“We’ve just annihilated the (Darwin's) tree of life.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_1.html#more On top of that your supposed strongest proof for genetic similarity now lies in tatters: For prime example of the flimsy "similarity evidence" used by materialists to try to make their case for evolution, most materialists are adamant Darwinian evolution is proven true when we look at the supposed 98.8% genetic similarity between chimps and man. Though suggestive, the gene similarity, even if true, is not nearly good enough to be considered conclusive scientific proof. Primarily this "lack of conclusiveness" is due to concerns with the second law of thermodynamics and with the Law of Conservation of Information. But of more pressing concern, body plans are not even encoded in the DNA code in the first place. This inability of body plans to be reduced directly to the DNA code is clearly shown by Cortical Inheritance. Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Arthur Jones - video Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JzQ8ingdNY Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1bAX93zQ5o This inability for the DNA code to account for body plans is also clearly shown by extensive mutation studies to the DNA of different organisms which show "exceedingly rare" major morphological effects from mutations to the DNA code. Hopeful monsters,' transposons, and the Metazoan radiation: Excerpt: Viable mutations with major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile; the chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event. These problems of viable "hopeful monsters" render these explanations untenable. Paleobiologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentine This includes the highly touted four-winged fruit fly mutations. ...Advantageous anatomical mutations are never observed. The four-winged fruit fly is a case in point: The second set of wings lacks flight muscles, so the useless appendages interfere with flying and mating, and the mutant fly cannot survive long outside the laboratory. Similar mutations in other genes also produce various anatomical deformations, but they are harmful, too. In 1963, Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that the resulting mutants “are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through natural selection." - Jonathan Wells Darwin's Theory - Fruit Flies and Morphology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bs If all that wasn't enough, the Human Genome Project really put the last nail in the coffin for "Genetic Reductionism": DNA: The Alphabet of Life - David Klinghoffer Excerpt: But all this is trivial compared to the largely unheralded insight gained from the Human Genome Project, completed in 2003. The insight is disturbing. It is that while DNA codes for the cell's building blocks, the information needed to build the rest of the creature is seemingly, in large measure, absent. ,,,The physically encoded information to form that mouse, as opposed to that fly, isn't there. Instead, "It is as if the 'idea' of the fly (or any other organism) must somehow permeate the genome that gives rise to it." Thus the 98.8% similarity derived from the DNA code, to the body plans of chimps and man, is purely imaginary, since it is clearly shown that the overriding "architectural plan" of the body is not even encoded in the DNA in the first place. Of more clarity though, this "98.8% similarity evidence" is derived by materialists from a very biased methodology of presuming that the 1.5% of the genome, which directly codes for proteins, has complete precedence of consideration over the other remaining 98.5% of the genome which does not directly code for proteins. Yet even when considering just this 1.5% of the genome that codes for proteins, we find that the proteins, which are directly coded by that 1.5% of the genome, are shown to differ by a huge 80% difference between chimps and man. Chimps are not like humans - May 2004 Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that "83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect," Sakaki said. Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009 On top of that huge 80% difference in proteins, the oft quoted 98.8% DNA similarity is not even rigorously true in the first place. Just considering this 1.5% of the genome, other recent comparisons of the protein coding genes, between chimps and man, have yielded a similarity of only 96%. Whereas, the December 2006 issue of PLoS ONE reported that human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by 6.4%, which gives a similarity of only 93.6% (Hahn). Even more realistically, to how we actually should be looking at the genomes from a investigative starting point, Dr. Hugh Ross states the similarity is closer to 85% to 90% when taking into account the chimp genome is about 12% larger than the human genome. A recent, more accurate, human/chimp genome comparison study, by Richard Buggs in 2008, has found when he rigorously compared the recently completed sequences in the genomes of chimpanzees to the genomes of humans side by side, the true genome similarity between chimps and man fell to slightly below 70%! Why is this study ignored since the ENCODE study has now implicated 100% high level functionality across the entire human genome? Finding compelling evidence that implicates 100% high level functionality across the entire genome clearly shows the similarity is not to be limited to the very biased "only 1.5% of the genome" studies of materialists. 