Evidence for Evolution?

by LucidSky 97 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

crownboy

Awww, rem, you had to go chase him away, didn't you?
Perhaps he was insulted by the facts as well?
BTW, Zechariah, since most bible writers aren't positively identified how do you know they were "educated"?
rem
Zech,
Well, show me their credentials if you think they were educated. And do you deny that they were goat herders?
Some information that we know about the bible writers:
They believed certain insects had 4 legs
They believed in the geocentric model of the universe
They believed the earth was flat
They believed that mental illness was demonic influence
They believed that leprosy was caused by mold in houses
They believed the value of pi was 3
They believed that they could breed spotted animals if the animals looked at spotted reeds
They believed there was a 'firmament' above the earth that held water
They believed that is was possible to build a wooden ship over 400 feet long without metal bracing
They believed that birth defects were caused by god
They believed that rabbits chew their cud
They believed bats are birds
They believed in greatly exaggerated population estimates
They believed that god caused droughts
They believed it was possible to stop the sun and have it move backwards
They believed the earth did not move
They believed that thinking processes occured in the heart
They believed in unicorns
They believed in dragons (fiery flying serpents)
They believed the moon made its own light
They bleieved that a human could survive three days and nights inside a fish
They believed that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds
As you can see, there is much evidence that these men were not educated, but believed in all of the silly things that the uneducated people of their times accepted. Even educated people of surrounding nations knew better than what is written in the bible. I'd rather rely on the progressive knowledge of science than be stuck back in the stone age and rely on the words of these men when it comes to understanding our universe.
rem
rem

Zech,
I am through with trying to have respectful conversation with you. Your attitude stinks and I am tired of being disrespected and called crackpots and the like.
Flat Earthers hate being called crackpots too.
rem
LucidSky

just as there is no need to take crackpots who believe a global flood happened a few thousand years ago seriously

Hey, now! This crackpot used to believe that back in the day too!
I don't see why mutation would not be an acceptable mechanism for change. Many diseases and cancers are caused by mutation, as are improvements - such as bacterial resistance. Natural selection will weed out the deleterious mutations and keep the rest.
hooberus

rem said the following in response to my statement that the various species that we see today came from around 6,000 different basic kinds on the ark through genetic recombination and not from mutation.
"Hooberus is grasping at straws, I see.
Actually rem the diversity came from genetic recombination and not from mutation.
This statement is just as misinformed and ignorant as the previous Einstein comment. Even dog breeders know that mutations cause the interesting traits of different types of dog. "
Well rem, while some types of dogs have come through mutation, the primary means of diversification since the ark has come throught genetic recombination. Of course you won't believe this, in fact you may even post a response similar to this evoultionary biologist, who apparently shares your same arrogant, dismissive attitude.
" I listened to your program of 6/14/01 entitled Dogshow many on the Ark?. As I understand it, you are contending that the whole array of canine species, from wolves to jackals to foxes to canis familiaris arose in approximately 4,000 years from the genetic potential in just two animals.
As a professional biologist, I can tell you that this is preposterous and points up the superficiality of your arguments. Since you deny the role of mutation in adding information to the genome, how do you account for the wide range of present-day traits arising from two individual genomes which could have had only two copies of each gene between them?
Such silliness will certainly not give you any credibility to those who are unconvinced (and are competent scientists), and most of your true believers lack the scientific background to assess the validity of your spurious claims."
Richard A. Meiss, Ph.D.
Speedway
IN
Edited by - hooberus on 13 November 2002 13:23:9
Edited by - hooberus on 13 November 2002 13:24:37
rem

Hooberus,
Well rem, while some types of dogs have come through mutation, the primary means of diversification since the ark has come throught genetic recombination. Of course you won't believe this
Of course I don't believe it, because you have provided no evidence to back up this silly statement. Why should any sane person take your word for it? Your lack of scientific knowledge is quite apparent.
Again, how does 'genetic recombination' explain the diversity of asexually reproducing organisms? Or do you believe that all organisms reproduce sexually?
rem
Edited by - rem on 13 November 2002 14:6:53

hooberus

"Of course I don't believe it, because you have provided no evidence to back up this silly statement. Why should any sane person take your word for it? Your lack of scientific knowledge is quite apparent. " well rem, here is the evidence to back it up. And since no sane person should take my word for it because my lack of scientific knowledge is quite apparent. I will defer to a biologist. A pair of dogs/wolves on Noahs Ark couldnt have produced all dog varieties today?

Richard A. Meiss, Ph.D., Speedway, IN, USA, who gave permission for his full name to be used. For a change from most negative feedbacks, this letter attempts to give an objection of substance. But as will be shown, it relies on the informal logical fallacy of argument from authority or Argumentum ad verecundiam) (As a professional biologist ) instead of performing elementary calculations, and like most evolutionists, misunderstands the vital point that evolution from goo to you via the zoo requires changes that increase genetic information content. His letter is printed first in its entirety. A response by Don Batten, Ph.D., also a professional biologist, of Answers in Genesis (Australia), immediately follows his letter (indented

black text ) with point-by-point responses (in dark red ) interspersed as per normal email fashion. Ellipses () at the end of one of TMs paragraphs signal that a mid-sentence comment follows, not an omission.

I listened to your program of 6/14/01 entitled Dogshow many on the Ark?. As I understand it, you are contending that the whole array of canine species, from wolves to jackals to foxes to canis familiaris arose in approximately 4,000 years from the genetic potential in just two animals.

As a professional biologist, I can tell you that this is preposterous and points up the superficiality of your arguments. Since you deny the role of mutation in adding information to the genome, how do you account for the wide range of present-day traits arising from two individual genomes which could have had only two copies of each gene between them?

Such silliness will certainly not give you any credibility to those who are unconvinced (and are competent scientists), and most of your true believers lack the scientific background to assess the validity of your spurious claims.

Richard A. Meiss, Ph.D.
Speedway
IN

Time and chance cant explain lifes amazing designget your answers here!

Not By Chance! Dr Lee Spetner

Dr Spetner, an Israeli biophysicist and expert information theorist, has dealt a death-blow at the heart of the neo- Darwinian story. The crucial battle- ground has always been the origin of new genetic information. Spetner shows that random mutations plus natural selection are an inadequate explanation of the encyclopedic information content in living organisms. This book is a must for everyone who desires to defend the Bible in this increasingly educated society.

I listened to your program of 6/14/01 [14 June 2001] entitled Dogshow many on the Ark?. As I understand it, you are contending that the whole array of canine species, from wolves to jackals to foxes to canis familiaris [sic I presume that a professional biologist knows that the generic name should be capitalized and this is just a typo] arose in approximately 4,000 years from the genetic potential in just two animals.

Obviously these short radio programs do not cover all the bases. I suggest that you check out the rest of our website for the details of these thingsits easy to do using the internal search engine and the Q&A tab which hyperlinks to about 50 topic categories. Ken Ham was saying that the variety of dogs, wolves, etc., could possibly have come from one pairthat there may have been only one pair on the Ark. Evidence of inter-fertility between different species of the wolf group is good evidence that they belong to the one created kind. There is no doubt that the number of basically different kinds of animals is much less than the number of species that have been named, so that one of the common scoffers arguments that Noah could not have fitted all the animals, is just hot air (see Q&A: Noahs Ark).

As a professional biologist, I can tell you that this is preposterous and points up the superficiality of your arguments.

I am a professional biologist also, so this argument from authority doesnt impress me in the least, and nor should it impress anyone else. I do not see anything preposterous or superficial about the argument. Perhaps it is not the biology that offends you, but the worldview that we stand for and your protestations are an excuse for denying the clear teaching of the Bible regarding the Creation, Fall and Flood.

Since you deny the role of mutation in adding information to the genome, how do you account for the wide range of present-day traits

David Mentons pictures above, under the scanning electron microscope, show the tremendous difference between feathers (top) and scales (bottom) [both magnified 80 times].

Here we have a confusion of different issues. Do mutations contribute to the variety we see in things such as domestic dog breeds? Most certainly see Is Your Dog Some Kind of Degenerate Mutant?. However, does this give support to belief in molecules-to-man evolution? Most definitely not. The sort of variety created by mutations (for example, hairless, pushed in face, stumpy legs, etc.) is due to loss of information, not the addition of new genetic information. This is not the stuff that would change a lizard (or a dinosaur) into a bird, for example this requires the addition of the specifications (coded in the DNA) for making feathers (see scannning electron micrographs, left), flow-through lungs connected to hollow bones, bird-brains, etc.

As Dr Lee Spetner has pointed out in his book (above, right) and refutations of sceptics, no one has yet found a mutation that adds new complex coded heritable information to any organism. If mutations are really responsible for all the information added to a microbe to make a man, there should be plenty happening today that could be observed.

arising from two individual genomes which could have had only two copies of each gene between them?

Actually, two genomes could have four different genes (alleles) between them for each gene locus, not two. Since you say you are a professional biologist, I assume you just made a simple mistake here and you actually do understand the principles of genetics.

