Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [creationevolutiondebate] Digest Number 1319

Expand Messages
  • Paul Andrew King
    ... At this point a red flag went up. BEWARE OF CREATIONIST SLANDERS . False Accusations of this sort are the creationist stock-in-trade. ... What this
    Message 1 of 5 , May 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >Subject: 4- Darwin's Ghost.. Chapter ONE - Dogs
      >
      >A Review of "Darwin's Ghost" by Steve Jones
      >Chapter One: Variation Under Domestication
      >
      >
      >Pg.22: "It is just one step further than a change that affirms the central
      >truth of evolution: that variation within existing forms can, with human
      >help, bring forth new kinds of creatures quite different from their
      >ancestors. Evolution on the farm is a small-scale version of that in
      >Nature."
      >
      >
      > A red flag should immediately go up here at the beginning of chapter one!
      >It should say "BEWARE OF BAIT AND SWITCH CON GAME!".

      At this point a red flag went up. "BEWARE OF CREATIONIST SLANDERS".
      False Accusations of this sort are the creationist stock-in-trade.

      > Steve Jones, as all
      >evolutionists have no evidence of animals changing as a result of mutations
      >causing new genes with new parts, so they look at normal genetic variation
      >where there are NO NEW GENES CAUSING NEW PARTS, and act as if the variation
      >and change within the gene pool is somehow evolution.

      What this really means Tim, is that YOU simply assume that such
      evidence does not exist - and therefore reject Jones argument BEFORE
      it is even made.

      > This is really a big
      >lie, for the Bible never says animals won't reproduce after their kind, and
      >'kind' is certainly not what Jones calls it above.

      Perhaps Tim, you would like to actually find where the Bible says any
      such thing ?

      > It is the original gene
      >code, that had variation potential, but never as a result of mutational
      >morphing, that we have never seen.

      Tim, do you really deny that mutations happen ?

      > Jones is really grabbing at nothing
      >significant, and making it something here.

      Jones is making a significant point - you says that you AGREE with
      Jones' facts and that therefore they cannot be significant. But that
      is wrong - you are rejecting the argument BEFORE it is made, Tim,
      you are only proving that you are prejudiced not that there is
      anything wrong with Jones' arguments.

      > That's what evolution really
      >is..something out of nothing, and then pretending you have something. You
      >don't!

      It seems that creationism is refusing to look at things and then
      insisting that they do not exist.

      > Darwin's love of pigeons, or our many breed of dogs are indeed fascinating
      >and the results are striking, but all varieties of pigeons are still
      >pigeons, and all varieties of dogs are still dogs, including wolves. I
      >marvel at the variation potential of life! God has programmed into our DNA
      >so much potential that life has adapted to every habitat and climate! If I
      >were trying to prove Darwin's dead
      >theory, I would certainly flaunt this variety, but in the end, it just
      >doesn't count.

      Perhaps Tim, you could come up with some EVIDENCE for this
      preprogramming ? Or perhaps it is no more than wild speculation
      intended to evade the undeniable evidence ?

      >
      >Pg.25 "The sole alternative to admitting the variation of dogs as evidence
      >for evolution is to believe that each breed descends from a separate wild
      >ancestor, now extinct with no token of its passing."
      >
      >This is completely false thinking and logic. Because each variety of dog
      >does not have an extinct ancestor, IN NO WAY forces us to believe
      >the only alternative is evidence of evolution! Life has variation potential
      >within the Biblical understanding of things.

      Unless you are EXCLUDING mutations completely (and for that I would
      like to see evidence that the variation within domestic dogs can be
      explained WITHOUT any mutations - especially given the fact that all
      dogs are descended from only two domestications) then Jones' point is
      perfectly correct.

