Intelligent Design

English Professor Completely Destroys Three Evolution Professors

Spread the love

Because the only thing worse than having all your points refuted, is having all your points refuted before you even make them. In this telling exchangeEnglish professor Terry Scambray first shows Chemistry professor George Kauffman the door (“It’s disappointing to read George Kauffman assert … that everyone should accept Darwin’s “creation” story because a … congressman had a House Resolution passed saying that we should! Professor Kauffman … must know that House Resolutions are decorative statements, done to enhance politicians’ résumés. I hope that we could all agree that if members of Congress had to pay the cost to produce such trivia, none would exist.”) and then proceeds to anticipate and demolish the sophomoric, non scientific rebuttals that would come from Biology professors Paul Crosbie and Fred Schreiber. Scambray has just shown us that behind all the sound and fury of evolutionary bravado is nothing more than the same old themes. And so, without further ado, presenting, the man whom evolutionists should never debate.  Read more

8 Replies to “English Professor Completely Destroys Three Evolution Professors

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    I liked this comment:

    Darwin vs. creationists is evolving debate By Terry Scambray – February 2013
    Excerpt: ,,,Subsequently the tactic was to attack individuals who doubted Darwin by calling them “creationists” — meaning “crackpots.” As one historian writes, the Darwinists’ attacks “have been in almost direct proportion to the shortcomings of the theory.”

    and the other day, Eric noted:

    “The perception of evolution’s explanatory power is inversely proportional to the specificity of the discussion.”

    Thus, finally, after years of fruitless searching, it now appears we are closing in on the mathematical foundation of Darwinism:


    Oxford University Admits Darwinism’s Shaky Math Foundation – May 2011
    Excerpt: However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. – On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to ‘fix’ the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years.

  2. 2
    KRock says:

    Great post..

  3. 3
    Axel says:

    No wonder Peter Hitchens cries with laughter the more he reads the surreal claims of Evolutionists about their pet project. I nearly always double up with laughter at each new headline on here and Cornelius’ site.

  4. 4
    cheshire says:

    Cue the Darwinists screaming “He’s not allowed to talk about evolution! He’s an English professor!” in 5…4….3….

  5. 5
    JWTruthInLove says:

    ^ …2 …1

    An English professor commenting on science? Surely he is a bit out of his depth.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    JWTruthInLove, Shallit states in your linked article:

    “Over millions of generations of laboratory testing, fruit flies, as one example, when subjected to genetic changes have not changed into anything but mutated, crippled fruit flies.” Really? At my university, we have access to articles that say something different.

    And that ‘something different’ that Shallit places so much confidence in, is:

    Genetic evidence for adaptation-driven incipient speciation of Drosophila melanogaster along a microclimatic contrast in “Evolution Canyon,” Israel – 2001
    Excerpt: an analysis of microsatellites suggests a limited exchange of migrants and lack of recent population bottlenecks. We hypothesize that adaptation to the contrasting microclimates overwhelms gene flow and is responsible for the genetic and phenotypic divergence between the populations.

    And rapid variation within kind to specific stresses in the environment helps neo-Darwinism how?


    Soft Inheritance (Epigenetics): Challenging The Modern Synthesis – Lablonka, Lamb – 2008
    Excerpt: We believe that rather than trying to continue to work within a framework of a Synthesis that was made in the last century, we now need a new type of evolutionary theory, one that acknowledges Darwinian, Lamarkian and saltational processes.

    Epigenetics and Soft Inheritance – Challenging The Modern Synthesis – video

    New Research Elucidates Directed Mutation Mechanisms – Cornelius Hunter – January 7, 2013
    Excerpt: mutations don’t occur randomly in the genome, but rather in the genes where they can help to address the challenge. But there is more. The gene’s single stranded DNA has certain coils and loops which expose only some of the gene’s nucleotides to mutation. So not only are certain genes targeted for mutation, but certain nucleotides within those genes are targeted in what is referred to as directed mutations.,,,
    These findings contradict evolution’s prediction that mutations are random with respect to need and sometimes just happen to occur in the right place at the right time.,,,

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Further notes:

    Response to John Wise – October 2010
    Excerpt: A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism.

    …Advantageous anatomical mutations are never observed. The four-winged fruit fly is a case in point: The second set of wings lacks flight muscles, so the useless appendages interfere with flying and mating, and the mutant fly cannot survive long outside the laboratory. Similar mutations in other genes also produce various anatomical deformations, but they are harmful, too. In 1963, Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that the resulting mutants “are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through natural selection.” – Jonathan Wells

    ‘No matter what we do to a fruit fly embryo there are only three possible outcomes, a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. What we never see is primary speciation much less macro-evolution’ –
    Jonathan Wells

    Darwin’s Theory – Fruit Flies and Morphology – video

    Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) – October 2010
    Excerpt: “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, “This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve,” said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator.

    Gene Regulatory Networks in Embryos Depend on Pre-existing Spatial Coordinates – Jonathan Wells – July 2011
    Excerpt: The development of metazoan embryos requires the precise spatial deployment of specific cellular functions. This deployment depends on gene regulatory networks (GRNs), which operate downstream of initial spatial inputs (E. H. Davidson, Nature 468 [2010]: 911). Those initial inputs depend, in turn, on pre-existing spatial coordinate systems. In Drosophila oocytes, for example, spatial localization of the earliest-acting elements of the maternal GRN depends on the prior establishment of an anteroposterior body axis by antecedent asymmetries in the ovary. Those asymmetries appear to depend on cytoskeletal and membrane patterns rather than on DNA sequences,,,;id=7751

    Seeing the Natural World With a Physicist’s Lens – November 2010
    Excerpt: Scientists have identified and mathematically anatomized an array of cases where optimization has left its fastidious mark, among them;,, the precision response in a fruit fly embryo to contouring molecules that help distinguish tail from head;,,, In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants.;st=cse

    Darwin or Design? – Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church – Nov. 2012 – ontogenetic depth (excellent update) – video
    Text from one of the Saddleback slides:
    1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows.
    2. Thus, to change — that is, to evolve — any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring.
    3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo.
    Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes.

    Understanding Ontogenetic Depth, Part II: Natural Selection Is a Harsh Mistress – Paul Nelson – April 7, 2011
    Excerpt: The problem may be summarized as follows:
    — There are striking differences in the early (embryonic) development in animals, even within classes and orders.
    — Assuming that these animals are descended from a common ancestor, these divergences suggest that early development evolves relatively easily.
    — Evolution by natural selection requires heritable variation.
    — But heritable variations in early development, in major features such as cleavage patterns, are not observed.

    Histone-modifying proteins, not histones, remain associated with DNA through replication – August 23, 2012
    Excerpt: A study of Drosophila embryos,, found that parental methylated histones are not transferred to daughter DNA. Rather, after DNA replication, new nucleosomes are assembled from newly synthesized unmodified histones. “Essentially, all histones are going away during DNA replication and new histones, which are not modified, are coming in,”,,
    “What this paper tells us,” he continues, “is that these histone modifying proteins somehow are able to withstand the passage of the DNA replication machinery. They remained seated on their responsive binding sites, and in all likelihood they will re-establish histone modification and finalize the chromatin structure that allows either activation or repression of the target gene.”

  8. 8
    Robert Byers says:

    If evolution is not true then it couldn’t possibly have biological scientific evidence backing it up!!!
    So it must be backed up by other intellectual strengths .
    Authority is one and diminishing the authority of critics is another.
    lines of reasoning and unrelated other subjects like geology or genetics or THIS IS WHAT A SMART CREATOR WOULD DO and so on.
    So finally professors in other subjects start putting their mind to these things and BANG the whole non biological scientific credentials of evolutionary biology begin crumbling.
    if evolution is not true then surely the present revolution will overthrow it in our time.
    or these critics will be overthrown.
    Not yet!!

Leave a Reply