Now, there are probably some 30,000 genes in a wolf/dog, and if every gene locus were heterozygous (two different alleles), then for each gene there are 10 possible pairs of four types of allele (if the alleles are A, B, C, D; then the possible pairs can be easily tabulated: AA, AB, AC, AD, BB, BC, BD, CC, CD, DD for n types of allele, the number of possible pairs is n(n+1) / 2 ).

With the recombinations due to sexual reproduction, this amounts to a potential number of different genotypes in the descendants of 10 30,000 (this is 1 followed by 30,000 zeros). To put this in perspective, there are thought to be some 10 80 atoms in the Universe! So, it appears that two wolves could produce quite a few descendants before the pattern would have to be repeated! Now because not every gene locus is likely to be heterozygous in the original pair, and because of recessive alleles not every gene will be expressed, so the number of animals that could actually be different in their form (phenotype) would be less than the huge number above.

But lets be ultra-generous to the evolutionist. I.e., lets assume (as you claimed) that there were only two types of allele per locus, and that there was no co-dominance so only two phenotypes per locus, and there was only 1% heterozygosity in wolves/dogs (cf. 6.7% in humans even today, presumably much less than in Adam and Eve), the number of possible varieties would be 2 300 = 10 300(log(10)2) = 10 90 . Even with these conservative figures, this number is still so huge that it makes the number of atoms in the universe seem like a tiny smattering 10 90 /10 80 = 10 10 (10 billion) times larger!

So it seems like there would have been plenty of genetic potential to produce all the members of the wolf kind that we see today. And if to this we add the degenerative changes due to mutations, we have more than ample capacity in two animals to produce all the varieties of dogs/wolves/jackals that we see today.

Such silliness

Hmmm

will certainly not give you any credibility to those who are unconvinced (and are competent scientists), and most of your true believers lack the scientific background to assess the validity of your spurious claims.

Actually there are plenty of competent scientists, including professional biologists, who accept the Bibles authority, including the accounts of Creation, the Fall and the Flood; and of course creationists were responsible for founding most branches of modern science, including biology. This is well documented in our creationist scientists page. And I know laymen who understand these basic issues of genetics better than some supposedly professional biologists. In fact, one Professor of Genetics at a university was shocked into reason by his wife, who has no academic qualifications like you, he scoffed at her supposed ignorance, but God used something she said to break through his evolutionized outlook (see Jumping Ship: A geneticist tells of his double conversion).

Perhaps it is not the credibility of our teaching that is a problem but that, like other unbelievers, you are wilfully ignorant of things the Bible teaches (2 Peter 3:5). This scoffing derision comes from a determination to follow ones own evil desires (2 Peter 3:3) because to acknowledge the truth of the Bible would mean having to submit to the One who inspired it, admitting that you are guilty in His sight, deserving of His judgment and in need of the forgiveness He has made available through Jesus Christ. Such a profound change (conversion) would not make one the flavor of the month with ones fellow scoffers! It would be a very difficult decision, but it needs to be done! Jesus said to follow him would be costly (John 15:1821cf.2 Timothy 3:12), but He is the only way to eternal life (John 14:6, Acts 4:12).

Richard A. Meiss, Ph.D.

Sincerely
Don Batten, Ph.D.
Research scientist, author and editorial consultant
AiG (Australia)

Return to web feedback page

Edited by - hooberus on 13 November 2002 22:2:22

hooberus

Dr. Battens qualifications are linked above. This is so others here can see his qualifications, as rem will surly respond with some sort of ad hominem attack.
hooberus

rem said:"Perhaps Hooberus would like to inform us how all of the different species of asexually reproducing plants and bacteria "genetically recombined" without mutation to fill the earth after the alleged flood?
I never said that the different species of asexually reproducing plants and bacteria 'genetically recombined' to fill the earth after the flood. My point about genetic recombination referred to the basic animal kinds and not to plants.
rem said:"Again, how does 'genetic recombination' explain the diversity of asexually reproducing organisms? Or do you believe that all organisms reproduce sexually? "
I never said that 'genetic recombination' explains the diversity of asexually reproducing organisms. No I don't believe that all organisms reproduce sexually.
Edited by - hooberus on 13 November 2002 22:23:7
rem

hooberus,
The article you posted is a laugh. Doctor Meiss is right: most true believers, such as yourself, lack the scientific background to assess the validity of Doctor Batten's spurious claims. I'll let the article speak for itself. It truly is a work of hilarity for people who actually understand science and logic. Sadly, people such as yourself cannot see through the pseudoscientific rhetoric. People like you will believe anything a Creationist 'Scientist' says.
rem
Edited by - rem on 13 November 2002 22:59:55

Evidence for Evolution?

Share this