      > Thus Jones is falsely pushing
      >his wares here at the expense of truth. In fact, Jones uses this false
      >thinking as a straw man, for in the next paragraph, he points out that the
      >separate ancestry ideas are not dead but still wrong. SO WHAT! It has
      >nothing to do with the debate or issue, since creationists do not come close
      >to believing it. Jones is not above using a dead horse/straw man to make
      >his points. This is noted.
      >It doesn't count.

      It obviously does count since the only response available to you is
      to deny that mutations happen.

      >
      >
      >Pg.27:
      >Fossil Bones and mitochondrial DNA do not agree among wolves domesticated
      >into dogs. So we pick 10,000 or 100,000 years depending on our theories.
      >Mix and match is the rule in evolution, for mitochondrial DNA and the
      >fossils must be interpreted, it it is ALWAYS who can tell the best story.

      This is an outright misrepresentation. The decision is based on the
      EVIDENCE as Jones says.

      >
      >Pg. 27-30:
      >Jones takes some time to show the LOSS of information as wolves become
      >domesticated into dogs. Example: Labs have less brain power than wolves by
      >a brain that is a fifth smaller. He cites several other examples of this
      >loss. Selection, whether natural or artificial always involves net loss
      >observably. I'm glad Jones himself points this out. He documents very well
      >the 'de'-volution of wolves as humans select out this or that.

      An outright lie. Jones does not point out any such thing.Jones DOES
      point out that dogs have ADAPTED to life as pets and that adaption
      makes them less fit as WILD animals.

      > No problem
      >with the Bible, but a giant problem if we are to become something that
      >requires ADDITION of brand new genes that allow a dog to sprout flippers,
      >flukes and blowholes that are a genetic code in whales. This is the core
      >dilemma of evolution, and Jones ignores it completely. Chapter One doesn't
      >count.

      This is just typical creationist dishonesty. Rather than take
      Chapter One on its OWN merits you just insist that it must deal with
      a DIFFERENT issue. THis is a blatant attempt to find an excuse to
      dismiss Chapter One.

      >
      >Pg. 32: "Time Magazine claimed in 1994 claimed that a quarter of all
      >pedigree dogs suffer from a genetic disorder. The estimate may be too high,
      >but without question......."
      >
      >Enter MUTATIONS! I mean REAL mutations, not the kind that theory pretend
      >happened, but we have never observed.

      Mutations actually entered earlier (p38-39 in my copy, where the
      quoted material is on p42). In fact this material is on the effects
      of inbreeding.


      > I had a Gordon Setter with hip
      >problems. It was expected in the breed. Jones says it well on pg.33,
      >"dogs are, because of the evolutionary pressures...silent witnesses to the
      >malleability (evil) of nature".

      Interesting that the variation claimed to be the creation of God
      above has suddenly become "evil" (and although it is only marked by
      ordinary parentheses the word "evil" is not part of the original
      text).

      > So far so good, because Jones is simply
      >reporting observed data.

      Tim, it seems that you are ignoring the fact that this is the
      concluding paragraph of the section and associating it solely with
      the material on genetic defects - even though other relevant material
      - which happens to be far less convenient to your dismissal of Jones
      argument should also be included.

      > Science is that for those who really want science
      >and not fairy tales. It is based on our observations of the world around
      >us.

      You mean like the transitional fossils showing the development of whales ?

      > And that world show that REAL mutations ALSO make things worse. To
      >this point, Jones gives fair treatment. He even points out (pg.33), that
      >our human subdivisions to often show evolution IN REVERSE!

      Jones point here is that humanity is REDUCING the number of breeds of
      many domesticated species. How this is supposed to be o help to
      creationism I have no idea.
      >
      >This in truth are the facts of the case. Evolution doesn't have a
      >mechanism, since selection and mutation are not observed to INCREASE new
      >genes that make new working parts.

      This is not a fact.

      > 'Rescuing Nature's diversity' (pg.33),
      >is simply trying to keep what God gave us from the beginning.

      This is not a fact - it is wild speculation.

      >Appealing to 'natural' selection will never do more than this.

      Since natural selection REDUCES diversity - although less rapidly
      than human selection is doing so - such an appear would indeed be in
      vain. What we need is mutations to create new diversity to replace
      that which has been lost.

      > Sin brought
      >on death and decay, including in the perfect creation. No force either
      >natural or artificial has ever been observed to actually ADD to the genome
      >even ONE brand new gene that produces a working novel part.

      This straw man again where brand new genes are supposed to appear from nowhere.

      The claim that this is necessary to evolution has NEVER been
      supported by any argument other than "Tim Clfton Says So!". This may
      be enough for anybody who is prepared to take his own beliefs as the
      Word of God but not to any rational human being.

      > Thus animals
      >WILL emerge quite different than what they were before (pg.34), but it will
      >always be a spin-off of original genes, that do not have the code to
      >experiments with new working parts. Dogs will stay dogs and whales, whales
      >with much diversity in each.

      This is not a fact either - and it is contradicted by the evidence
      that clearly shows that whales are the descendants of quite
      differneet land animals.

      >
      >Pg. 39: "The accumulative action of selection, whether applied methodically
      >and more quickly, or unconsciously and more slowly, will always cause life
      >to change."
      >
      >And I say, 'Amen'. We see this, both wild and domestic. What we don't see;
      >have never seen; and only speculate about, is those changes causing morphing
      >and addition of brand new genes with brand new functions.

      And we don't need to see any such thing.

      > Thus this change
      >is the BAIT. The SWITCH is telling us to add millions of years, and the new
      >genes will just pop up, changing bacteria into dogs and people.

      Which means that you are calling Jones dishonest by lying about his
      argument. My red flag was right. The "bait and switch" accusation
      is slander, pure and simple.

      > If we bite
      >the bait, we become part of this grand fairy tale for grownups. In the end,
      >it is only a way to escape our accountability to the living God, who made
      >us, and holds us accountable to repent of our many sins, and believe on His
      >Son, Jesus Christ. For the wages of sin is death (and hell), but the gift
      >of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ, our Lord!

      Tim, please stop repeating this malicious falsehood. You KNOW that
      you cannot support it (I've ASKED often enough - and you have NEVER
      answered !)

      --
      --
      "The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of
      immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals
      in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala
      Guide to Taoism_

      Paul K.
    • opensipapu
      Nice post, Paul. Tim s response or lack thereof will no doubt tell us a lot about Tim s honesty, rationality and willingness to discuss the issues. ... pg.33,
      Message 2 of 5 , May 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Nice post, Paul. Tim's response or lack thereof will no doubt tell
        us a lot about Tim's honesty, rationality and willingness to discuss
        the issues.


        Tim C.:
        > > I had a Gordon Setter with hip
        > >problems. It was expected in the breed. Jones says it well on
        pg.33,
        > >"dogs are, because of the evolutionary pressures...silent
        witnesses to the
        > >malleability (evil) of nature".

        Paul:
        > Interesting that the variation claimed to be the creation of God
        > above has suddenly become "evil" (and although it is only marked by
        > ordinary parentheses the word "evil" is not part of the original
        > text).

        Ahh.. interesting. I thought that "evil" must have been added by Tim
        since it made no sense that Jones had included it. And as you point
        out it makes no sense when Tim says it either, but that is not as
        unexpected.

        Tim, I asked you about this before. Now Paul has. Please address
        this issue. We'd like to know what is so evil about God's apparently
        designed adaptability of nature.

        Eric
      • Tim Clifton
        ... [ Tim, do you really deny that mutations happen ?] I have never denied that Paul. Since you went this route, your rebuttals are not accurate to my actual
        Message 3 of 5 , May 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          >From: Paul Andrew King >Subject: 4- Darwin's Ghost.. Chapter ONE - Dogs
          [ >Tim, do you really deny that mutations happen ?]

          I have never denied that Paul. Since you went this route,
          your rebuttals are not accurate to my actual assertions about
          mutation. Tim



          >
          > > Jones is really grabbing at nothing
          > >significant, and making it something here.
          >
          >Jones is making a significant point - you says that you AGREE with
          >Jones' facts and that therefore they cannot be significant. But that
          >is wrong - you are rejecting the argument BEFORE it is made, Tim,
          >you are only proving that you are prejudiced not that there is
          >anything wrong with Jones' arguments.
          >
          > > That's what evolution really
          > >is..something out of nothing, and then pretending you have something.
          >You
          > >don't!
          >
          >It seems that creationism is refusing to look at things and then
          >insisting that they do not exist.
          >
          > > Darwin's love of pigeons, or our many breed of dogs are indeed
          >fascinating
          > >and the results are striking, but all varieties of pigeons are still
          > >pigeons, and all varieties of dogs are still dogs, including wolves. I
          > >marvel at the variation potential of life! God has programmed into our
          >DNA
          > >so much potential that life has adapted to every habitat and climate! If
          >I
          > >were trying to prove Darwin's dead
          > >theory, I would certainly flaunt this variety, but in the end, it just
          > >doesn't count.
          >
          >Perhaps Tim, you could come up with some EVIDENCE for this
          >preprogramming ? Or perhaps it is no more than wild speculation
          >intended to evade the undeniable evidence ?
          >
          > >
          > >Pg.25 "The sole alternative to admitting the variation of dogs as
          >evidence
          > >for evolution is to believe that each breed descends from a separate wild
          > >ancestor, now extinct with no token of its passing."
          > >
          > >This is completely false thinking and logic. Because each variety of dog
          > >does not have an extinct ancestor, IN NO WAY forces us to believe
          > >the only alternative is evidence of evolution! Life has variation
          >potential
          > >within the Biblical understanding of things.
          >
          >Unless you are EXCLUDING mutations completely (and for that I would
          >like to see evidence that the variation within domestic dogs can be
          >explained WITHOUT any mutations - especially given the fact that all
          >dogs are descended from only two domestications) then Jones' point is
          >perfectly correct.
          >
          > > Thus Jones is falsely pushing
          > >his wares here at the expense of truth. In fact, Jones uses this false
          > >thinking as a straw man, for in the next paragraph, he points out that
          >the
          > >separate ancestry ideas are not dead but still wrong. SO WHAT! It has
          > >nothing to do with the debate or issue, since creationists do not come
          >close
          > >to believing it. Jones is not above using a dead horse/straw man to make
          > >his points. This is noted.
          > >It doesn't count.
          >
          >It obviously does count since the only response available to you is
          >to deny that mutations happen.
          >
          > >
          > >
          > >Pg.27:
          > >Fossil Bones and mitochondrial DNA do not agree among wolves domesticated
          > >into dogs. So we pick 10,000 or 100,000 years depending on our theories.
          > >Mix and match is the rule in evolution, for mitochondrial DNA and the
          > >fossils must be interpreted, it it is ALWAYS who can tell the best story.
          >
          >This is an outright misrepresentation. The decision is based on the
          >EVIDENCE as Jones says.
          >
          > >
          > >Pg. 27-30:
          > >Jones takes some time to show the LOSS of information as wolves become
          > >domesticated into dogs. Example: Labs have less brain power than wolves
          >by
          > >a brain that is a fifth smaller. He cites several other examples of this
          > >loss. Selection, whether natural or artificial always involves net loss
          > >observably. I'm glad Jones himself points this out. He documents very
          >well
          > >the 'de'-volution of wolves as humans select out this or that.
          >
          >An outright lie. Jones does not point out any such thing.Jones DOES
          >point out that dogs have ADAPTED to life as pets and that adaption
          >makes them less fit as WILD animals.
          >
          > > No problem
          > >with the Bible, but a giant problem if we are to become something that
          > >requires ADDITION of brand new genes that allow a dog to sprout flippers,
          > >flukes and blowholes that are a genetic code in whales. This is the
          >core
          > >dilemma of evolution, and Jones ignores it completely. Chapter One
          >doesn't
          > >count.
          >
          >This is just typical creationist dishonesty. Rather than take
          >Chapter One on its OWN merits you just insist that it must deal with
          >a DIFFERENT issue. THis is a blatant attempt to find an excuse to
          >dismiss Chapter One.
          >
          > >
          > >Pg. 32: "Time Magazine claimed in 1994 claimed that a quarter of all
          > >pedigree dogs suffer from a genetic disorder. The estimate may be too
          >high,
          > >but without question......."
          > >
          > >Enter MUTATIONS! I mean REAL mutations, not the kind that theory pretend
          > >happened, but we have never observed.
          >
          >Mutations actually entered earlier (p38-39 in my copy, where the
          >quoted material is on p42). In fact this material is on the effects
          >of inbreeding.
          >
          >
          > > I had a Gordon Setter with hip
          > >problems. It was expected in the breed. Jones says it well on pg.33,
          > >"dogs are, because of the evolutionary pressures...silent witnesses to
          >the
          > >malleability (evil) of nature".
          >
          >Interesting that the variation claimed to be the creation of God
          >above has suddenly become "evil" (and although it is only marked by
          >ordinary parentheses the word "evil" is not part of the original
          >text).
          >
          > > So far so good, because Jones is simply
          > >reporting observed data.
          >
          >Tim, it seems that you are ignoring the fact that this is the
          >concluding paragraph of the section and associating it solely with
          >the material on genetic defects - even though other relevant material
          >- which happens to be far less convenient to your dismissal of Jones
          >argument should also be included.
          >
          > > Science is that for those who really want science
          > >and not fairy tales. It is based on our observations of the world around
          > >us.
          >
          >You mean like the transitional fossils showing the development of whales ?
          >
          > > And that world show that REAL mutations ALSO make things worse. To
          > >this point, Jones gives fair treatment. He even points out (pg.33), that
          > >our human subdivisions to often show evolution IN REVERSE!
          >
          >Jones point here is that humanity is REDUCING the number of breeds of
          >many domesticated species. How this is supposed to be o help to
          >creationism I have no idea.
          > >
          > >This in truth are the facts of the case. Evolution doesn't have a
          > >mechanism, since selection and mutation are not observed to INCREASE new
          > >genes that make new working parts.
          >
          >This is not a fact.
          >
          > > 'Rescuing Nature's diversity' (pg.33),
          > >is simply trying to keep what God gave us from the beginning.
          >
          >This is not a fact - it is wild speculation.
          >
          > >Appealing to 'natural' selection will never do more than this.
          >
          >Since natural selection REDUCES diversity - although less rapidly
          >than human selection is doing so - such an appear would indeed be in
          >vain. What we need is mutations to create new diversity to replace
          >that which has been lost.
          >
          > > Sin brought
          > >on death and decay, including in the perfect creation. No force either
          > >natural or artificial has ever been observed to actually ADD to the
          >genome
          > >even ONE brand new gene that produces a working novel part.
          >
          >This straw man again where brand new genes are supposed to appear from
          >nowhere.
          >
          >The claim that this is necessary to evolution has NEVER been
          >supported by any argument other than "Tim Clfton Says So!". This may
          >be enough for anybody who is prepared to take his own beliefs as the
          >Word of God but not to any rational human being.
          >
          > > Thus animals
          > >WILL emerge quite different than what they were before (pg.34), but it
          >will
          > >always be a spin-off of original genes, that do not have the code to
          > >experiments with new working parts. Dogs will stay dogs and whales,
          >whales
          > >with much diversity in each.
          >
          >This is not a fact either - and it is contradicted by the evidence
          >that clearly shows that whales are the descendants of quite
          >differneet land animals.
          >
          > >
          > >Pg. 39: "The accumulative action of selection, whether applied
          >methodically
          > >and more quickly, or unconsciously and more slowly, will always cause
          >life
          > >to change."
          > >
          > >And I say, 'Amen'. We see this, both wild and domestic. What we don't
          >see;
          > >have never seen; and only speculate about, is those changes causing
          >morphing
          > >and addition of brand new genes with brand new functions.
          >
          >And we don't need to see any such thing.
          >
          > > Thus this change
          > >is the BAIT. The SWITCH is telling us to add millions of years, and the
          >new
          > >genes will just pop up, changing bacteria into dogs and people.
          >
          >Which means that you are calling Jones dishonest by lying about his
          >argument. My red flag was right. The "bait and switch" accusation
          >is slander, pure and simple.
          >
          > > If we bite
          > >the bait, we become part of this grand fairy tale for grownups. In the
          >end,
          > >it is only a way to escape our accountability to the living God, who made
          > >us, and holds us accountable to repent of our many sins, and believe on
          >His
          > >Son, Jesus Christ. For the wages of sin is death (and hell), but the
          >gift
          > >of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ, our Lord!
          >
          >Tim, please stop repeating this malicious falsehood. You KNOW that
          >you cannot support it (I've ASKED often enough - and you have NEVER
          >answered !)
          >
          >--
          >--
          >"The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of
          >immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals
          >in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala
          >Guide to Taoism_
          >
          >Paul K.




          ...................................
          When one forgets that science is only a limited window on the world and
          reality, then one blinds
          himself to reality itself.

          Evolutionist: "The current rate of recession if unchanged leads to a 1.5
          billion year age for the moon." Why then does evolution say it is 4.5
          billion years old? Something is wrong here?

          Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to
          me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.


          _________________________________________________________________
          Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
        • Paul Andrew King
          ... You claim it is the original gene code that had variation potential would seem to deny that there are variations from nay other source - which would
          Message 4 of 5 , May 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            >
            > >From: Paul Andrew King >Subject: 4- Darwin's Ghost.. Chapter ONE - Dogs
            >[ >Tim, do you really deny that mutations happen ?]
            >
            >I have never denied that Paul.

            You claim "it is the original gene code that had variation potential"
            would seem to deny that there are variations from nay other source -
            which would include mutations. Do you retract that claim and accept
            that some of the observed variation is from mutations ?

            > Since you went this route,
            >your rebuttals are not accurate to my actual assertions about
            >mutation. Tim

            On the contrary, the requests for evidence to back up your assertions
            about "original variation" remain relevant.
            So are the errors I pointed out - confusing inbreeding with mutation
            as well as the completely false "bait and switch" accusation.
            So is the request for you to back up your claim about what the Bible say.
            So is the point that you identify variation (which according to you
            must be at least largely God's creation) as "evil".
            And so is the point that you have NEVER offered any argument as to
            why evolution would require entirely new genes to appear out of
            nowhere.
            And finally it does not refute my point that your claim that
            evolution is "only a way to escape our accountability to the living
            God" is a malicious falsehood. You know full well that you have run
            away from defending it more than once.

            --
            --
            "The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of
            immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals
            in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala
            Guide to Taoism_

            Paul K.
          • Dave Oldridge
            ... When one forgets that ancient writings, no matter how sanctified by traditions, are only a limited window on the world and reality, one does exactly the
            Message 5 of 5 , May 2, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              On 1 May 2002 at 11:58, Tim Clifton wrote:

              > ...................................
              > When one forgets that science is only a limited window on the world and
              > reality, then one blinds
              > himself to reality itself.

              When one forgets that ancient writings, no matter how sanctified by traditions, are only a limited window
              on the world and reality, one does exactly the same thing. Thus you are a fine example of what you
              complain about...


              Dave Oldridge
              ICQ 1800667
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.