Intelligent Design

Does Genomics Need Darwin?

Spread the love

Are cracks appearing in the Darwinian facade? There appears to be increasing recognition in at least some genomic centres that Darwin needs to be laid quietly to rest as scientific discoveries progress. Professor John Dupre of Egenis for instance writes in the Genomics Network Newsletter – April 2009 – Does Genomics Need Darwin? (p.23)

“Whereas until recently it was thought that the vast majority of the genome (>98%) not directly involved in coding for proteins was ‘junk’, perhaps selfish DNA involved in its own project of colonizing the genome, this view is now widely discredited. At least 70% of the genome appears to be transcribed, and it is increasingly suspected that much of this is involved in regulation of genome expression. Especially prominent among these regulatory elements are the small RNA molecules that are now known to be a major feature of all cellular environments, and that have been divided into a rapidly diversifying taxonomy of kinds. Exploration of the functions of these systems of molecules is one of the most exciting areas of contemporary biology.”

53 Replies to “Does Genomics Need Darwin?

  1. 1
    Khan says:

    Andrew,
    THis quotation was taken from an answer to the question “What light do new developments in
    molecular biology shed on the importance of Darwin’s natural selection compared to, say, Lamarckian modes of inheritance?” First, the question itself shows great confusion because there is no fundamental discord between Lamarckian modes of inheritance and evolution. Second, taken in context, Dupre was referring not to evolution but to the central dogma of molecular biology- that information from DNA flows outward only, and is not affected by environment. Dupre is saying that the environment of the cell, perhaps affected by transcripts of junk DNA, can affect gene expression, contrary to the dogma. thus, it would be more accurate to say that “the fundamental dogma of molecular biology needs to be laid quietly to rest as scientific discoveries progress.”

  2. 2
    Mapou says:

    Khan:

    First, the question itself shows great confusion because there is no fundamental discord between Lamarckian modes of inheritance and evolution.

    I don’t get this. If evolution turns out to be controlled by a Lamarckian evolutionary mechanism (synonymous with front loading, IMO), this means that the genome has the ability to anticipate future environmental conditions and adjust the expression of its genes accordingly. How is this compatible with Darwinian evolution since DE is based on natural selection and mutations over millions of years?

    Why would evolution evolve a new anticipatory evolutionary mechanism if the non-anticipatory one was working perfectly? I say this because any evolutionary system that can design (oops!) a subsystem that can predict the future is extremely effective and there is no pressure to replace it.

    Now, I have heard some evolutionists reason that all the genes required for Lamarckian evolution arose over millions of years and were recorded in the genetic memory of the species. My question is, assuming a Lamarckian anticipatory system both evolved and is necessary for the survival of a species, how did the species do without this mechanism at a time when environmental upheaval on the planet was the norm rather than the exception?

  3. 3
    Mapou says:

    Nice article and interesting link.

    Here’s a quote from the link that caught my attention. Dr Staffan Müller-Wille writes on page 22:

    On the other hand it remains questionable if we could fully decipher the meaning of the multitude of patterns discernible in human DNA without having some grounding in Darwinian evolutionary theory. DNA carries with it signals from our evolutionary past which are wholly unaccountable for by theories of special creation. Thus Collins is more than happy to concede that “a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable”.

    This may be a refutation of special all-at-once creation (I knows many would disagree) but I don’t see how it refutes intelligent design. If an intelligent designer chooses a set of building blocks (nucleotides) to create an initial design and continually modifies and improces on the design over the years to come up with a huge number of later more complex variations, I would call it evolution by design and not Darwinian evolution.

    My point is that I don’t understand why Dr Staffan Müller-Wille and others insist that common descent can only be explained by assuming Darwinian evolution.

  4. 4
    tribune7 says:

    Genomics does not need Darwin. Nothing practical needs Darwin as least with regard to his views on history of species development.

  5. 5
    Nakashima says:

    Mr Sibley,

    It is a pity you wrote this without seeing the extensive discussion here on UD about this exact issue of the relevance of epigenetics and “Lamarckism” to evolution, whether considered historically as Darwin saw it or as we understand it today.

    Even more incredible is that you pass over the mention of Uncommon Descent itself on page 20!!

  6. 6

    Mapau quotes this from the news letter “DNA carries with it signals from our evolutionary past which are wholly unaccountable for by theories of special creation.”

    In response, if the work of the genomics network and Egenis (as discussed in the newsletter) is to show that lateral gene transfer calls into question the Tree of Life, then surely so called ‘signals from our evolutionary past’ in the genes cannot be used as evidence for common descent. If genetic information can be transferred laterally, then that does not necessarily call into question special creation, but provides a possible explanation within such a framework.

    As for Nakashima’s comments. I merely posted the item to allow discussion and did not feel the need to spoon-feed the content to all and sundry – please read it for yourself and add some comments. And if there is another discussion then please link to it.

  7. 7
    Alan Fox says:

    Mr Sibley,

    I see from following your link that you are a creationist. Do your theological beliefs drive your assessment of Darwin? I get that impression from the tone of news articles, for instance on “Ida” and “Tiktaalik” at your site.

    I haven’t seen you presenting the weather recently on BBC TV. Have you retired from meteorology?

  8. 8
    Alan Fox says:

    …takes a keen interest in science and environmental issues, and also aspects of Flood geology…

    It just occurs to me that Flood with a capital “F” refers to the creationist idea of a global flood with Noah’s ark etc. I have often wondered, having read various debates about the evidence (thanks AFDave!), where all the water came from and where it is now? I don’t know if you have any thoughts about this.

  9. 9

    Alan – my rejection of Darwinism is mainly based on the fact that I consider the concept of an undirected evolutionary progression to be an oxymoron. Basically it is a claim for ‘undirected direction.’

    Where did all the water come from and where did it go? This question isn’t related to ID, but you don’t have to be a maths genius to work out that 70% of the earth is covered by ocean water to a depth of 3km. There is more than enough water to cover the land to a depth of 2km if you allow for isostatic changes and thermal expansion of the sea due to something like Baumgardner’s catastrophic plate tectonics.

  10. 10
    Joseph says:

    It’s obvious that the theory of evolution does not rely on genomics.

    There isn’t any genetic data which demonstrates that single-celled orhanisms can evolve into anything but single-celled organisms.

    The best we have are colonies but no evolution.

    Then there is the fact that we don’t even know what genes/ DNA sequence(s) are responsible for our eyes and vision system.

    Unguided processes cannot answer the question of how regulatory sequences arose…

  11. 11
    Alan Fox says:

    Andrew

    Mount Ararat is not at sea level.

  12. 12
    Joseph says:

    Alan Fox:

    Mount Ararat is not at sea level.

    Did Mount Ararat always exist?

    I was under the impression that the mountains and the ocean basins were created during the Flood episode- which was much more than just a flood.

  13. 13
    Alan Fox says:

    I was under the impression that the mountains and the ocean basins were created during the Flood episode- which was much more than just a flood.