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%. If you noticed, the chimpanzee is found to have a 12% larger genome than humans. Thus, at first glance it would seem the chimpanzee is more evolved than us, but this discrepancy is no anomaly of just chimps/humans. This disparity of genome sizes is found throughout life. There is no logical "evolutionary" progression to be found for the amount of DNA in less complex animals to the DNA found in more complex animals. In fact the genome sizes are known to vary widely between Kinds/Species and this mystery is known as the c-value enigma: C-value enigma Excerpt: it was soon found that C-values (genome sizes) vary enormously among species and that this bears no relationship to the presumed number of genes (as reflected by the complexity of the organism). For example, the cells of some salamanders may contain 40 times more DNA than those of humans. Given that C-values were assumed to be constant because DNA is the stuff of genes, and yet bore no relationship to presumed gene number, this was understandably considered paradoxical; This following paper reiterates the biased methodology of establishing 98.8% similarity, between chimps and man, used by materialists: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. “Relative differences: The myth of 1%,” Science 316: 1836.). Part of the reason for this is if one decides to take into account the plethora of species-specific DNA insertions and deletions (“indels”) that are present along any segment compared between chimp and human, the percentage of identity drops. Another reason is that duplications, inversions, translocations, and transpositions at all scales uniquely characterize the two genome sequences — these have to be untangled before aligning the sequences in order to measure their similarity. Also, the 99% identity figure is often derived from protein-coding regions that only comprise about 1.5% of the two genomes. Many mammalian protein-coding regions are highly conserved, however. We also have to consider that a detailed comparison of certain “heterochromatic” chromosome regions between chimps and humans has yet to be made. In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors. you cite:bornagain77_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, But even you admit the mutated strain compete “equally” with wild,,, should not even you, as a dogmatic evolutionists, find the consistent lack of “improved” molecular functionality anomalous? What lack? The mutated strain is antibiotic resistant and makes its home in hospitals and nursing homes where the wild type can't survive. Then why do you not demand a modicum of proof for such grand claims? Indeed, without the fossil record, biogeography, molecular phylogenies, genetics, the discovery of DNA, etc. etc. etc. the theory of evolution would have no basis at all, except for common sense. tell you what Nak show me a test where the mutated had ANY % increase of fitness over the ancestral! How about that,,,then when and if you finally do that calculate to see if you have generated the 140 functional bits needed to falsify genetic entropy,,,until then the rigors of science are not being respected by you or Dave. I don't think the BA^FT is really about the rigors of science. We can talk more later about falsifying the Finger of God.Nakashima_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Nak, you state "Genetic entropy is falsified." But even you admit the mutated strain compete "equally" with wild,,, should not even you, as a dogmatic evolutionists, find the consistent lack of "improved" molecular functionality anomalous? Don't you truly believe that bacteria turned into trees and cows and pigs and cute little bunny rabbits with absolutely no help from Almighty God? Of course you do! Then why do you not demand a modicum of proof for such grand claims? That the fitness would be so marginally successful (4%)for the wild does not detract from the fact that it is still a loss of fitness for the mutated,,,that they would fail to connect it to Genetic Entropy does not surprise me,,, tell you what Nak show me a test where the mutated had ANY % increase of fitness over the ancestral! How about that,,,then when and if you finally do that calculate to see if you have generated the 140 functional bits needed to falsify genetic entropy,,,until then the rigors of science are not being respected by you or Dave.bornagain77_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Mr Nakashima, Thank you for bringing up teh "statistically significant" question. I saw that they said the resulst weer 'significant", but failed to notice they didn't--as real scientists do-- give the statistical analysis supporting that. Nice catch.Dave Wisker_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Nakashima,
The metric does not create the condition. If entropy is happening, it is happening whether it is measured well or badly.
Well I just happen to agree with that. =PPaulN_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, Yes, lets read that paper closely. Initially, it was difficult to demonstrate differences between wild-type and clinical strains in a rich media (Nutrient or Typticase-soy agar). There were no differences in growth rate or colony size. So when we return the antibiotic resistant strain to the normal environment of the ancestral strain, there was no perceptible difference. Genetic entropy is falsified. But the researchers don't like that result, so they decide to 'tweak' their fitness test to get the result they know they want. They decide to run a comparison under stressed conditions. At the end of 10 hours post inoculation, there was only a 4% difference between BS303S and WFR. The final result is a 4% difference. Is 4% statitically significant? They don't tell you for two reasons: 1 - this is not peer reviewed science, this is street theater on a YEC website. 2 - the authors want you to ignore the 4% result and focus on the intermediate results. Our experience with competition studies reveals that demonstrating fitness costs in the laboratory is tricky and creation biologists should be careful about making dogmatic statements like, “Wild-type bacteria always outcompete antibiotic resistant mutants in nature.” Mr BA^77, they seem to be addressing you directly in this sentence.Nakashima_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Dave, And yet the fitness test, even by your own admission, was not violated. Thus your claim for falsification of the overriding principle of GE is without any true merit. As well, of what should be of primary importance to you, but you blatantly ignore, Evolution has failed to be vindicated at even this most basic level of experimentation. Grumble all you want, disparage my education, and even drag my name through the mud, but no amount of obfuscation on your part is going to change the truth of these facts.bornagain77_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

