ForumGarden

Verbal diarrhea.

'ANGEL' IN BEAMS OF LIGHT AT WORLD TRADE CENTER 9/11 MEMORIAL





Photographer: 'Almost looked like a vision of the Lord'







Image being called the Angel of the World Trade Center. This image was captured by Richard McCormack. He is a photographer at the New Jersey Journal.

Copyright: Richard McCormack

A startling image has emerged from the recent memorial light display in New York City commemorating the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attack on America by Islamic terrorists: an image that is being described as an angel.

“I did a double-take not knowing really what it was, but as I zoomed in it almost looked like a vision of the Lord with his arms crossed, photographer Rich McCormack told a New Jersey station. “I got very emotional, and I got tears in my eyes.

He’s posted his images on social media.

Yvette Cid, who lost two sons in the 9/11 terror attacks, told him, “Rich I know you don’t photo shop that’s an awesome pic wow I lost my two boys and I believe this is a sign to all that have lost a loved one.

Here’s a zoomed-in view:





Copyright: Rich McCormack

And another even closer:





Copyright: Rich McCormack

THelena Padget added, “The Lord is with us and this is just another reminder. It’s beautiful.

McCormack, of Jersey City, reported he’d taken multiple images of the light, but the figure appeared only in one.

What do we know about heaven? See the resources available at the WND Superstore, including “Heaven Vision: Glimpses Into Glory, “Heaven Is Beyond Your Wildest Expectations: Ten Ture Stories of Experiencing Heaven, and “Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey Into The Afterlife.



‘Angel’ in beams of light at World Trade Center 9/11 memorial

More verbal diarrhea. And some "Magic and Make Believe".

And you think a hologram is supposed to prove anything about evolution - other than it was scientists who developed the technology that created the hologram - something that wouldn't ever have happened if everyone had taken the Bible at its word. Questions would never have been asked because all the questions had already been answered - "God did it".

As for Natural Selection not creating new genes. That's where you're totally wrong. If that were the case, then how do you explain Downs Syndrome? They are born with an extra set of genes. By your reckoning that makes them a different species. Besides, Natural Selection doesn't only refer to Evolution. It refers to which species is best suited to survive. There are many examples of this where non-native species have been introduced to balanced environments, throwing the natural order out of kilter. A typical example might be the rabbits introduced to Australia. They are now having trouble controlling them. The same applies to the American Grey Squirrel since it was introduced to the UK. The native Red Squirrel hoards its food for when it awakes from hibernation after the winter. The Grey Squirrel doesn't hibernate. Ever since a single breeding pair was introduced to the UK they have been steadily breeding and feeding off the Red's stashed supplies. This means that when the Reds awoke from their hibernation they had nothing to eat & soon starved. This meant that Natural Selection favoured the Grey. That is not the same thing as Evolution. However, although the squirrels are clearly both squirrels in all but variety, they never cross bred in the wild. I don't even know if they're biologically compatible. So, before you start using Natural Selection as an argument about Evolution, you should first understand the difference. True, Natural Selection does come into Evolution, but only as one of many contributory factors.

Natural Selection 3




While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved; in fact, some biological diversity was lost.

The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands are another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest (f). Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes (g). It deletes information; it cannot create information.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Evolution is Evolution. The prefix Micro & Macro are just inventions of the Creationists. There is no such term in Science. It is simply a matter that Creationists know full well that Evolution DOES exist & are just trying (in vain) to save some level of face. After all, just how many Micros does it take to make a Macro? Creationists come up with wild claims that certain criteria are not met, but when challenged to lay down the criteria so that those criteria can be demonstrated, they hastily change the subject - or, in Pahu's case, simply repaste a load more fallacious nonsense - yet again - in the vain hope that the more he pastes it that somehow it will magically become true.

As I said - Natural Selection is NOT necessarily part of Evolution, but Evolution is USUALLY part of Natural Selection.

FourPart;1501462 wrote: Evolution is Evolution. The prefix Micro & Macro are just inventions of the Creationists. There is no such term in Science. It is simply a matter that Creationists know full well that Evolution DOES exist & are just trying (in vain) to save some level of face. After all, just how many Micros does it take to make a Macro? Creationists come up with wild claims that certain criteria are not met, but when challenged to lay down the criteria so that those criteria can be demonstrated, they hastily change the subject - or, in Pahu's case, simply repaste a load more fallacious nonsense - yet again - in the vain hope that the more he pastes it that somehow it will magically become true.

As I said - Natural Selection is NOT necessarily part of Evolution, but Evolution is USUALLY part of Natural Selection.


Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science. Evolution does not exist. There is no evidence supporting it. What is referred to as micro-evolution is nothing more than the built in minor changes in life forms adapting to changes in the environment. One example is thicker hair in the winter and thinner hair in the summer. Another example is when bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment nor anywhere else among the living or in fossils.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - LifeSciences.html

Pahu;1501468 wrote: Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Wrong. Evolution IS Science. Its very foundations are scientific.

Evolution does not exist. There is no evidence supporting it.
You cannot say Evolution doesn't exist & then admit that 'micro' evolution exists. One is contradicting the other.

What is referred to as micro-evolution is nothing more than the built in minor changes in life forms adapting to changes in the environment.
Which is exactly how evolution works.

One example is thicker hair in the winter and thinner hair in the summer. Another example is when bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations.
Precise definition of what evolution does & how it works.

It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man.
As I asked before - define how many micros to a macro?

Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment nor anywhere else among the living or in fossils.
Of course it hasn't been observed in any living species, numbskull. Evolution happens over millions of years. You might as well say the Creation has never been observed. Same argument turned on its head.

Fossils are evidence as to the continuing timescale of events following a clear line of change.

Simple question for you:

Given the premise that you so fondly adhere to that all life was created at once, and that all fossils were created instantaneously at the time of the flood, and that given the entire human race was wiped out at once - then how come there are no traces of human fossils at the same points where there are remnants of other fossils. How come you don't get mammalian fossils at the same levels as primaeval reptilian ones, and how come you don't get reptilian ones at the same levels as the base trilobytes, etc. How come the levels of fossils have the most primitive, basic species at the bottom of the stack, with the most advanced at the top? If the flood explanation were to be true there would be no levels - there would be only one level, with an entire mix of species throughout.

FourPart;1501471 wrote: Wrong. Evolution IS Science. Its very foundations are scientific.

You cannot say Evolution doesn't exist & then admit that 'micro' evolution exists. One is contradicting the other.

Which is exactly how evolution works.

Precise definition of what evolution does & how it works.

As I asked before - define how many micros to a macro?

Of course it hasn't been observed in any living species, numbskull. Evolution happens over millions of years. You might as well say the Creation has never been observed. Same argument turned on its head.

Fossils are evidence as to the continuing timescale of events following a clear line of change.

Simple question for you:

Given the premise that you so fondly adhere to that all life was created at once, and that all fossils were created instantaneously at the time of the flood, and that given the entire human race was wiped out at once - then how come there are no traces of human fossils at the same points where there are remnants of other fossils. How come you don't get mammalian fossils at the same levels as primaeval reptilian ones, and how come you don't get reptilian ones at the same levels as the base trilobytes, etc. How come the levels of fossils have the most primitive, basic species at the bottom of the stack, with the most advanced at the top? If the flood explanation were to be true there would be no levels - there would be only one level, with an entire mix of species throughout.


The Flood sorted everything. Heavier items were at the bottom, such at sea shells. Lighter items were in the higher strata, such as birds. Some humans have been found in the fossil record. Most humans and other more intelligent and agile life forms were able to avoid being drowned and avoided fossilization because they were not overcome by the sedimentation. The lifeforms were buried rapidly, not over thousand of years. For example:



Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish, show by the details of their soft, fleshy portions that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.) The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and lying in twisted and contorted positions, suggests violent and rapid burials over large areas. These observations, plus the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, almost all sediments that formed today’s rocks were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change or evolution. [See A Whale of a Tale ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Phases of the Hydroplate Theory: Rupture, Flood, Drift, and Recovery



Figure 7: Fossil of Fish Swallowing Fish. Burial and fossilization must have been quite rapid to have preserved a fish in the act of swallowing another fish. Thousands of such fossils have been found.



Figure 8: Fish in Long Fish. In the belly of the above 14-foot-long fish is a smaller fish, presumably the big fish’s breakfast. Because digestion is rapid, fossilization must have been even more so.



Figure 9: Fish in Curved Fish. The curved back shows that this 3-meter-long fish, Xiphactinus, died under stress. Inside it is a 1-meter-long fish.



Figure 10: Dragonfly Wing. This delicate, 1 1/2-foot-long wing must have been buried rapidly and evenly to preserve its details. Imagine the size of the entire dragonfly!

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 21. Rapid Burial

All over the world are found trees going through several strata representing millions of years according to evolutionists. For example:



Figure 11: Polystrate Fossil. Fossils crossing two or more sedimentary layers (strata) are called poly (many)-strate (strata) fossils. Consider how quickly this tree trunk in Germany must have been buried. Had burial been slow, the tree top would have decayed. Obviously, the tree could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial. Some polystrate trees are upside down, which could occur in a large flood. Soon after Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, scientists saw trees being buried in a similar way in the lake-bottom sediments of Spirit Lake. Polystrate tree trunks are found worldwide. (Notice the 1-meter-scale bar, equal to 3.28 feet, in the center of the picture.)

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 22. Parallel Strata

Not surprisingly, your pasting has done nothing to answer any of the questions I set. Since when would a jellyfish be affected by the flood? You claim all these humans who managed to survive drowning. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understood it, only Noah & his family survived the flood. And what about the more 'agile' lifeforms? Didn't they make it to the ark then? So, a shell is heavier than a dinosaur?

As for the pictures of fossils - we've been through all that before. None of them prove nor disprove anything. They are merely fossils. It is their position in the strata in relation to other fossils that is relevant. As for the fossil of the fishing eating another fish - as is usual with you, you are making an assumption. You are assuming it is the big fish that is eating the little fish. It could just as easily be that the little fish was feeding on the carrion of the bigger one & got stuck in the barbs of its teeth.

I never said that the fossils formed over thousands of years - it's more like millions. There are many things that can cause fossilisation as well as sedimentation. In marine life it is often caused by volcanic activity. First of all this takes oxygen out of the water, killing the creatures who rely on it. The lack of oxygen then forms the ideal conditions for fossilisation to begin, as it halts decay. The ashes & lava remnants then form a mud on top of the carcasses & fossilisation begins. Curiously enough, fish don't tend to be that affected by floods. As for the dragonfly fossil - even these days, don't you realise how long a dragonfly lives? 1 day - 2 at best. They then lay their eggs in the water - sometimes in the mud, and then die. The type of rock that its image is imprinted on is that typical of mud. And before you start to claim that it would have been eaten - actually it wouldn't. The wings have no nutritional value whatsoever. That is why the wings are more likely to survive than the body.

Every attempted argument you have made in an attempt to deny things has merely gone to support the case against that which you deny. This is why you cannot form your own arguments & have to rely on pasting someone else's rubbish. Every time you try it for yourself you make an even bigger fool of yourself than usual.

FourPart;1501489 wrote: Not surprisingly, your pasting has done nothing to answer any of the questions I set. Since when would a jellyfish be affected by the flood? You claim all these humans who managed to survive drowning. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understood it, only Noah & his family survived the flood. And what about the more 'agile' lifeforms? Didn't they make it to the ark then? So, a shell is heavier than a dinosaur?

As for the pictures of fossils - we've been through all that before. None of them prove nor disprove anything. They are merely fossils. It is their position in the strata in relation to other fossils that is relevant. As for the fossil of the fishing eating another fish - as is usual with you, you are making an assumption. You are assuming it is the big fish that is eating the little fish. It could just as easily be that the little fish was feeding on the carrion of the bigger one & got stuck in the barbs of its teeth.

I never said that the fossils formed over thousands of years - it's more like millions. There are many things that can cause fossilisation as well as sedimentation. In marine life it is often caused by volcanic activity. First of all this takes oxygen out of the water, killing the creatures who rely on it. The lack of oxygen then forms the ideal conditions for fossilisation to begin, as it halts decay. The ashes & lava remnants then form a mud on top of the carcasses & fossilisation begins. Curiously enough, fish don't tend to be that affected by floods. As for the dragonfly fossil - even these days, don't you realise how long a dragonfly lives? 1 day - 2 at best. They then lay their eggs in the water - sometimes in the mud, and then die. The type of rock that its image is imprinted on is that typical of mud. And before you start to claim that it would have been eaten - actually it wouldn't. The wings have no nutritional value whatsoever. That is why the wings are more likely to survive than the body.

Every attempted argument you have made in an attempt to deny things has merely gone to support the case against that which you deny. This is why you cannot form your own arguments & have to rely on pasting someone else's rubbish. Every time you try it for yourself you make an even bigger fool of yourself than usual.


An excellent example of making up evidence free stories trying to make the evidence conform to your erroneous preconceptions. I got a good laugh out of it.

I notice you failed to tackle the polystrate fossil trees going through alleged several million years of different strata, which also contained fossils of other life forms used to allegedly date the strata.

Pahu;1501492 wrote: An excellent example of making up evidence free stories trying to make the evidence conform to your erroneous preconceptions. I got a good laugh out of it.

I notice you failed to tackle the polystrate fossil trees going through alleged several million years of different strata, which also contained fossils of other life forms used to allegedly date the strata.


Well, if you look at that photo of the supposed Polystrate Tree, you'll notice that the "Tree" appears to be basically the same material as that of the various strata. Most actual fossils are of obviously different material than the surrounding matter. This does not appear to be the case in that photo.

While the photo is very interesting, it offers no real evidence to support any of your claims. Same can be said for the various fossilized fishes. All that can be said of those creatures is that they obviously died at the same relative time, and that they were buried in sediment after their untimely demise.

To quote your comment:

"An excellent example of making up evidence free stories trying to make the evidence conform to your erroneous preconceptions. I got a good laugh out of it."

Yes, I also had a good laugh.

LarsMac;1501493 wrote: Well, if you look at that photo of the supposed Polystrate Tree, you'll notice that the "Tree" appears to be basically the same material as that of the various strata. Most actual fossils are of obviously different material than the surrounding matter. This does not appear to be the case in that photo.

While the photo is very interesting, it offers no real evidence to support any of your claims. Same can be said for the various fossilized fishes. All that can be said of those creatures is that they obviously died at the same relative time, and that they were buried in sediment after their untimely demise.

To quote your comment:

"An excellent example of making up evidence free stories trying to make the evidence conform to your erroneous preconceptions. I got a good laugh out of it."

Yes, I also had a good laugh.


Those polystrat trees are found by the thousands all over the world. Go here to see more: https://www.google.com/search?q=polystr ... CsUQsAQIbQ

Pahu;1501494 wrote: Those polystrat trees are found by the thousands all over the world. Go here to see more: https://www.google.com/search?q=polystr ... CsUQsAQIbQ


Yes, they are. And you know what? Wood (the material most trees are made of) has a remarkable ability to remain solid and in place for a very long time. For example, people still report finding houses, and bridges, and towers made many centuries ago, made from wood.

So it could be quite believable that those tree trunks were there while many layers of sediment built up before the wood material finally decayed away. Then more, different sedimentary material seeped in to the space and set.

That is actually how fossils formed. You should take a trip to the Arizona Desert and check out the petrified Forest. A place where all of that happened, a long time ago, and then, the sediment in which the trees became fossilized all was washed away be even more water and erosion, until just about all that is left is the fossilized trees.

Quite fascinating.

Here are some pics Petrified forests

An upright fossilised tree? No big deal. Here is a practically upright wall of fossilised dinosaur footprints. Are you saying, then, that the dinosaurs walked vertically, or that the sedimentary rock strata fossilised vertically?

A massive wall at Cal Orcko in southern Bolivia reveals more than 5,000 dinosaur footsteps

If you've ever done any gardening you might have discovered that if you have weed, burying them doesn't get rid of them. Despite lacking sunlight & air they continue to grow upwards. That's how plants work. In an environment where layers of sedimentation is constantly being added to, the same thing is going to happen. Just because half of the tree gets buried doesn't mean the top of the tree dies. Nature is extremely hardy. There is a tree outside my flat which got blown over in the gales a few years back. Its roots are totally out of the ground. The vast majority of the trunk has been cut away by the council, yet it continues to thrive - growing on its side. A friend of mine tried to cut down a damson tree because he was slipping on all the fruit. It was cut away to below ground level. On top of that he has laid a thick, black rubber sheet. Guess what - it STILL has shoots finding their way out of the sides & continues to push upwards. If you had the first idea of how plants grow, you'd know that there is nothing surprising in trees being fossilised vertically.

Mutations 1




Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution (a).

Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal (b).

a. “Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to mutation. Ernst Mayr, “Evolutionary Challenges to the Mathematical Interpretation of Evolution, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, proceedings of a symposium held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, 25–26 April, 1966 (Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press, 1967), p. 50.

“Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event,... Ayala, p. 63.

b. “The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution....the mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters. Theodosius Dobzhansky, “On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology, American Scientist, December 1957, p. 385.

“In molecular biology, various kinds of mutations introduce the equivalent of noise pollution of the original instructive message. Communication theory goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent noise pollution of signals of all kinds. Given this longstanding struggle against noise contamination of meaningful algorithmic messages, it seems curious that the central paradigm of biology today attributes genomic messages themselves solely to noise. David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information, Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, p. 10. (Also available at Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information | Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling | Full Text.)

“Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely. C. P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution, American Scientist, January 1953, p. 102.

“Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect. Ibid. p. 103.

“[Although mutations have produced some desirable breeds of animals and plants,] all mutations seem to be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of known mutant types one can be found which is superior to the wild type in its normal environment, only very few can be named which are superior to the wild type in a strange environment. Ibid. p. 100.

“If we say that it is only by chance that they [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal. W. R. Thompson, “Introduction to The Origin of Species, Everyman Library No. 811 (New York: E. P. Dutton & Sons, 1956; reprint, Sussex, England: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1967), p. 10.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Brown just loves to contradict himself doesn't he? On frequent occasions he admits that evolution does exist, although he likes to give it the 'micro' prefix (a term invented by Creationists). In this he accepts that species do adapt to suit their environments albeit supposedly still remaining of a 'kind'. These adaptations occur by way of mutations. That's how evolution works. However, not only does he accept this happens but he also denies it happens.

Pahu;1501649 wrote:

Mutations 1




Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution (a).

Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal (b).

a. “Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to mutation. Ernst Mayr, “Evolutionary Challenges to the Mathematical Interpretation of Evolution, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, proceedings of a symposium held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, 25–26 April, 1966 (Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press, 1967), p. 50.

“Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event,... Ayala, p. 63.

b. “The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution....the mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters. Theodosius Dobzhansky, “On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology, American Scientist, December 1957, p. 385.

“In molecular biology, various kinds of mutations introduce the equivalent of noise pollution of the original instructive message. Communication theory goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent noise pollution of signals of all kinds. Given this longstanding struggle against noise contamination of meaningful algorithmic messages, it seems curious that the central paradigm of biology today attributes genomic messages themselves solely to noise. David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information, Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, p. 10. (Also available at Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information | Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling | Full Text.)

“Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely. C. P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution, American Scientist, January 1953, p. 102.

“Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect. Ibid. p. 103.

“[Although mutations have produced some desirable breeds of animals and plants,] all mutations seem to be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of known mutant types one can be found which is superior to the wild type in its normal environment, only very few can be named which are superior to the wild type in a strange environment. Ibid. p. 100.

“If we say that it is only by chance that they [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal. W. R. Thompson, “Introduction to The Origin of Species, Everyman Library No. 811 (New York: E. P. Dutton & Sons, 1956; reprint, Sussex, England: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1967), p. 10.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


When all of that was written, people thought Bonobos and Chimpanzees were the same species.

O god.

This particular thread should be in "Mad Magazine". A little dated but I had a professor who had only one subscription to a magazine and it was made. Ues to get in monthly in class.

LarsMac;1501663 wrote: When all of that was written, people thought Bonobos and Chimpanzees were the same species.
Yep - his most recent source is 1967 - Long before DNA had even been discovered.

FourPart;1501783 wrote: Yep - his most recent source is 1967 - Long before DNA had even been discovered.


Here is a short part of a much longer up to date article on the subject:

In Arguments for Common Ancestry, Scientific Errors Compound Theoretical Problems
Evolution News & Views May 16, 2016

There's good evidence that genetic differences between humans and chimps could not arise by standard evolutionary mechanisms.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Dr. Swamidass is correct that mice and rats are about 15 percent genetically different whereas humans and apes are only 1.5 percent different. The much bigger problem is that even in humans and chimps, those few percent differences still equate to tens of millions of base pair differences, plus millions of larger differences that entail indels, etc. And when we're looking at humans and chimps, if just two of those specific differences were required before giving any functional advantage, then that would have taken over 200 million years to arise. So even very small genetic differences can still take a long time to arise.

If any of the 35 million base pair changes between humans and chimps entail adaptive changes that require two or more specific mutations before providing any advantage, then they would be extremely unlikely to evolve by random mutation and natural selection in the mere 6 or 7 million years since we shared our alleged most recent common ancestor with chimps.

Durrett and Schmidt found that it would take too long to wait for two specific mutations to gain an advantage. How does Venema know that there aren't many differences between humans and chimps that would require two (or perhaps many more -- dozens, hundreds, millions?!) mutations before any benefit arises?

In Arguments for Common Ancestry, Scientific Errors Compound Theoretical Problems - Evolution News & Views

Simply put, since both shared a common ancestor, it would only be that common ancestor that they must diverge from, rather than each other. They both only need to have been .7 % different from the common point. And genetic variations are not a serial progression. several modifications could take place nearly parallel with each other.

That's why it's called a family tree & not a family string. All branches share a common trunk, but some branches may wither whilst others thrive - often for no apparent reason. However, the leaves that come from the shoots of one branch may appear entirely different from those on another branch - yet they all have the same common ancestor - the trunk, even though the branches, and the subsequent shoots sprouting from them are all growing independently of each other. One species doesn't replace another. It continues to develop & diversify alongside the others.

It might sound a bit like eugenics, but it is a fact that low achieving parents of a low IQ tend to bring forth children who are also of a low IQ. I'm not talking about Nature over Nurture here, but there has been shown that there is a decided physical difference, whereas those of a higher IQ tend to bring forth higher achieving children of higher IQs. This, too, is a form of evolution. Primates are pretty well suited to survive in their own environment, but those who are able to problem solve tend to do better & get to branch out into a wider range of environments. Eventually these primates became early humans - and the evolution of the ability to problem solve continues to progress. Of course there will always be the retrogressive ones who take the inevitable step backwards down the evolutionary tree of mental ability. We call these Creationists.

There is one thing that Creationists are always lothe to answer. To state exactly what are the parameters that define a 'species' and what parameters would be required to be classified as a transitional species? Why won't they answer this? Quite simple - because they know full well that whatever parameters they come up with, there will be examples to fulfill those parameters.

FourPart;1501808 wrote: That's why it's called a family tree & not a family string. All branches share a common trunk, but some branches may wither whilst others thrive - often for no apparent reason. However, the leaves that come from the shoots of one branch may appear entirely different from those on another branch - yet they all have the same common ancestor - the trunk, even though the branches, and the subsequent shoots sprouting from them are all growing independently of each other. One species doesn't replace another. It continues to develop & diversify alongside the others.

It might sound a bit like eugenics, but it is a fact that low achieving parents of a low IQ tend to bring forth children who are also of a low IQ. I'm not talking about Nature over Nurture here, but there has been shown that there is a decided physical difference, whereas those of a higher IQ tend to bring forth higher achieving children of higher IQs. This, too, is a form of evolution. Primates are pretty well suited to survive in their own environment, but those who are able to problem solve tend to do better & get to branch out into a wider range of environments. Eventually these primates became early humans - and the evolution of the ability to problem solve continues to progress. Of course there will always be the retrogressive ones who take the inevitable step backwards down the evolutionary tree of mental ability. We call these Creationists.


That is a nice story, but where is evidence supporting it? Here are some facts:

Miracles in Evolutionary Theory

Evolution News & Views July 28, 2016



Charles Darwin gave science a major step forward in intellectual progress, many assume. He replaced what he considered "miracles" of design by natural processes. His goal seemed noble to many: unifying the disparate organisms of the earth into a unified picture of descent with modification, united by a law of nature he called natural selection. Science was thus rid of miracles. So he thought.

Darwin's law of nature, however, amounted to little more than historical contingency. Variations appear randomly in his view -- without direction or purpose -- at the basis of life which evolutionists today usually locate in the genes. From the "bottom up" view, to avoid looking miraculous, variations had to be small and gradual, barely making a difference to the organism except for some slight increment in a nebulous quality he called "fitness." From the "top down" view, however (the tree of life), many disparate organisms needed to be united by lines of common descent with huge gaps between them. Bringing the bottom-up and top-down pictures together has not been easy. Two recent articles show how modern evolutionists do it by employing miracles -- stretching credibility beyond the breaking point to bring the two pictures together.

In Current Biology, Thibaut Brunet and Detlev Arendt appear excited about the possibility of solving the "hard problem of cartilage origins." Their title, a play on the "hard problem of consciousness" described by David Chalmers, refers here to the origin of hard parts in animal bodies. Can all the disparate animal body plans be united by a common ancestor?

"Skeletons are misunderstood. Because of their resistance to decay, bones have become symbols of death; yet, they are intensely alive tissues, undergoing lifelong active remodeling. To the evolutionary biologist, the hard parts of animals are similarly double-faced: their endurance makes them the prime candidates for fossilization and provides paleontologists with a wealth of information on the skeleton of extinct animals. From the paleontologist's view, animal evolution is thus mainly the evolution of hard parts (plus what can be deduced from them). But for the same reason, the origin of the first animal skeletons, and the ancestral structures that gave rise to them in soft-bodied animals, remains mysterious; preservation of soft tissue is too rare to provide a clear-cut solution. For more than a century, morphologists have been debating, with precious little evidence, the hard questions of skeleton origins: When did animal skeletons first evolve? Did they appear once or several times independently? Which ancestral soft tissues first became rigid, and by what molecular mechanisms? A recent study by Tarazona and co-authors, comparing skeleton formation between invertebrates and vertebrates at the molecular level, sheds new light on these questions." [Emphasis added.]

As is common in evolutionary literature, Brunet and Arendt do not ask whether hard parts evolved, but only how they evolved. According to the "rules of science," questioning naturalism is forbidden. By limiting one's explanatory toolkit to unguided natural processes, however, difficulties arise. There's nothing like an appeal to miracles to get around a difficulty. As Finagle advised, "Do not believe in miracles. Rely on them."

The authors admit that "Historical attempts to compare vertebrate and invertebrate skeletons have not fared well." That's why Tarazona's solution appeals to them. That paper found similarities in cartilage formation between a cuttlefish and a horseshoe crab -- very distant creatures in Darwin's ancestral tree, belonging to different phyla. In their thinking, therefore, the common ancestor of both these animals must have had the ability to manufacture cartilage. Brunet and Arendt masterfully illustrate possible evolutionary links between those animals and annelids (earthworms), brachiopods, arthropods, and vertebrates by pointing out similarities between the general organization of their collagen expression sites and the developmental genes that regulate the expression of collagen. Like a magic trick, it looks simple until you probe the details. Consider:

1. They give no explanation for the emergence of 3 sets of genes that code for collagen. "The ancestral soxD+ soxE+ colA+ ventral mesentery is assumed to have given rise to both the chordate sclerotome and the chelicerate endosternite," they say, 'assuming' that six transcription factor genes and the collagenase gene conspired to create the first hard parts. Either the genes were co-opted from some other function, or emerged on their own. Is that magic? Luck? What else in naturalistic evolution could "give rise" to the improbable?

2. Collagen is a complex protein, using all 20 amino acids except tryptophan. Wikipedia lists 7 steps in its manufacture inside cells, including the formation of precursors (like "pre-pro-peptide to pro-collagen") followed by extensive post-translational modifications.

3. The formation of cartilage involves additional complex steps, including a balance between the signal proteins Hedgehog and Wnt. You can't just assume the innovation of collagen is going to automatically lead to cartilage or bone. As for bone, specialized cells (osteoblasts and osteoclasts) build and dissolve bone in a delicate balance of processes.

4. Hard parts do not appear randomly in cells or on animal body plans, but are specifically arranged for function. Look at the elaborate armor on Cambrian comb jellies (Science Advances), assumed by some evolutionists to be one of the earliest animal phyla. It's not enough to create collagen building blocks. The materials have to be delivered to specific locations during development.

5. One "miraculous" innovation like collagen would be astonishing, but that's not enough. Collagen makes a "scattered appearance" on the tree of life. The authors invoke even more miracles to explain this: "If so, this would exemplify an often neglected type of independent evolution called 'parallel evolution', in which the same ancestral structure undergoes a similar sequence of modifications in separate lines of descent." Giving an improbable wonder a name like "parallel evolution" does not make it any less "miraculous."

6. Hard parts appear suddenly in the fossil record. Wave the magic wand for more miracles! "Also, the fossil record suggests that most phyla evolved skeletons in a rapid and parallel fashion during the Cambrian explosion, fuelled by an arms race between the first elaborate predators and their prey." Our readers have heard plenty about all the failed explanations for the Cambrian explosion, so we won't belabor the point here. Suffice it to say that the details do not make belief in "evolutionary innovations" as Darwinians are wont to call them look "natural."

Good Luck, LUCA

An even greater appeal to miracles is found in evolutionary stories about the origin of life, because until reliable self-replication begins, there can be no natural selection. Consequently, evolutionists cannot avail themselves of their favorite hand-waving rescue device and can only appeal only to laws of chemistry and to chance.

The "last universal common ancestor" (LUCA) "is what scientists call the forerunner of all living things," Live Science observes. LUCA must mark the point, therefore, at which natural selection begins, because if natural selection had acted on anything prior (such as speculative "RNA World" replicators), it had no bearing on life as we actually observe it. Anything prior left no record; it is outside empirical science.

As much as evolutionists would like to simplify LUCA, there comes a point at which the organism would not have been able to carry on the necessary functions of metabolism, motility, and reproduction to be called alive. LUCA had to be a "cell" of some sort, with a genetic code and protein machines enclosed in a membrane to keep it together. As we learned in March, Craig Venter's team could not get their synthetic cell simpler than 463 genes. The new study says,

"Much about LUCA remains uncertain; while previous research suggested that it was little more than a chemical soup from which evolution gradually built more complex forms, recent work suggested it may have been a sophisticated organism with an intricate structure."

How sophisticated? By comparing millions of prokaryotic genes, researchers at Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany estimated the requirements for LUCA:

"The genes the scientists examined were blueprints for proteins. (Some genes are not thought to direct protein-making.) Of the 286,514 protein groups the researchers looked at, only 355 matched the strict criteria that the researchers set for potentially belonging to LUCA. Previous research had uncovered the functions of many of these genes, so they now shed light on LUCA's habitat and lifestyle."

Their paper, published in Nature Microbiology, expects this "forerunner of all living things" to have been able to metabolize hydrogen, fix nitrogen, use transition metals and coenzymes, and much more. It had genomics and epigenomics: "Its genetic code required nucleoside modifications and S-adenosyl methionine-dependent methylations." None of these are simple! Furthermore, the researchers believe that LUCA was a thermophile, living in the harsh conditions of hot springs or hydrothermal vents. The thermophiles we see today have sophisticated mechanisms for repairing and preserving their DNA and proteins from destruction by heat.

Did LUCA arise by chance? Jeff Errington, cell biologist at Newcastle University, doesn't even ask the question. At The Conversation, he speculates about what kind of organism LUCA was, assuming it originated in the high temperatures of hot springs, had enzymes and a genetic code, metabolized hydrogen, and was well equipped for survival. He knows, though, that LUCA had minimum requirements:

"Sadly, without a time machine, there is no way to directly verify these results. Nevertheless, this information will now be of great interest, not least to those scientists wishing to use the information to inform their bottom-up experiments in recreating modern forms of primitive life. But it will not be easy, given the requirement for high temperature, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and explosive hydrogen gas."

In Signature in the Cell, building on research by Douglas Axe on protein function, Stephen Meyer calculated the probability of one relatively short protein 150 amino acids in length as being one chance in 10 to the 164th power (10-164, pp. 210-212). In other words, expecting just one protein by chance exceeds the universal probability bound calculated by William Dembski (10-150) by 14 orders of magnitude -- 100 trillionth the chance! The word "miracle" doesn't even come close to belief in such an event. Yet these evolutionists want us to believe that somewhere between 355 and 463 genes or protein products, all working in concert, emerged by chance.

It's time to stop the caricature of ID by evolutionists that the former believe in miracles and the latter do not. It makes better sense to think that the "innovations" we observe were planned for a purpose by an intelligent cause necessary and sufficient to explain them, rather than to trust in sheer dumb luck. Arranging parts for function is not a "miracle" anyway. We do it all the time ourselves against the natural course of things.

Miracles in Evolutionary Theory - Evolution News & Views

Some interesting notions. Though we really should be beyond arguing Darwin, by now. He worked on his thesis almost two hundred years ago. Many of his classifications have been proved incorrect with the new discoveries in genetic sciences.

As for the age of the earth, here is some cool info:

Treasure Trove of Ancient Human Footprints Found Near Volcano

Pahu;1501823 wrote: That is a nice story, but where is evidence supporting it?
Not a story, but simple observations. Try it for yourself. Take a bush. Put a black bin liner over one half. After a couple of months remove the bin liner & observe the difference. The leaves will be decidedly different, yet they are from the same stem.

It is also a fact that higher intelligence parents produce higher intelligence children, whereas lower intelligence parents produce lower intelligence children (and generally more of them). I doubt you have come across much of the former. I imagine you probably also have quite a few siblings.

Mutations 2




Visible mutations are easily detectable genetic changes such as albinism, dwarfism, and hemophilia. Winchester quantifies the relative frequency of several types of mutations.

“Lethal mutations outnumber viables by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones. Winchester, p. 356.

John W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution, 2nd edition, revised (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), pp. 262–265.

“...I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn’t affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance. George Wald, as quoted by Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, pp. 18–19.

However, evolutionists have taught for years that hemoglobin alpha changed through mutations into hemoglobin beta. This would require, at a minimum, 120 point mutations. In other words, the improbability Wald refers to above must be raised to the 120th power to produce just this one protein!

“Even if we didn’t have a great deal of data on this point, we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it—just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture. James F. Crow (Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin), “Genetic Effects of Radiation, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, January 1958, pp. 19–20.

“The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a tendency towards degeneration... [emphasis in original] Sewall Wright, “The Statistical Consequences of Mendelian Heredity in Relation to Speciation, The New Systematics, editor Julian Huxley (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), p. 174.

Wright then concludes that other factors must also have been involved, because he believes evolution happened.

In discussing the many mutations needed to produce a new organ, Koestler says:

“Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation. Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1968), p. 129.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Mutations 3




No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors.

Dr. John Sanford has shown that mutations occur at such a rapid rate that “mutational meltdown would have occurred if humans were only 100,000 years old. In other words, “genetic entropy is pushing mankind toward extinction.(c).

c. “There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species. N. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 1157.

“It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations. [emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 1186.

“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 88.

“I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these [evolutionary] changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations. Lynn Margulis, as quoted by Charles Mann, “Lynn Margulis: Science’s Unruly Earth Mother, Science, Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, p. 379.

“It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations. Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist, American Scientist, Vol. 40, January 1952, p. 94.

“If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations. Frank B. Salisbury, “Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene, Nature, Vol. 224, 25 October 1969, p. 342.

“Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don’t see them: there is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ. Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London: Rider & Co., 1984), pp. 67–68.

For a multifaceted genetic analysis that devastates the idea that mutations and natural selection can produce, or even maintain, viable organisms, see John C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, New York: FMS Publications, 2005).

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Almost everything you provided in those two posts is opinion written decades before any of the new genetic data had been collected.

Opinion not science.

[sigh] Still waiting for you to provide science.

To be fair - he has provided an undeniable example of retrogressive evolution. He's here. The scientific proof of a lower life form.

Fruit Flies




A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates (a).

a. “Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105.

“A review of known facts about their [mutated fruit flies’] ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated. Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g., not a single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila mutations), and therefore they are able to appear only in the favourable environment of the experimental field or laboratory... Nilsson, p. 1186.

“In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature. Goldschmidt, p. 94.

“It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme. Gordon Rattray Taylor (former Chief Science Advisor, BBC Television), The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), p. 48.

“Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised. Hitching, p. 61.

“The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times. Grassé, p. 130.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu;1502104 wrote:

Fruit Flies




A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates (a).

a. “Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105.

“A review of known facts about their [mutated fruit flies’] ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated. Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g., not a single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila mutations), and therefore they are able to appear only in the favourable environment of the experimental field or laboratory... Nilsson, p. 1186.

“In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature. Goldschmidt, p. 94.

“It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme. Gordon Rattray Taylor (former Chief Science Advisor, BBC Television), The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), p. 48.

“Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised. Hitching, p. 61.

“The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times. Grassé, p. 130.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


More silly comments about genetics from long before anyone had even a clue about how genetics really work.

Another pasting without so much a word of any original content whatsoever. We have seen the same pasting time & time again. It was outdated when he first started pasting it. It becomes more out of date each time he pastes it, but the point is that he never even explains the REASON behind the pasting. He is just blindly pasting for pasting's sake. He never argues a case. He just floods with random inane pastes. This is why he's been banned from most other forums.

Complex Molecules and Organs 1




Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are so incredibly complex that claims they evolved are absurd. Furthermore, those claims lack experimental support (a).

a. “There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 179.

“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster. Behe, pp. 186–187.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu;1502259 wrote:

Complex Molecules and Organs 1




Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are so incredibly complex that claims they evolved are absurd. Furthermore, those claims lack experimental support (a).

a. “There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 179.

“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster. Behe, pp. 186–187.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


You're absolutely right. I don't think I've ever heard of molecules evolving. I bet that Darwin never did, either.

That may be among the silliest things you've ever posted.

He really should try learning how to use Google sometime...

Oxford Journals | Medicine & Health & Science & Mathematics | Molecular Biology and Evolution

Journal of Molecular Evolution - incl. option to publish open access

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution - Journal - Elsevier

BIOL B242 - MOLECULAR EVOLUTION

To list but a few of the papers & journals that supposedly don't exist on the subject.

Every Pahu pasting demonstrates how ridiculously little research he does on the content. By simply Googling the words "Molecular", "Evolution" & "Paper" I easily found countless publication on the subject from countless highly reputable, independent sources - to state that these don't exist & expect such a statement to be taken seriously is laughable.

Complex Molecules and Organs 2




There is no reason to believe that mutations or any natural process could ever produce any new organs—especially those as complex as the eye (b), the ear, or the brain (c).

b. “While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real-time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (ms) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of [1985] Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second. John K. Stevens, “Reverse Engineering the Brain, Byte, April 1985, p. 287.

“The retina processes information much more than anyone has ever imagined, sending a dozen different movies to the brain. Frank Werblin and Botond Roska, “The Movies in Our Eyes, Scientific American, Vol. 296, April 2007, p. 73.

“Was the eye contrived without skill in opticks [optics], and the ear without knowledge of sounds? Isaac Newton, Opticks (England: 1704; reprint, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931), pp. 369–370.

“Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?  Wernher von Braun (probably the rocket scientist most responsible for the United States’ success in placing men on the Moon) from a letter written by Dr. Wernher von Braun and read to the California State Board of Education by Dr. John Ford on 14 September 1972.

“What random process could possibly explain the simultaneous evolution of the eye’s optical system, the nervous conductors of the optical signals from the eye to the brain, and the optical nerve center in the brain itself where the incoming light impulses are converted to an image the conscious mind can comprehend? Wernher von Braun, foreword to From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo by Harold Hill (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International, 1976), p. xi.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Complex Molecules and Organs 3




[continued]

b. “The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer’s ‘Melancholia’ is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it. [emphasis in original] Grassé, p. 104.

“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence. Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296.

Although Robert Jastrow generally accepts Darwinian evolution, he acknowledges that:

“It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors. Robert Jastrow, “Evolution: Selection for Perfection, Science Digest, December 1981, p. 87.

[continue]

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Yup. Still no science

LarsMac;1502675 wrote: Yup. Still no science
Still no individual thought process. Still no attempt to discuss the issue. Still no demonstration that he has the foggiest idea of what he continues to paste is actually about.

Complex Molecules and Organs 4




[continued]

b. Many leading scientists have commented on the staggering complexity of the human eye. What some do not appreciate is how many diverse types of eyes there are, each of which adds to the problem for evolution.



One of the strangest is a multiple-lensed, compound eye found in fossilized worms! [See Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-Bodied Biota, Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.]

Another type of eye belonged to some trilobites, a thumb-size, extinct, sea-bottom creature. Evolutionists claim that they were very early forms of life. Trilobite eyes had compound lenses, sophisticated designs for eliminating image distortion (spherical aberration). Only the best cameras and telescopes contain compound lenses. Some trilobite eyes contained 280 lenses, allowing vision in all directions, day and night. [See Richard Fortey and Brian Chatterton, “A Devonian Trilobite with an Eyeshade, Science, Vol. 301, 19 September 2003, p. 1689.] Trilobite eyes “represent an all-time feat of function optimization. [Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites, 2nd edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 29–74.] Shawver described trilobite eyes as having “the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature. [Lisa J. Shawver, “Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution, Science News, Vol. 105, 2 February 1974, p. 72.] Gould admitted that “The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods.... I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. [Stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment, Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 22–23.]

The brittlestar, an animal similar to a 5-arm starfish, has, as part of its skeleton, thousands of eyes, each smaller than the diameter of a human hair. Each eye consists of a calcium carbonate crystal that acts as a compound lens and precisely focuses light on a bundle of nerves. If an arm is lost, a new arm regenerates along with its array of eyes mounted on the upper-back side of the arm. While evolutionists had considered these animals primitive, Sambles admits that “Once again we find that nature foreshadowed our technical developments. Roy Sambles, “Armed for Light Sensing, Nature, Vol. 412, 23 August 2001, p. 783. The capabilities of these light-focusing lenses exceed today’s technology.

[continue]

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu, what do you make of the bible disproving itself?

matthew 4:8 wrote: Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor... Unless you'd like to admit you're a flat earth believer too?

Ahso!;1502985 wrote: Pahu, what do you make of the bible disproving itself?

Matthew 4:8

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor...


Unless you'd like to admit you're a flat earth believer too?


Does Matthew 4:8 teach a flat earth?

Question: A reader asserts that Matthew 4:8, which in part reads, " . . . the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor . . . ," is evidence that the Bible thought that the earth was flat, because it would be impossible to view the entire world from a high vantage point unless it was flat. The reader also asserts that the visualization of the 'all the kingdoms' could not have involved the supernatural, because if that were the case, it would not have been necessary to go to a 'very high mountain.'

Response: Aside from whatever opinion you have of the Bible, the fact is, it would actually be impossible for the supernatural to be absent during a meeting between Jesus and the devil, as described in Matthew 4:1-8. How else would the devil manage to find Jesus in the desert in Matthew 4:3? How else would the devil bring Jesus to the 'the highest point of the temple' in Matthew 4:5? And how else would he transport Jesus to the 'very high mountain' in Matthew 4:8?

Matthew's portrayal of the meeting between Jesus and the devil involves the supernatural. So how did the devil represent to Jesus 'all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor'? The answer seems obvious: by means of the supernatural.

So why does the devil take Jesus up to a 'very high mountain' when he could have used his supernatural powers in a valley, or in a plain, etc., to show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world? Because, a king is elevated. It is the king who has the highest seat in a palace. It is the king who has the highest seat in a coliseum. It is the king to whom others lower themselves by bowing.

So if the devil is going to tempt someone by offering to make him the king of the world, where else would be more appropriate than the top of a 'very high mountain?'

Consider the succession of temptations in Matthew 4:1-11:

• The first takes place in a desert.

• The second involves the highest point on the Temple in Jerusalem.

• And the third takes place on a mountain.

The pattern is clear: As the loftiness of the temptation increases, so does the height from which it is offered.

But, for the sake of argument, what if a person, who lived during the time of Jesus, actually thought that the earth was flat? Would that person really think that if he stood on a high mountain that he would be able to see the entire world - all the kingdoms in their splendor?

That would be easy to doubt. You don't have to be a 21st-century scientist to realize that there are limits as to how far the human eye can perceive detail and color. Anyone standing on a hilltop overlooking a valley, or standing on a shoreline looking out to the sea, would realize that the human eye can see only so far before details are washed out into the horizon.

Even a person living in ancient times would have realized that he could not see far enough, under any normal circumstances, to see all of the kingdoms of the world from any one vantage point.

Remember, the ancients traveled by foot. They often measured their journeys by the number of days that it took to complete the trip. The Bible records many examples of this. A man living in ancient times, taking a journey that lasted a day or more, would have realized that even when there are no trees or mountains or hills to obstruct your view, you still can't see your destination point at the start of your journey.

Please also see Does the Bible teach that the earth is flat?

Does Matthew 4:8 teach a flat earth?

"It's all just magic" is your answer?

I never said the bible "teaches" flat earth. What I pointed out is that the bible's (God's) description of the events is, at best, poorly worded if your excuse is to have any validity whatsoever.

I knew what your response was going to be. Word salad and twisting of interpretation to fit the short term narrative that best suits your presuppositions just enough to try and wiggle out of facts.

So, the bible is not to be take literally?

What's your take on this one?

Ecclesiastes 1:5 wrote: The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.


which coincides with this

1 Chronicles 16:30 wrote: tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

Ahso!;1502987 wrote: "It's all just magic" is your answer?

I never said the bible "teaches" flat earth. What I pointed out is that the bible's (God's) description of the events is, at best, poorly worded if your excuse is to have any validity whatsoever.

I knew what your response was going to be. Word salad and twisting of interpretation to fit the short term narrative that best suits your presuppositions just enough to try and wiggle out of facts.

So, the bible is not to be take literally?


Not at all, but there are areas that are to be taken allegorically such as the Garden of Eden story, Job, talking trees and the temptations of Jesus.

Pahu;1502991 wrote: Not at all, but there are areas that are to be taken allegorically such as the Garden of Eden story, Job, talking trees and the temptations of Jesus.Why do you think God intended it that way? After all, being God, He would have known all this would be issues in the 21st century. Do you think He was just having a laugh or two at your expense and to make your convincing strategies more complicated?

Any answer to post 3049?

Ahso!;1502992 wrote: Why do you think God intended it that way? After all, being God, He would have known all this would be issues in the 21st century. Do you think He was just having a laugh or two at your expense and to make your convincing strategies more complicated?

Any answer to post 3049?


I gave you an answer but it has disappeared. I will try again:



What's your take on this one?

[Quote]Ecclesiastes 1:5

The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.


which coincides with this

1 Chronicles 16:30

tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.


The phrase, sunrise, is a clear indication that someone believes the sun revolves around the sun. It's amazing how widespread that belief is to this very day. For example the Royal Astronomical Society of New Zealand, the weatherman and everyone else on Earth is still living in pre-Copernican times. It's just shocking.

1 Chron 16:7 says, “Then on that day David delivered first this psalm to thank the Lord into the hand of Asaph and his brethren. Like the book of Psalms, the passage uses poetic descriptions to convey spiritual truth – not necessarily literal truth. In the same passage (v. 32-33) David says that the sea “roars, the fields “rejoice, and the trees “sing.

Why don't the same critics who allege this passage endorses geocentricism, also assert the Bible teaches that trees sing? It's because they know that people will immediately recognize trees singing as an obvious use of metaphor. Yet they still quote v. 30 as though it's meant to be a statement of fact. This is a clear case of quote mining where critics cite a passage out of context in order to make it sound like the Bible says something that it clearly does not intend.

Another thing we must be careful to consider is what is meant by the use of the words like “world and “earth. Often, when these words are used, they are not referring to the physical earth but the people of the earth. This is demonstrated in the same verse in question. 1 Chron 16:30a says, “Fear before Him all the earth. Do you think this means the literal “earth should fear Him or doesn't it more likely mean the people of the earth? It could mean the literal earth in the same sense that the “fields rejoice. On the other hand, it could also mean the people of the earth. The Bible does use the words “earth and “world in that sense; Here are some indisputable examples where this is so:

And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity. (Isaiah 13:11a)

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (Luke 2:1)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

In these passages, and others, the word “world clearly means the people who live in the world. No one, for example, could rationally argue that Luke 2:1 means that the literal earth (that is, dirt and rock) is going to be taxed.

We also must ask what is meant by “not moved. The most ordinary meaning, of course, is that it means “stationary and that is what the critics who cite this passage claim it means. However, “not moved can also mean “not moved from its course or “unpersuaded. Psalm 21:7 says, “For the king trusteth in the Lord, and through the mercy of the most High he shall not be moved. I'll ask you: does this passage mean the king is stationary or does it mean that he should not be moved from his trust in the Lord?

In conclusion, remember that this is a psalm. In a poetic passage that says the Lord established the earth that it should not be moved, would it be entirely unreasonable to interpret that to mean the Lord established the ways of the earth (or its people) and it/they will not be moved from the way He established? What is unreasonable is that critics (whether intentionally or by ignorance) ignore the clear context of a passage and assert the correct interpretation of an obvious use of poetry is that it is meant to be literal fact. It's no wonder that critics see the Bible as rife with errors. They obviously have trouble reading.

A Sure Word: 1 Chronicles 16:30: Does the Bible Say the Earth Doesn't Move?