    If it wasn’t you writing it, Joe, I’d be intrigued by “…more than just a flood”.

  14. 14
    Alan Fox says:

    So, prior to the flood, there were no mountains and ocean basins? So, where was the water?

  15. 15
    herb says:

    Mr. Sibley,

    Where did all the water come from and where did it go? This question isn’t related to ID, but you don’t have to be a maths genius to work out that 70% of the earth is covered by ocean water to a depth of 3km. There is more than enough water to cover the land to a depth of 2km if you allow for isostatic changes and thermal expansion of the sea due to something like Baumgardner’s catastrophic plate tectonics.

    Dr. Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory is one of the more refined “flood” theories out there, in my view. It even accounts for the origin of the asteroid belts, which has long baffled evolutionary astronomers.

  16. 16
    Nakashima says:

    Mr Sibley,

    For your benefit epigenetics was recently discussed here.

    I did read the newsletter. That is how I noticed all the positive comments on Darwin and evolution, and the mention of Uncommon Descent on the previous pages.

    As a comment directly to your post – there is nothing in the section you quote or in the newletter as a whole to justify your opening paragraph. If you see a crack, quote the source directly. If you see a scientist arguing to lay aside evolution, quote her. The significance of the article you have quoted is that whatever the mechanism, heritable variation is an evolutionary process.

    (I now return you to the discussion of Flood geology. 😉 )

  17. 17
    Alan Fox says:

    It even accounts for the origin of the asteroid belts, which has long baffled evolutionary astronomers.

    What, pray, is an “evolutionary astronomer”?

  18. 18
    Joseph says:

    I was under the impression that the mountains and the ocean basins were created during the Flood episode- which was much more than just a flood.

    Alan Fox:

    If it wasn’t you writing it, Joe, I’d be intrigued by “…more than just a flood”.

    Just by reading the Bible it is clear that it was more than just a flood.

    Herb has provided a reference- you should read it.

  19. 19
    Joseph says:

    What, pray, is an “evolutionary astronomer”?

    An astronomer who accepts the theory of evolution and translates that to his/ her own venue.

    IOW an astronomer who thinks that atomic accidents and cosmic cokkisions are all that is required to explain the cosmos.

  20. 20
    Diffaxial says:

    Andrew:

    Alan – my rejection of Darwinism is mainly based on the fact that I consider the concept of an undirected evolutionary progression to be an oxymoron. Basically it is a claim for ‘undirected direction.’

    Zachriel elsewhere observes:

    “Just like a river has a direction towards the sea, but is considered undirected. It’s a conflation of different senses of the word direction.”

  21. 21
    Nakashima says:

    Mr Sibley,

    Alan – my rejection of Darwinism is mainly based on the fact that I consider the concept of an undirected evolutionary progression to be an oxymoron. Basically it is a claim for ‘undirected direction.’

    You are reading into evolution a teleogical position that is not there. Drop the ‘progression’ and ‘direction’ ideas in favor of ‘history’ and you are good to go!

    Of course, if the issue is really a prior theological commitment to progress (Adam to Jesus) please be clearer next time.

  22. 22
    herb says:

    Alan Fox,

    What, pray, is an “evolutionary astronomer”?

    In addition to what Joseph already said, I would add the assumption of a 4.6 billion year old solar system.

    BTW, I’m aware the Hydroplate Theory is relatively young and will likely have to be tweaked as new evidence comes in, but so far it at least passes the beverage through the nose test, unlike the mainstream theories.

  23. 23
    PaV says:

    Here’s an article about guppy “evolution”. Is it really proper to talk about “evolution” here? Isn’t this really adaptation? And, isn’t this adaptive behavior tied into epigenetics, given that it is maternal and rapid (directly from one generation to another)?

    Most of what passes for “evolution” is, IMO, nothing more than “adaptation”, whose genetic basis we’re only now beginning to discover. There is an article somewhere—I can’t remember where now!—that talks about L1 retrotransposons and how the reverse transcriptase works at 4-8 cell embryonic stage; that is, the DNA that is ‘read back’ into the genome happens outside of the germline. This is rather novel, and the implications compelling.

  24. 24
    PaV says:

    Here’s that will work. The format they show above the post box is not correct, apparently.

  25. 25
    JayM says:

    herb @22

    Alan Fox,

    What, pray, is an “evolutionary astronomer”?

    In addition to what Joseph already said, I would add the assumption of a 4.6 billion year old solar system.

    That’s not an assumption, it’s a conclusion based on a significant amount of empirical evidence from multiple disciplines.

    If we want ID to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, disparaging well-supported science that demonstrates that the universe is billions, not thousands, of years old is not a good approach.

    JJ

  26. 26
    Mapou says:

    JayM:

    If we want ID to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, disparaging well-supported science that demonstrates that the universe is billions, not thousands, of years old is not a good approach.

    As you all know, ID does not say that universe is a few thousand years old. It a young earth creationist hypothesis supported mostly by fundamentalist Christians.

    That being said, I agree that YEC supporters have neither a scientific nor theological leg to stand on. As a Christian, I resent their influence in the debate on evolution because it is distracting and damaging. The Darwinists have gotten a lot of mileage by confusing YEC with ID. I think it is time that ID supporters completely and unequivocally distance themselves from the YEC crowd. The so-called big tent approach is a joke. One man’s opinion, of course.

  27. 27
    StephenA says:

    (this comment is directed at ID supporters)

    Let us first consider ID and Darwinism. Obviously, one of these theories is wrong (which one is beside the point here). Should one of them be marginalised, ridiculed, or persecuted? The only alternative is to allow wrong ideas their chance to be heard. Personally, I hope to replace the tyranny of Darwinism with freedom, and not just another tyranny.

    Why kick YEC’s out of the Big Tent? So ID will be taken seriously? But why would they accept you while you still reject ‘well-supported science that demonstrates that life evolved without need for an intelligent designer’?

    The ‘Big Tent’ simply means allowing anyone who wants to support ID to do so. Kicking people out of the ‘Big Tent’ would mean saying “You may agree with us, and you may want to support us, but we don’t want people like you here.”

  28. 28
    Clive Hayden says:

    StephenA,

    ——“Why kick YEC’s out of the Big Tent? So ID will be taken seriously? But why would they accept you while you still reject ‘well-supported science that demonstrates that life evolved without need for an intelligent designer’?

    The ‘Big Tent’ simply means allowing anyone who wants to support ID to do so. Kicking people out of the ‘Big Tent’ would mean saying “You may agree with us, and you may want to support us, but we don’t want people like you here.””

    It seems to me that our tent is big, what are you referring to Stephen? Have we kicked folks out?

  29. 29
    StephenA says:

    Sorry, I was responding to the comments above where it was (once again) being proposed that “it is time that ID supporters completely and unequivocally distance themselves from the YEC crowd.”