born, Are you trying to cover up your blatant bias by pretending you have refuted me with such trivial obfuscation as that? I'm not pretending, just revealing the utterly trivial 'results' of your favorite 'paper' for what they are-- inconsequential fluff.Dave Wisker_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Mr Cordova, Since you've mentioned it a few times on this thread, here is a link to FPG, a Forward Population Genetic simulator, from the lab of Jody Hey of Rutgers. It should be interesting to compare results with Mendel's Accountant and Gregor's Bookkeeper programs. Of note is the warning on population size, that the program runs much more slowly as population sizes increase past 1,000. Since few populations are this small in the wild, using the program for realistic studies might take some patience!Nakashima_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Dave, Are you trying to cover up your blatant bias by pretending you have refuted me with such trivial obfuscation as that? To bring the point home to your heart: YOU HAVE NOT VIOLATED GENETIC ENTROPY!!!! Let's read the paper more closely, "When nutrients and proper temperature are maintained, both wild-type and resistant bacteria grow nicely in the Petri dish and in the body. But as conditions turn harsh, only the more fit bacteria (wild-type) grow well. Therefore, in order to simulate competition in the wild, bacteria must be grown on minimal media. Minimal media mimics better what bacteria experience in a natural environment over a period of time. This is the place where fitness can be accurately assessed. Given a rich media, they grow about the same" Yet, you maintain that evolution will increase functional complexity? Yet when we look for it it is always missing in parents native environment. How in the world are you trying to turn this around on me, when the ancestral strain is clearly vindicated in a "raw" environment and you have demonstrated ZERO increase in functional complexity? The paper clearly illustrate to what most people, with common sense, can perfectly understand is that when sensitivity is increased in the fitness test the "ancestral" ALWAYS performs better! In fact Your VERY OWN TEST, which you cited, did not surpass the fitness of ancestral strain and I merely pointed out that the sensitivity could be increased in the test so as to differentiate the "equilibrium" anomaly witnessed.... For you then to try to fudge things around and obfuscate the point that I have clearly made several times, is a crying shame on your part and reveals you would rather advance your philosophical bias than practice true science! I maintain Genetic Entropy stands unscathed. You said some snide comment that I should catch up on 72 years worth of science... EXCUSE ME,,,If they have had 72 years to correct this, but are still teaching (brainwashing) this complete and utter garbage of evolution to our kids,,, then apparently the evolutionary biologists of the last 72 years have been complete jokes as scientists! That you would lean so heavily on them to try to defend your indefensible position, does nothing to bolster my opinion of you in this matter and I feel you would do well to distance yourself from their horrendous work!bornagain77_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Mr PaulN, Yes but is that metric not so course as to allow for imminent entropy? The metric does not create the condition. If entropy is happening, it is happening whether it is measured well or badly.Nakashima_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Nakashima,
Which is why people keep coming back to reproductive success to measure fitness.
Yes but is that metric not so course as to allow for imminent entropy? Surely if natural selection is limited to reproductive success then will not the majority of bad mutations(specifically those that do not completely cut off reproductive capability, of which there are many) fly right under the radar and into the next generation?PaulN_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

