To read VJ Torley’s analysis of my criticism of S. Joshua Swamidass’ recent article, Evidence and Evolution, one would think that I mercilessly berated a poor fellow who was merely attempting to “extend an olive branch to creationists.” After all, nowhere did Swamidass belittle or ridicule his opponents, and nowhere was there so much as a trace of the smug superiority. And the guy is a Christian, not some atheistic reductionist. In fact, Swamidass does not even draw any conclusions in his article. Read more
16 Replies to “A Response to VJ Torley”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
A Closer Look At Human/Chimp Similarities and Differences – video
https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1134643976548534/?type=2&theater
Alternative Splicing (genetic regulatory) Codes are Species Specific
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UMbNM8V2b7mRzPJt05mlev3UO4SG1bMTV5wkNunezjY/edit
Hello, a FAQ has been added to my original article that includes a response to Michael Behe’s contribution to this conversation. I hope this helps address your questions.
http://swami.wustl.edu/evidence-for-evolution
Despite how enamored some people in the ID community seem to be with the hypothesis of common descent, the fact of the matter is that the hypothesis common descent, whether by RM/NS or by gradual intelligent intervention, is not without major problems. Problems that should rightly falsify universal common descent as a viable hypothesis.
First off, despite the constant rhetoric of Darwinists, the fossil record does not reveal a pattern of gradualism, but the fossil record instead reveals a pattern of sudden appearance, rapid diversity ‘within kind’, then long term stasis, and even deterioration of species over long periods of time.
The Cambrian Explosion by itself is shattering to the hypothesis of common decent.
As Dr. Wells pointed out in the preceding video, Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin’s tree of life. What Darwin predicted should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the following graph.,,,
But that ‘tree pattern’ that Darwin predicted is not what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin’s theory predicted.
Moreover, there are ‘yawning chasms’ in the ‘morphological space’ between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion,,,
Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this ‘top down’, disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found in the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.
Even young earth creationists believe in the common descent of extant species from creatures on Noah’s ark. Sadly, they attribute that to RM+NS rather than to design, which is why I wonder why they attach themselves to ID. What big tent?
That the fossil record is one of sudden appearance and stasis is fairly uncontroversial among leading paleontologists today:
Mr. Arrington or I can provide several dozen quotes from leading paleontologist testifying to the sudden appearance and stasis pattern of the overall fossil record.
And although the overall fossil record is one of sudden appearance and stasis, when it comes to the fossil record of man, the rest of the fossil record is mysteriously ignored and gradualism is claimed to be the norm. Phillip Johnson puts the selective amnesia people have with the human fossil record like this:
And indeed, the human fossil record is the place that you will encounter the greatest rhetoric from Darwinists for gradualism in the fossil record. Casey Luskin, Denyse O’Leary, and Jonathan Wells weigh in on that rhetoric from Darwinists surrounding the human fossil record here:
And indeed, when one steps away from the rhetoric of Darwinists in the media headlines, and looks at the evidence itself, one finds that the human fossil record is, like the rest of the fossil record, one of sudden appearance and stasis, (just as would be expected when considering the pattern of the overall fossil record)
Moreover, where the human fossil record is most complete, and we don’t have to rely on teeth and bone fragments so much, in other words, within the last 30,000 of the human fossil record, we find a record of deterioration not a record of evolution:
Another strong piece of evidence, that man is not evolving but is instead deteriorating, is that scientists find the genetic differences of the ‘younger’ human races (Chinese, Europeans, American Indians, etc.. etc..) are losing genetic information when compared to the original race of humans which is thought to have migrated out of east Africa some 50,000 years ago.
Moreover, although Darwinists constantly stress similarities between humans and apes to try to establish that humans evolved from some ape=like creature, the fact of the matter is that there are some fairly profound differences between humans and chimps that are simply ignored by Darwinists as if they don’t matter.
For starters, nearly every bone between chimps and humans is readily distinguishable from one another:
That nearly every bone is readily distinguishable between chimps and humans presents its own insurmountable problem for Darwinian explanations:
Bones are not the only place that humans and chimps differ significantly. Anatomically humans and chimps are found to be quite different as well. In fact so great are the anatomical differences between humans and chimps that a Darwinist, since pigs are anatomically closer to humans than chimps are, actually proposed that a chimp and pig mated with each other and that is what ultimately gave rise to humans:
Moreover, Physorg published a subsequent article showing that the pig-chimp hybrid theory for human origins is much harder to shoot down than some other Darwinists, who opposed McCarthy fairly strongly, had first supposed it would be:
And although Darwinists like to focus on Genetic similarity between chimps and humans whilst ignoring all the other evidence, the fact of the matter is that the genetic evidence is not as cut and dried as Darwinists have misled people to believe:
It is also important to note just how little we actually know about the proteome of humans
Moreover, the egg laying and fusion arguments of Darwinists do not hold up to scrutiny:
Moreover, even if the DNA evidence were as cooperative to Darwinian claims as it is falsely claimed to be by Darwinists that still does not go one inch towards explaining how ‘body-plans’ originate. Body Plans, i.e. ‘forms’, are simply not reducible to DNA sequences (or to proteins for that matter).
Moreover, as if the preceding were not bad enough, Darwinists are still operating within a 18th, early 19th, century materialistic framework. Recent findings in ‘Quantum Biology’ are completely overturning that antiquated materialistic framework that Darwinists are currently using:
Moreover, a tantalizing clue that we are indeed made in the ‘image of God’ is the fact that both the universe and biology are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and yet we, of all the creatures on earth, alone uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information:
Verses and Music:
It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’, than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information.
I guess a more convincing evidence could be if God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was God.
But who has ever heard of such overwhelming evidence as that?
Of supplemental note to genetic similarity and the ‘species specific’ dissimilarity of gene regulatory networks:
Of supplemental note to Richard Sternberg’s ‘bar codes are not the same’ between species quote. It turns out that the bar code pattern that Dr. Sternberg alluded to is irreducibly complex in its organizational relation to the individual genes:
Moreover, unlike the protein coding sequences where there is some flexibility towards mutations, disrupting gene regulatory networks is ‘always catastrophically bad’.
Thus, where Darwinists most need plasticity in the genome to be viable as a theory, (i.e. developmental Gene Regulatory Networks), is the place where mutations are found to be ‘always catastrophically bad’. Yet, it is exactly in this area of the genome (i.e. regulatory networks) where substantial, ‘orders of magnitude’, differences are found between even the supposedly closely related species of chimps and humans.
Needless to say, since Darwinian evolution presupposes the unlimited plasticity of organisms, this is the exact opposite finding for what Darwinism would have been predicted for what should have been found in the genome.
If Darwinian evolution were a normal science that was subject to rigorous testing, instead of the pseudo-science that it is, this finding, by itself, should have been more than enough to falsify neo-Darwinian claims.
After C.H. Website was rigged with comments waiting for approval, I’m sure we are NOT going to hear the whole truth.
“Christinas” who have been fighting for the freedom of speech they don’t really want. Congratulations!
I will not comment on this site again. My roommates are free to make their own decisions. There are 11 of us using the same connection. WiFi for free.
Even young earth creationists believe in the common descent of extant species from creatures on Noah’s ark. Sadly, they attribute that to RM+NS rather than to design, which is why I wonder why they attach themselves to ID. What big tent?