  30. 30
    Gaz says:

    herb (15),

    “Dr. Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory is one of the more refined “flood” theories out there, in my view. It even accounts for the origin of the asteroid belts, which has long baffled evolutionary astronomers.”

    The Hydroplate Theory is garbage, and the claim that it explains the asteroid belt is one of its most ludicrous (quite a feat in itself). Brown has given no calculations of the energy required or orbital dynamics involved in propelling huge masses out from the orbit of Earth to between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

    A moment’s thought should be enough to convince pretty much anyone of the nonsense of the theory. Even if huge bodies could be ejected from the Earth (a considerable feat in itself, involving attaining escape velocity for massive objects up to the 500 mile diameter size of Ceres) the most obvious result would be recoalescing into another satellite (as happened with the debris that consitutes the Moon) or a more obvious orbit such as around the Earth itself or a less energetically-demanding solar orbit much closer to the Earth itself. Claiming the asteroids could have been propelled out to Mars and Jupiter is a phoney with no basis in fact or supporting evidence that was done solely for the reason that the asteroids happen to be there and needed to be explained by some creationist theory. But Brown has failed lamentably.

    Nor is there any great bafflement, as you claim, about the origin of the asteroid belt among astronomers – certainly we’re looking for more detail, but then again we always are. But it’s no mystery. The Kuiper belt was even predicted before it was found.

  31. 31
    djmullen says:

    Alan Fox @ 11:

    “Mount Ararat is not at sea level.”

    Mr. Fox, if you are going to post on a blog which includes Young Earth Creationists amongst its Big Tent, it would be well for you to learn some Flood Science. Here’s a quick rundown:

    About the time the Egyptians were building the pyramids, God (or The Designer if you prefer) decided that just about everybody on earth was evil and should be drowned, except Noah and his family. [And if you look at what Noah did right after the flood, getting all drunk and naked and everything, sparing him and his family may have been an instance of bad design. Just my opinion.]

    So God made it rain for 40 days and 40 nights and also broke up the earth into hydroplates, which allowed the vast amounts of water under the earth to come gushing out of the fountains of the deep and the sewers backed up (see B. Cosby, “Noah”, 1963), drowning everybody on earth except for the Egyptians, Babylonians, Chinese and a few dozen other groups who were apparently immune to drowning, possibly because they were atheists or had gills or something. (And, if you’re wondering, they never mentioned the flood in their records because that would just be giving support to the very Jews that had escaped from benevolent Egyptian slavery in the first place.)

    When the water that was supporting them was released, the hydroplates started skidding every which way, rushing around the world at a high rate of speed, eventually raising the mountains, which had previously only been ten feet high, and also creating the ocean basins including the Mariana Trench, all 10,900 meters of it.

    Then, as the water flowed into the newly formed ocean basins, they carved out the Grand Canyon, making modern tourism possible.

    At this point, Noah landed on Mt Arrarat and released all of the animals. A second burst of hydroplate activity then broke up Godwannaland (or Designerland if you must) and carried all of the continents to their present locations, along with the newly released animals. (Some Biblical astronomers believe that this may be when the asteroid belt was formed.)

    Finally, the sediment stirred up by the Flood settled out of the 2 km deep Flood waters to make up our geological column, which averages about 100 miles deep world wide. This discrepancy between the 2 km deep Flood and the 100 mile deep geological column is an artifact of metric conversion.

    Got that? Write it down!

  32. 32
    Mapou says:

    StephenA @27,

    I am just as much against trying to be accepted by evolutionists as I am against being accepted by those whom I believe to be lying about what Christianity is about. I am a Christian but I don’t worship the Bible and I don’t believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

    Biblical infallibility is an evil concept, in my opinion. The Bible is an amazing book but it is just a tool for research. I am offended that some Christian fundamentalists would turn it into an object of worship. Even worse, I am offended that some have turned their own private interpretations of scripture into objects of worship. To me, that is blasphemy. It would not be so bad if their interpretations held water but they are laughably absurd on the face of it.

    I want those Christians who think that they have a monopoly on Biblical understanding to stop insulting God’s intelligence with their cockamamie interpretations. God does not insult our intelligence. Why do we insult his. There are things in scripture that require real wisdom to comprehend. The book of Revelation is full of symbolic stuff that demands intelligence, faith and diligence to decipher.

    If the YEC folks think they are privileged in their understanding of scripture, let them explain the meaning of the four creatures with the four faces and the four wings of Ezekiel. Let them explain the wheel within a wheel. Let them interpret for us the stone with seven eyes, the golden lampstand with the seven lamps and the flying scroll of Zechariah. Until and unless they can do those things, I refuse to accept their interpretation of the book of Genesis.

    We Christians who worship God must not condone the idea that we must park our brains in a closet every time we open the Bible. We are the light of the world. In the end, the Darwinists and the materialists and the atheists will come and worhip at our feet and they will know that our God loved us.

    We don’t want to erect a big tent. On the contrary, we want to make the tent as small as possible. That’s the Christian way in my opinion. But you’re welcome to disagree.

  33. 33
    iconofid says:

    Mapou:

    I am just as much against trying to be accepted by evolutionists as I am against being accepted by those whom I believe to be lying about what Christianity is about. I am a Christian but I don’t worship the Bible and I don’t believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

    Do you see the differences between YEC “creation science” and I.D. as being theological differences?

  34. 34
    Joseph says:

    For what it’s worth- according to Dr Russell Humphreys (YEC) the universe could be billions of years old and the Earth could be very young- relatively speaking.

    “God” Created using relativity!

  35. 35
    vjtorley says:

    On the hydroplate theory, please see the following link:

    http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hydroplate.htm

    or

    http://www.answersincreation.o.....theory.htm

    As far as I know, Dr. Walter Brown has not responded to the arguments put forward at these sites.

  36. 36
    herb says:

    Gaz,

    Brown has given no calculations of the energy required or orbital dynamics involved in propelling huge masses out from the orbit of Earth to between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

    I think Dr. Brown actually does address the energy question:

    … a global flood whose waters erupted from interconnected, worldwide subterranean chambers with an energy release exceeding the explosion of 300 trillion hydrogen bombs.

    Not to put too fine point on it, but Dr. Brown does have a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from MIT, so I think he of all people would be capable of addressing the issues you raised.

  37. 37
    herb says:

    vjtorley,

    On the hydroplate theory, please see the following link:

    Thanks for the link. As I mentioned, the Hydroplate Theory is probably not 100% correct, but no theory of origins has all the answers at this point. OT: Has Dr. Morton heard of LaTeX? I feel like it’s 1991 after trying to read all that html’d math.

  38. 38
    DATCG says:

    Nakashima,

    You keep citing history on this blog as if there is only a single conclusion for materialist evolution written in stone. And cannot be challenged with opposing interpretations of the data. As if new discoveries cannot be made which shatter old Darwinist icons.

    That Darwin, Lyell and Uniformiatarianism is correct and their interpretations of existing historical data will not be overturned?

    In my opinion, the data so far is inconclusive and becomes weaker as each day passes for Darwinist.

    The conclusions made famous as “facts” in textbooks and museums about the TOL by materialist are overturned all the time.

    Below is another conclusion long loved by dogmatic evolutionist shot down after centuries of blind adherance to Darwinist intepretations…

    Mind that Bird, are NOT descended from Dinosaurs, or A Bird flew over the Darwinian Cuckoo’s Nest, or A Day in the Life of a Bird story untold

    Funny, Creationist illuminated these problems with birds for some time now, especially lungs and geological age discrepancies. Yet people here and Darwinist dogmaticist ignored the opposing interpretations of the known data that birds were/are not descended from dinosaurs. In fact, many of them insulted Creationist as whackos, crazy, not scientist.

    What must it feel like to atheist, Darwinist, materialist, or the uninformed mudslingers now that Creationist were correct?

    Where is Mayor Bloomberg? We need him on TV.

    Vestigial organs, Junk DNA, Catastrophic flooding from the Eastern Scablands of Washington to the English Channel. The Design Theorist and Creationist are on a roll. And now the Birds have come home to roost. The “evolutionary facts” declared by atheist and Darwinist failed. It took decades for geologist to accept the Catastrophic floods in Washington state. It has taken centuries to accept correct Bird interpretations. As well as new hypothesis on TOL.

    What is the next “fact” to fail?

    How is it that evolutionary history changes Mr. Nakashima? But those opposing views who were correct about this problem were not heard long ago?

    The art of materialist evolutionary story telling is at once convincing through elaborate science fiction and yet wrong again as we see. It appears that to an evolutionist, history “evolves” too.

    Materialist evolutionary guessing – story telling – is not science.

    What we have today are scientist trained in the Dogma of Darwin and Uniformitarianism for the last two centuries. They are retelling, restating, repackaging Darwinist fables based upon little evidence and shoddy scientific work ethic with little introspection and self-critical thought. Darwin himself; a failed mathematician, put forth his unguided “plan” for the unfolding of life on earth. And since then a million minds followed him blindly into oblivion. They are as much members of a church as any Baptist or Catholic.

    If Birds did not evolve from Dinosaurs, then how can all the genetic changes to whales be considered a fact for Land to Sea evolution? Or for Fish to Mammal? Do evolutionist not see the quandry they are in today? This study opens Pandora’s box for Darwinist and they know it.

    Unfortunately, the old Darwin stories shape young minds not in logic, science, or skepticism, but in blind faith adherance to Darwin, a faith that opposes rigorous, open-minded debate and dissent in the classroom. Having declared Evolution a “fact” children rotely remember these “facts” as if they were bonafide, unquestioned truth.

    Johnny, where did the birds come from? A dinosaur Mom! But Johnny, how do you know? Because, the Darwinist Scientific Priest said so Mom! Oh, I see Johnny, well if a scientist said it, it must be so.

    I personally believe the last 150yrs of Darwinism is going to be laughed at by future scientist. I’m not talking about the collecting of data. That part is good. I’m talking about the historical interpretations of the data for Macro Evolution, which were based largely on assumptions passed down since Darwin and his eugenic alcolytes.

    And people do not have to be a Creationist to understand why this past will be seen as such a failure. I do not consider myself a Creationist, but I am open to their questions, dissent and pointing out the failures of Darwinism. People only need to see the evidence for themselves, overlooked for so long. And see the incredible take-over of science by the cult of Darwinism to know the large failures. That the truth in biology and historic fossil evidence is still largely unknown today, interpreted in Darwinian assumptions and only guessed at from the past. It is a very difficult if unknown history. Some scientist today are willingly admitting this “fact” that we may never know LUCA, let alone any common ancestors in many areas.

    This is a huge failure in science and media to report the truth. The Bird/Dinosaur “history” told to millions, if not billions is a massive failure in teaching unsubstantiated “facts” to our children. They have essentially been taught RUBBISH.

    The Media today and Museums of Natural “History” is one of the frontlines, the outlets of the biggest propaganda deception ever put forth on such a massive scale around the world. Where is the Sensationalist Propagaand tactics today for this new bird discovery by the Media?

    Darwinism and the dogmatic atheist have cost and are costing science its credibility today. People intuitively know when they’re being misled, deceived or there is not enough evidence to make a decision. As stories like this get out, where will the Darwinist be, putting their eggs all on the head of one man? In fact, Atheist pushing him religiously in Churches? Where will those churches be with egg on their faces too as Humpty “Darwin” Dumpty falls down?

    Although history is written in stone for some atheist and materialist; it is not yet fully known or understood. For those with open minds to follow the evidence where it leads without fear, should be the real endeavor. And the evidence keeps rising like the sun, that Darwinist interpretations were/are wrong and have kept many in the dark for far to long.

    A quote from the article linked above…
    “It’s really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and flight we still didn’t understand a basic aspect of bird biology,” said John Ruben, an OSU professor of zoology.”

    What is amazing is these guys refused to read anything by Creationist on bird lungs or report that they were correct.

    This is an idictment of the current scientific paradigm of Darwinist dogma for the last century. It shows that scientist cannnot be trusted to police themselves or allow for adequate opposition and timely debate.

    Centuries? Are you kidding?

    For two centuries materialist Darwin worshippers were wrong. Why? Because they had blind faith in the unguided, undirected materialist church with their Saint Darwin at the helm. Their made up Darwinian gospels ended up like the gnostic versions of Nag Hamadi – cheap versions of history – interpretations written by pretenders who never knew the truth, the way or the life of the deity they write about.

    Ruben continues…
    “This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed.”

    Funny, those darn Creationist have been reporting this for a long time about the birds. I’ve known this information about birds for years now because unlike Darwinist dogmatics, I’m not afraid to read opposing views not allowed to see the light of day in Media.

    So why has it taken the evolutionist so long to uncover this fact? The data has been there for centuries. In fact, I’ve listened to Creationist describe this same problem about the birds anatomy and lungs due to flight. The data never changed, only the interpretations of the data by evolutionist changed. Their opinion of the data changed.

    So, who is “discredited” today in science? I’m curious from any Darwinist today. Who is discredited? The Design Theorist? The Creationist? Or the absolutist Darwinist TOLifer that believed their professors before them and refused to question the TOL?

    Like the Oregon scientist stated, our Museums put forth this information about Birds Descended from Dinosaurs as “facts” for decades to unsuspecting, gullible children and families walking through daily. How many millions have been taught these fables and believed them? I know as a child I believed them. Scientist after all said it! It must be true! Science is truth!

    I’m curious if BBC will pay big bucks for the exclusive in UK? Will there be a book? And will NYC Mayor Bloomberg cover this news with a Grand Event on TV? Will Discovery Studios make a Grand Production? Spending millions in advertising dollars about the news? That Birds Did Not Descend from Dinosaur?

    What do you think Mr. Nakashima?

    Maybe you can call the Mayor and ask him? He is afterall, a billionaire intellectual correct? He knew this fact right? As you pointed out earlier, he is not easily bamboozled is he?

    Because certainly this news is bigger than an extinct lemur, right? So why is this news not blowing up all over the global media Mr. Nakashima?

    I remember you said you did not like the media’s treatment of the extinct Lemur. I agree with you. What about this story? Shouldn’t it be more sensationalized by the media?

    Could it be there is an agenda? And that agenda is not served by these true facts today? Could it be that science and the media robots following them are not honest about their agenda?

    I believed naively at one time everything scientist and professors taught on evolution, as well as media Science shows like NOVA, etc. Sad that I did not benefit from opposing views in the classrooms, or on TV, but was instead indoctrinated by the atheist dogmatic assertions of Darwinism.

    This needs to stop. There should be equal treatment of these issues. We need critical thinking taught and allowed in our schools to quetion the fundamentals of Darwinism in light of these epic failures. Our children deserve better, well-rounded educations in the art of debate, philosophy, logic and discussion before being taught to memorize a false history that can “change over time.”

    What good does it do to remember evolutionary “facts” that Birds descended from dinosaurs, when it is not true? What a waste of time and effort for millions.

    Our schools failed us then and fail children today by not teaching fundamentals of learning, skepticism on all sides and logic to uncover bad arguments, one-sided dogma and unsubstantiated claims as facts. They teach evolution as fact, when it is not. They teach it like math, when it is not. They teach it as truth when it is nothing but a belief, a religion, an icon of atheism.

    The biggest stories are left untold by our Media, our Mayors and our Museums. While evolutionist push forward unsubstantiated claims of extinct lemurs as if they suddenly discovered how to spin gold from wool. Fools gold that is.

    People have been dumbed down by a one-sided Darwinian science and many scientist for decades, expecially since the 60s in America. They’ve been taught evolutionary lies, distortions, dogma and failures even by the most well-intended, best trained evolutionist at the time. I’m well aware many scientist believed and did their best to teach children the “facts” as they learned them from their professors. Even the best intentioned teachers of the time were fooled.

    They were taught evoulutionary history as if it were 2 + 2 = 4. Yet this is not true. History is interpreted by people with agendas. It is not math.

    Evolutionary history is a smorgasbord of failures, lies and story-telling.

    Since we have not been taught at a young age how to’s of debate tactics and skills, critical thinking and open opposition in the classrooms, it has taken centuries to discover and change old assumptions. And millions have been misled.

    This should be disgusting to any open-minded individual seeking truth.

    Atheist routinely teach religious classes as if they know all the facts. Yet, Design Theorist are not allowed to teach oppositional theory, dissent, skepticism and failures of Darwinism. Why?

    Why the unequal merit given to atheist?

    I never experienced these mass leaps of fancy, story telling and distortions in my physics, chemistry or math classes. Only in Darwinist story telling classes were we taught “history” that changes today.

    I was not aware this big a change in “factual” evolutionary history could happen with so little fanfare by the scientific intellectuals and media today. Thus it is story telling in the end. But the real story is omitted time and again by the major media and big names because it does not fit their agenda.

    One worldview won some forty years ago in America the right to tell a single-sided story based upon their materialist assumptions. Ever since, our classrooms have been turned into Materialist and Atheistic Faith Classes in how history can be interpreted only one single way.

    It has been the biggest single mistake in history of science in our nation and around the world.

    We see again and again their version of history is wrong. And yet we bow down to atheist still, as if only their version of history is correct when it is clearly falling apart.

    Darwinism is doomed as a relic of a failed boy who couldn’t cut it in math, a failed theologian who lost faith and never finished the most simplest of algebraic equations. This is the hat that atheist and materialist Darwinist have hung their souls upon for eterntity. That is fine for them as it is their choice. But they have absolutely no right to force it on our children as “FACT” when it is so glaringly wrong yet again.

    What is so crazy about these findings and the failed Darwinist history is one can be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist” and recognize Design. Recognize that Design is a successful hueristic opportunity in scientific research and business opportunities. One does not have to be Dawkins. Atheist should be able to recognize these huge mistakes by Darwinist and the Design unfolding before us in nano-tech structures of nature. If they are being honest to themselves, they would open their eyes, read opposing opinions and awaken to the discovery of the Signal of the cell, the Code, the Nano structures and the Error-checking mechanisms within us, programmed, modular and adaptively planned.

    I’m so glad I started questioning evolution. I’ve learned so much since my initial doubts in this journey to seek out the truth. The only conclusion left to me; it is the truly uninformed or the truly dogmatic that are blinded to “facts” untold by our Museums and Mayors like Bloomberg in the public eye. Politicians always like to be politically correct, seen with “smart” scientist.

    But, we all have a choice. We are not bound by what others think of us. We can follow big names and bright lights like lemmings of the intellectual cliff, or we can determine for ourselves the truth by seeking outside of consensus dogma, the Signal so loudly declared, that it screams Design.

    The Dark Knight has failed Gothom. I’m so glad I do not depend upon a blind bat for my understanding of the world or for my own defense.

    I have questions. How long will it take our major Museums to end this charade and start allowing real debates and knowledge into the mainstream? Or will evolutionary scientist continue to rely on Hollywood fictional story writing and propaganda events like a Mayor and TV?

    Or will there be more Richard Steinbergs at the Smithsonian coming up in the future? Bold, undaunted by the poisonous tactics of atheist like Dawkins and Meyers? Smithsonian was a place I once looked up to in DC, but now am ashamed of their actions.

    How many more extinct branches of lemurs must we endure before the really big stories are told that Darwinist were wrong again? That indeed Creationist were correct about the Birds? I do not agree with everything Creationist say, but they were correct for a long time about birds.

    When will it be OK to question such failed paradigms as Darwinism in our schools, our universities without scorn and derision, loss of promotion, of jobs?

    When will the doors be open to real debates at these dusty old relics of failed assumptions? Without threat of losing tenure, losing a job? Being abused and locked out of your office? Or cussed out with insults by the like of a “professor” PZ Meyers?

    These are places our tax dollars paid for and still pay today. In our schools, our universities, our public institutions? Why is it only one tax payors group worldview is allowed at the table? The minority view of atheist?

    This is an abuse of the tax payor and my rights. And now that we have seen these failures again and again, we have every right to demand that the doors be open to new, spirited debate based on real information. Not stale, two century old failures, limited to the Close-Minded dogmatic insistence of worshippers following a failed Darwinian paradigm of unguided creation. In the end they have nothing but opinions. And their “facts” change like a TOL merry go-round on steroids.

    There is no reason to keep critical thought out of the classrooms anymore about Darwinism and the TOL. Seeing how the Darwinist allow opinions to drive their science, then An Inference of Design should be allowed at the table. Opinions are to be debated, FACTS are not.

    FACT: We do not know if there is one Tree or multiple trees, seedings or one long line of evolution. We do not know if evolution is unguided or guided by design.

    To continue to force feed children any other truth is a lie. It is one thing to teach operational science, another to teach opinions and ideology.

  39. 39
    Echidna.Levy says:

    DATCG

    Below is another conclusion long loved by dogmatic evolutionist shot down after centuries of blind adherance to Darwinist intepretations

    That’s called science. It’s self correcting. I think the point you are misisng is that even if this turns out to be true it does not mean it did not evolve. It just means our understanding of how it evolved, what from etc is incomplete.

    Far from being good news for you this is quite the opposite. It changes nothing significant. It does not dent “evolution” in any way at all.

    Does this provide positive evidence for your postion? No.
    Does this disprove evolution happened and is happening? No.

    What relevance does this have apart from “Science got one thing wrong so it might all be wrong too!” which it seems to me is your very last hope.

    I have questions. How long will it take our major Museums to end this charade and start allowing real debates and knowledge into the mainstream?

    You missed it. It all happened already. Put simply, the first geologists were creationists who went out seeking proof in the rocks of the global flood.

    They did not find it. They converted themselves into old earthers.

    So you see, the “debate” on such issues is long gone.

  40. 40
    herb says:

    DATGC,

    Funny, Creationist illuminated these problems with birds for some time now, especially lungs and geological age discrepancies. Yet people here and Darwinist dogmaticist ignored the opposing interpretations of the known data that birds were/are not descended from dinosaurs. In fact, many of them insulted Creationist as whackos, crazy, not scientist.

    Very good points—the Creationist seem to have been on the right side all along, while evolutionist kept trying to push the dino-bird connection, despite massive evidence to the contrary.

    OTOH, it appears that that this Devon Quick character is trying to argue that dinos and birds still likely share a common ancestor, IOW, she’s deviating only very slightly from the scenario promoted by evolutionist.

    I wonder where does this leave archaeopteryx?

  41. 41
    derwood says:

    “…Dr. Brown does have a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from MIT, so I think he of all people would be capable of addressing the issues you raised.”

    And yet he really never does. But hey, Dr. Walt Brown has a PhD., from MIT no less, so how could he, a creationist with a PhD., possibly be wrong on anything, even when he does not provide any real data to support his claims?

    I read his online book several years ago, the parts that I, at the time only a lowly graduate student i, gulp, the biological sciences, were capable of understanding in depth. Those parts were so horribly uninformed that I have little reason to doubt that his other claims are similarly bogus, PhD or no.

  42. 42
    David Kellogg says:

    Mechanical engineering is not the most appropriate field for real expertise in the area. Geochemistry/geophysics would be much better.

  43. 43
    DATCG says:

    Echidna.Levy,

    I didn’t miss a thing. I was told something was fact, truth, solid as gravity, as factual as 2+2=4. Then I am told, nope, sorry, wrong…Buzzzzzer sound. Scientist were wrong, not just for a year or two, but for two centuries.

    I was told as a child and so were millions of others that Dino-Bird evolution was a fact. You really think this does not strain the credibility of Darwinian evolutionist?

    Bad science does not matter to you? Even if many scientist bought into the propaganda and were genuine believers it should be alarming how deeply wrong the cult of Darwin is today. It misled science not just for decades, but centuries. The data was there. Scientific opponents to the MacroTree of Dino-birds were silenced. Not because the opponents were practicing bad science, but because they had a different belief than the Darwinist.

    Now it turns out the Darwinist were practicing beliefs themselves, just like a religious cult, steeped in dogmatic assertions, unwilling to listen to outside opinions or expertise from opponents that differed with their orthodox views.

    People, scientist even, scoffed, mocked, ridiculed, labeled other scientist-Creationist, or even some secular Evolutionist as crazy, insane, uneducated. Is that Science to you?

    No, its disgusting dogma and ultra-orthodox atheist ideology inserting its rage and hatred into science.

    It is a huge change in the TOL, which was already teetering on being choppped down anyway due to more mechanisms discovered like Horizonatal Gene Transfer. Junk DNA is another fine example of materialist dogma in evolution fading fast. I listed more than one example. But there are thousands of failed TOL examples and failed Phyhogentic trees. Why? Because, they’re guessing without having all the pieces to the puzzle clearly in focus. They’ve been guessing without all the pieces for a long time. Why is it again, that the atheist guess is considered more objective than a theist? Or even an atheist Design theorist or Panspermia theory? If the discoverer of the Double Helix DNA Code is open-minded enough to see possible design, then certainly, our classrooms across this nation should be allowed to discuss it.

    I disagree with your opinion. Your writing as if you still believe you have all the facts. Maybe your post is even satirical? It is the Darwinist that have lost more ground. Yes, science goes on and bad theories like Darwin’s disappear eventually “over time.”

    But it does not change how other scientist were treated all these years. This is but one single example, but a major example, bigger than the extinct Lemur which is another farce of propaganda.

    You do not have a problem with Propaganda for unproven “links”? And you write this off as meaningless? Surely you are jesting? Pulling my leg? How many millions were spent by scientific programs defending such false assertions? Conferences, textbooks all on guess-work distributed to the masses?

    This story should be huge across the media.

    .
    .
    .
    Chirp….
    .
    .
    .
    .

    You say,
    “That’s called science. It’s self correcting.”

    It is only self-correcting when it is allowed to be. We currently live with a system almost as bad Lysenkoism. Under control by a group of committed Dawinist allowing only one-sided arguments based upon their ideology and beliefs. They even have Orwellian thought minders from the NCSE to check scientific research papers and make recommendations to NOT write the abomination that cannot be said! Design! Oy!

    This exposes that their system is not built upon scientific methods, but in their a priori beliefs. Politics rules in science just like it does at GM or Chrysler today. You must know this. For the last 50yrs in America, only one side is allowed in the classroom, even at university level. Had we a truly open scientific society, with real Free Thinkers, then yes science would self-correct itself at a much faster pace I think as defending arguments would have to be more robust, true and not just fictional stories. This agreement about Birds may have been settled long ago. But due to politics and Darwinist it has lasted for centuries.

    That is not science. It is ideology and materialistic driven faith stopping science from progressing for 200yrs.

    “I think the point you are misisng is that even if this turns out to be true it does not mean it did not evolve.”

    The point you missed is I never said anything about evolution not being true, did I? I stated truthfully we do not know the circumtances of Origins or the extent of evolution, or if it is “guided or unguided.” Certainly you’ve read the latest research?
    The TOL is dying. Modern Synthesis is withering on the vine. Darwin’s RM & NS died long ago. Yet he is pushed as a Saint by his faithful in religious circles, celebrated in churches.

    Is this not a violation of constitutional law according to atheist? This is not objective science. It is theatre of the absurd, atheist parading around with pastors.

    “It just means our understanding of how it evolved, what from etc is incomplete.”

    It means that for decades, in fact centuries, professors pushed the wrong information down people throats whether people believed it or not, whether factual and true or noat, and irregardless of having the correct information. As I said, this is not math. It is historical science telling fictional accounts, when not a single human existed some 200-300 million years ago, or is it up to 500 million now?

    Stick with the fairy tales if you like. I’d much rather be an adult and say we do not know. Instead, we get propaganda, Mayor Bloomberg, Discovery Channel and the BBC paying for and sponsoring propaganda by so-called “scientist” pushing their ideological beliefs onto the public and on our tax payor dimes to boot.

    “Far from being good news for you this is quite the opposite. It changes nothing significant. It does not dent “evolution” in any way at all.”

    OK, now I think you really are a jokester. It most certainly does wipe out the bird-dino hypothesis, which is a major part of Darwinian theory TOL. Darwinians were wrong. It cuts a branch completely off and rearranges it ever so discreetly with yet more faith and religion that you will one day know the answer somewhere farther back in time.

    That tactic of faith works both ways. The evidence is now shifting far away from original Darwinism, from Modern Synthesis and to some unknown direction for the Darwinist. That direction can include Guided Evolution by Design or Front Loading, or Prescribed Information as John Davison argues.

    This finding pushes back dino-bird evo to more unknown, unproven fairy tales. You can always claim a fairy tale godmother ancestor if you like. But the farther you push the bird-dino relationship back, the less likely you will find their common ancestor based upon current research today. You have to be honest and objective, push back fish-mammal and mammal-whale hypotheis as well, since the complications are just as significant in the macro evolutionary events for changes in lungs, hearts, etc. The time for Guessing Games should be over. Its a big guess, stories told by scientist, but still stories. Stories that should honestly be admitted as fictional tales at times made up by artist drawings and in the imaginations of evolutionist who have no solid evidence upon which to base their hunches or conjecture. It is a whale of a tale.

    This undercuts not just the bird-dino relatoinships, but every type of major Macro Event stated by Darwinist since its beginning in similar branching patterns.

    “Does this provide positive evidence for your postion? No.”

    Do you even know my position? I’ve not stated it fully. I am critiquing a failed Darwinian paradigm. My position is open-ended. It has changed since I was a student. I bought unguided, materialist evolution for a long time. Not anymore. I question Macro-Evolutionary events sincerely due to its lack of evidence in the fossil record and genetically as more information pours in from Projects like ENCODE and other research on JUNK DNA, RNA, regulatory functions, UTRs, etc. I do not doubt macro-events can happen, only that they can happen slowly over time via unguided processes. I think the evidence points to rapid speciation events, possible seedings, more than one tree. Maybe a different tree for fish, for birds, for dinos, for mammals, plants, etc. But I admittedly don’t know. So, my position is still developing in regards to evolution. Except that I think it is guided now. I’m not willing to make assertions without real evidence that they all have a single commmon ancestor.

    That makes me not far off from several secular scientist in the field today that argue the original TOL is dead. And that scienctist may never trace back origins beginnings due to latest research on the mechanisms that account for the changes they see in the Genomes.

    “Does this disprove evolution happened and is happening? No.”

    Again, I did not say that. Read again what I said at the end or in this note above.

    “What relevance does this have apart from “Science got one thing wrong so it might all be wrong too!” which it seems to me is your very last hope.”

    First of all, this is not an indictment of science, stop making points against a strawman argument I did not make. Stop putting words in my mouth or projecting your generalizations onto me. I did not state anything like what you said. This is several times now you twisted my words into meanings for your own reasons. I’m considering your response now more or less disingenuous unless your next response is better.

    My point was the Darwinian paradigm is failing. It is failing precisely because new information over the last 50yrs has slowly chopped away at the Single TOL hypothesis. And it is not limited to this single area – a major admittance of failure by Darwinist. These problems are multiplying all over the TOL and macro events. There is a reason some scientist consider Evolution Theory to be in Crisis. It is not just my opinion. Nor is my opinion new. Please read Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, written 24 years ago. He is a secular evolutionist.

    “You missed it. It all happened already. Put simply, the first geologists were creationists who went out seeking proof in the rocks of the global flood.”

    “They did not find it. They converted themselves into old earthers.”

    Wow, not true. Some did, some didn’t. You missed it. I’m quite aware of history and did not miss a thing. Not all geologist agreed. You may try doing some reading to expand your horizons. Your comments sound as if they’re canned rebuttals not based upon knowledge, but heresay and online chats.

    Catastrophic flooding events are science. In fact, just like the article I cited about birds, some Uniformitarians are admitting the dogma had hurt them in relation to geological data worldwide.

    “So you see, the “debate” on such issues is long gone.”

    In your world it is, not in the world I read, listen and watch. Again, expand your horizons a bit if this all is not a big joke to you.

    Your assertions are not fact. What I have seen in the last 10 years are new evidence of catastrophic events around the world now leaking into secular journals. What I’ve learned is that every tribe, nation and race have major flood stories. Evolutionist and scientist may at their peril determine to ignore such ancient stories from nomadic tribes and ancient nations.

    It is not categorically limited to the Bible. Do these stories prove the Creationist point? No, but they do corroborate worldwide catastrophic flodd events. I’m open minded enough to keep track of new evidence in light of their theory for catastrophic events, especially since it keeps turning up lately in secular journals.

    One can be open-minded and not believe the theory is fully fleshed out or correct, but makes good opposing points against currently accepted theory.

    That is objective scientific thinking. Don’t be so quick to write off views because you disagree with specific points or the other sides ideology.

    You say it was all settled long ago. Yet you failed to recognize my point about the English Channel or Washington State. These are newly catagorized rapid events recently accepted as different from the old Uniformitarian story. This does not include the Black Sea or many other areas around the globe, including the major fault lines today that are happening in days, hours, and years.

    But the real news about evolutionary history, with regards to biology is that historical interpretations change, not the data and in this case, the Creationist were correct in their arguments about birds lung capacity and circulation requirments for flight. In fact, they were ahead of this research.

    In that case, they deserve credit.

  44. 44
    DATCG says:

    David,

    “Mechanical engineering is not the most appropriate field for real expertise in the area. Geochemistry/geophysics would be much better”

    I agree you normally stay in your field of expertise. But I also am familiar with Mech. Eng. adherance to tight specs in all areas of math, physics, fluid dynamics, pressure, etc.

    A ME PhD gives him the capability to study GeoChemistry/Geophysics at the highest levels. In fact, having completed such high level courses in Thermodynamics, fluids, pressure, chemistry, math and physics, he was given solid foundations that maybe the normal Geologist do not always get.

    It says in his bio he has studied this area for 35yrs. I’m guessing a person with his level of expertise can adjust to any new information over that time period.

    I’m not familiar with his work and not defending it. But, unless his PhD was in sociology, ME is one of the Engineering Courses that I think can tranfer to the intricacies of fluid pressures and rock formations of geology textbooks and research work quite well at high levels.

    In fact, in several ways, it may have put his understanding ahead of many geologist to start. Looking at Geology Majors curriculum today online, it is far simpler than ME BSc degree in math, physics, fluid dynamics, thermo, etc. The curriculum I looked at for Geology Majors start out behind ME when it comes to technical expertise in complicated equations and physics. Mech Eng. is far more complex and can easily understand hydrology, sedimentary classifications, structural geology, tectonic processes, etc. After seeing the Geology curriculum, much of it is a walk in the park for any serious Mech Eng.

    In fact, Mechanical Engineering is the more exact science. It cannot afford guesswork under stressful conditions and pressure situations. I doubt he has problems understanding dating methods either.

    Whether his working theory shows this capability of ME to translate over to geology or not, I do not know. I’ll have to read his book before I can form an opinion.

    And according to his specs, he is no slouch.

    “So Brown applied and scored in the 99.9 percentile in the quantitative part of the National Science Fellowship test. Fellowships were awarded based on ability, and Brown certainly had the ability to handle the subject matter. Meanwhile, both MIT and Cal Tech had accepted him. Brown picked MIT because he thought it was the best science and engineering school in the world.”

    I would think he can apply his knowledge of pressurized systems and fluid dynamics easilty to rock formations, volcanos, floods, sediments, etc.

  45. 45
    DATCG says:

    Derwood,

    “I read his online book several years ago, the parts that I, at the time only a lowly graduate student i, gulp, the biological sciences, were capable of understanding in depth. Those parts were so horribly uninformed that I have little reason to doubt that his other claims are similarly bogus, PhD or no(t).”

    Then point out the “horribly uninformed” information. Should be easy for you to do according to your statement. Does the “horribly uninformed” information you claim he stated include that Mr. Brown thinks birds evolved from dinosaurs?

    If he did, then yes, he is wrong in that area according to latest research at Oregon State.

  46. 46
    David Kellogg says:

    DATCG, your preference for Mech. Engineering over geochemistry and geophysics is misplaced. Everything you have to say applies, if it applies at all (which I do not grant), to the undergraduate level and only at some institutions. At the graduate level, it’s simply laughable to say that a Ph.D. mechanical engineer is better trained in geophysics and geochemistry than, well, a geophysicist or a geochemist.

  47. 47
    merlin says:

    Some of the claims made by YEC’s are so obviously TRUE that one has to be completely blind to dispute them:

    There have been massive movements of water over the earth. You do not have to be a scientist (I’m not) to observe this. Look out your window. Some evolutionist admit this.

    Flooding is the best explainations for the number of fossils and the fossil beds that are found all over the world.

    I continually come across items that are inconvienient for DE but make perfect sense if you assume Noah’s Flood.
    1. Miticondrical DNA traces back to four women and y chromosome DNA traces to one man. (Brian Sykes – Seven Daughter of Eve)
    2. Dinosaur DNA and proteins recovered. Who is the most gullable? Those who believe that DNA survived 68 million years or those who believe it survived 5000 or so years?
    3. Fossil worm burrows are almost exclusively found in the precambrian. (Simon Conway Morris in Creation’s Crucible) A mystery to evolutionist, a YEC doesn’t even pause as he reads this, except to laugh.
    4. etc.

    DATCG Great posts. lol at 45.

  48. 48
    David Kellogg says:

    merlin, let there be more and more YEC defenders on UD. Then others can come in and say “ID has nothing to do with creationism.”

  49. 49
    Joseph says:

    YEC is based on the Bible.

    ID is based on observations and experience.

    If YEC turned out to be true then IDists would say “Well that explains it then.”

    If the Bible were falsifuied tomorrow ID wouldn’t care at all but YEC would be in a world of hurt.

  50. 50
    herb says:

    merlin,

    Thanks for the observations. I would just add polystrate fossils to your list of phenomena which are best explained through a global Flood.

  51. 51
    Gaz says:

    herb (36),

    “I think Dr. Brown actually does address the energy question:

    … a global flood whose waters erupted from interconnected, worldwide subterranean chambers with an energy release exceeding the explosion of 300 trillion hydrogen bombs.

    Not to put too fine point on it, but Dr. Brown does have a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from MIT, so I think he of all people would be capable of addressing the issues you raised.”

    Not too fine a point on it, but Dr Brown is also a fundamentalist Biblical literalist Christian and his views and his “science” are skewed to satisfy his prejudices. I am not at all interested in his qualifications, only the evidnece, and he hasn’t any.

    And what you’ve posted doesn’t come anywhere near addressing the enregy issue. Where, for instance, are the calculations that indicate the energy release would exceed that of “300 trillion hydrogen bombs” – and in any case, just what size hydrogen bombs are we talking about?

    And do you really think that the amount of energy liberated by 300 trillion hydrogen bombs would be enough to propel all of the asterooids and comets out into the solar system? Do the math – it would barely enable Ceres to get into Earth orbit, let alone all the rest, and still wouldn’t get them to the asteroid belt or, in the case of comets, further out. And how would comets survive the release of energy? They are volatile as it is, surely that release of energy would just evaporate them. Let alone explain how any humans such as Noah could survive that release of energy.

    Stick to the science, use the brains your God gave you, and ditch Biblical literalism.

  52. 52
    derwood says:

    Miticondrical DNA traces back to four women and y chromosome DNA traces to one man.

    So, who was the one man and who were the four women? We’re not talking incest here, are we?

  53. 53
    Nakashima says:

    Mr DATCG,

    I’m sorry if you don’t like that I was trying to be helpful to Mr Sibley.

    Your rant would have been amusing, perhaps, if hadn’t sounded so much like VenomFangX pretending to be a grown-up.

    The Ruben group at OSU really is the asterisk on the bird-dino story. While I’m willing to accept Ms.Quick’s PhD work at face value about the current physiology of birds (until I hear what other bird physiologists say), the article does not present a strong connection between her conclusionis about birds today and dinosaurs of the past.

    For example, there is no sentence that says “We have reconstructed the thigh muscle connections on all theropod dinosaurs posited to be in the same clade as birds, and there is no possible path from a movable thigh to a fixed thigh.” Obviously there is a path from a movable thigh to a fixed thigh, especially if fixing the thigh provides the large increase in lung capacity that they describe. That would seem to be just the kind of feature that would be selected for in a low oxygen environment.

    If they had such powerful evidence, they would have presented it. I draw the conclusion that they don’t have the evidence, and that Ruben is continuing to push results that don’t quite live up to the hype.

    But don’t let science stand in the way if you want to get frothy lipped about the state of cladistics in museums today and the great danger that flouridation poses to our precious bodily fluids. UD needs to hear the message that catastrophic flood geology has an important role to play in the overthrow of Darwinism. Just please, next time spread that message in a less content free style.

Leave a Reply