born, Before you go lecturing anyone on doing science, I suggest you reread your cited paper. The author's experiment basically demonstrated only one thing: that the genotypes of resistant bacteria show differing fitnesses compared to wild-type depending on environmental conditions. Under ampicillin treatment, the mutant genotype has superior fitness to wild-type. Under normal laboratory conditions, the mutant genotytpe is selectively neutral, that is, it has the same fitness as the wild-type. However, under starvation conditions, the wild-type has superior fitness over the mutant. In other words, the resistant genotype's adaptive value varies depending on the enviroment in which it finds itself. This is an utterly trivial and uncontroversial finding. Off the top of my head I remember Dobzhansky talking about adaptive value of a genotype being environment dependent in his 1937 book Genetics and the Origin of Species. So your paper's authors are simply confirming what evolutionary biologists have known for a very long time. That you seem unaware of this suggests to me that you could benefit by catching up on at the very least the last 72 years of evolutionary biology.Dave Wisker_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, Design can counter genetic entropy. Can you elaborate on that thought? If genetic entropy is acting constantly, does that mean that design intervention is happening constantly also?Nakashima_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Mr PaulN, Point being you can put a subjectively positive spin on pretty much anything[.] Which is why people keep coming back to reproductive success to measure fitness.Nakashima_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

You can disregard that last post, I must have been typing it while you posted the withdrawal from your question, sorry!PaulN_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Khan,
do people with Down’s syndrome reproduce more often than those without?
No, but that's beside the point I was making. The point behind that post was to illustrate a misleading tactic often used by Darwinists to substantiate their claims. Perhaps I could have chosen a better example, but I'm sure you understand the idea nonetheless.PaulN_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

PaulN, never mind, i was confused about your pointKhan_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

Sal, I have no problem with communicating via PM. As you probably have guessed, I'm "KC" over there. If you prefer email, I don't care if you use my email on UD. Either way is cool with me.Dave Wisker_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

tragic mishap,
It’s an interesting discovery in this field that very often times these diseases that are so undesirable from a human point of view have been produced because of mutations in the aboriginal, the original genomic instructions, the degradation of the original genomic program.
I think it's fair to say this view would still be unthinkable if not for the groundbreaking article by Dr. Jerry Bergman in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (web version here). AFDave Hawkins has a good survey on his blog. Conclusion: Teh bugs were created good!!herb_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

PaulN, do people with Down's syndrome reproduce more often than those without?Khan_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Dave, For you to ignore the fact that the bacteria did not exceed the "fitness" of the ancestral strain, reveals your philosophical bias. If increased functional complexity was "no big deal", as evolutionists maintain and blindly repeat over and over like the good Darwinbots they are, then why in the world are you satisfied with this test? It seems as obvious as the noon day sun that "equilibrium" is a very suspect thing to have in this experiment and should at the very least immediately bring about questions as to evolutions claim for "creating" all the life on earth.... Yet, when I point to work which has increased sensitivity of the "fitness test": Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria by Dr. Alan L. Gillen and Sarah Anderson Excerpt: Initially, it was difficult to demonstrate differences between wild-type and clinical strains in a rich media (Nutrient or Typticase-soy agar). There were no differences in growth rate or colony size. However, after switching to minimal media and observing hourly, the differences were readily observed. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore You are not even interested in the least to find if "true equilibrium" was regained by the compensated bacteria! That you would claim to have integrity in methodology, and not even concede the anomaly of equilibrium, that would send up red flags with any other scientist worth his salt, clearly tells me you could care less about the actual truth of the matter and apparently only care to cast GE in a negative light. When I pointed out that ancient 30 million year old bacteria conformed exactly to what was predicted by GE, even in a "un-sensitized" fitness test, again this fell on deaf ears.... Of what possible advantage is it to you to practice science in such an overtly biased manner? Should you not rigorously question such anomalies as "perfect equilibrium" when evolution clearly predicts increased functional complexity? Luckily science will advance anyway in spite of biases such as the one you are currently displaying.bornagain77_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Apparently fitness is not a good measure of information gain either. People who suffer down syndrome have more genetic material than those who do not. But then again, you could always say that because people with down syndrome are less likely to pilot a motor vehicle, then they are consequently less susceptible to being involved in catastrophic car accidents as well- which is more than we can say for those without down syndrome. Point being you can put a subjectively positive spin on pretty much anything, which constitutes a lot of what Darwinists put forth when reporting evolutionary advancements regardless of what detrimental factors may add up, outweigh, or even negate the positive effects. And sometimes the positive effects themselves don't even follow from proposed Darwinian mechanisms because of preprogrammed information and/or machinery having already been present when the change is observed.PaulN_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Dave, The other thing. If you try to reach me at ARN, give me a few minutes to re-enable my PM box. I shut it off for the last two years. Salscordova_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

Dave, Thank you for the kind offer, I would like to take the matter up with you. First off: I just looked at ARN, there is no "Dave Wisker" in the membership list. You probably posted under a different handle there. I realize now who you might be. I am sensitive to privacy concerns so perhaps there is a way we can communicate via another channel. You provided an e-mail address you UD registration. I can contact you through that e-mail address and then we can arrange a way to communicate if you feel uncomfortable using the e-mail address. Also, this if you feel uncomfortable with UD having the e-mail address you provided, you might be able to change it. Let me know what works for you. regards, Salscordova_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

Design can counter genetic entropy.Joseph_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

tragic mishap, Dr Meyer thinks the information is the sequence. I say the sequence alone cannot direct the chemical reactions, the timing, the placement, the transcription and translation, the proof0reading, the error-correction, the assmebly, etc., etc. The is information embedded onto/ into the sequence. Are you familiar with how computers operate? Do you understand the difference between hardware and software?Joseph_{August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply