Monday, April 23, 2012

Unbelievable—Evolution in Complete Free Fall: The Human Lineage Was Somehow “Purged”

Humans, like everything else in biology, contradict evolution. Human uniqueness has sent evolution spiraling for years. Relative brain size, hairless sweaty skin, striding bipedal posture, long-distance running, ability to learn to swim, innate ability to learn languages in childhood, prolonged helplessness of the young, ability to imitate and learn, inter-generational transfer of complex cultures, awareness of self and of the past and future, theory of mind, increased longevity, provisioning by post-menopausal females, difficult childbirth, cerebral cortical asymmetry are just a few from a long list of features that make humans exceptional. Another such feature is the lack of endemic infectious retroviruses in humans. The problem is that these viruses are present in the other primates, and so according to evolutionists these viruses must be present in their common ancestor which, again according to evolution, would be an ancestor of humans as well. This leaves evolution with yet another just-so story:

Assuming that the common ancestors of hominids carried multiple endemic infectious retroviruses, how did the human lineage eliminate them? Given that humans remain susceptible to re-infection with both SFVs178 and SIVs177 from other hominids, this seems unlikely to be explained solely on the basis of more efficient host restriction systems. Rather, there seems to have been an episode in which the ancestral human lineage was somehow “purged” of these endemic viruses.

In other words, when evolution spontaneously created humans we must have been “purged.” We got a do-over! Hilarious.

All of this lunacy was foreseen by the great Alfred Wallace for which he was, of course, dismissed by evolutionists. After all, Wallace could plainly see that natural law—natural selection in this case—was profoundly limited. Believe it or not, evolution could not do all things:

Wallace lost favour with the scientific community partly because he questioned whether natural selection alone could account for the evolution of human mind, writing: “I do not consider that all nature can be explained on the principles of which I am so ardent an advocate; and that I am now myself going to state objections, and to place limits, to the power of ‘natural selection’. How could ‘natural selection’, or survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence, at all favour the development of mental powers so entirely removed from the material necessities of savage men, and which even now, with our comparatively high civilization, are, in their farthest developments, in advance of the age, and appear to have relation rather to the future of the race than to its actual status?”

But problems do not go away just because our religion demands it. And so even evolutionists must admit that Wallace’s Conundrum remains unresolved. That’s putting it mildly:

Although Wallace was criticized for apparently invoking spiritual explanations, one of his key points remains valid — that it is difficult to explain how conventional natural selection could have selected ahead of time for the remarkable capabilities of the human mind, which we are still continuing to explore today. An example is writing, which was invented long after the human mind evolved and continues to be modified and utilized in myriad ways. Explanations based on exaptation seem inadequate, as most of what the human mind routinely does today did not even exist at the time it was originally evolving. Experts in human evolution or cognition have yet to provide a truly satisfactory explanation. Thus, ‘Wallace’s Conundrum’ remains unresolved: “[...] that the same law which appears to have sufficed for the development of animals, has been alone the cause of man’s superior mental nature, [...] will, I have no doubt, be overruled and explained away. But I venture to think they will nevertheless maintain their ground, and that they can only be met by the discovery of new facts or new laws, of a nature very different from any yet known to us.”

But Wallace was nobody’s fool. As he presciently foresaw, his Conundrum would be “overruled and explained away” by evolutionists.

Wallace was by no means free of the theological naturalism that has today infected and gone viral in science. But at least he was man enough to admit to the obvious limitations. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for evolutionists, before and after.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

h/t: the man

[Ed: Deleted "DNA" for clarity]

146 comments:

  1. Oh but you see, some of the products of the human mind, modern justice systems, have just been figured out by the Darwinists, sorry to inform:

    http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.3087.html

    And they are just tickled to death over at my Alma Mater:

    http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2012/04/third-party-punishment/?utm_source=vuhomepage&utm_medium=newsbox&utm_campaign=third-party-punishment

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would have believed it possible that our justice system came from a monkey mind if I would have saw monkeys building courthouses and holding trials. Or perhaps I may have believed it possible engineering and science came from monkey minds if I were to have seen monkeys building skyscrapers and sending monkeys to the moon. :) But now not even even those impressive examples from monkeys would convince me for it is shown, by quantum mechanics, that consciousness is not a product of space-time matter-energy, but precedes space-time matter-energy.

    i.e. The argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:

    1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

    Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit'

    Moreover, the human mind uniquely understands functional information:

    Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds:
    Excerpt: There is a profound functional discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. We argue that this discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture can explain. We hypothesize that the cognitive discontinuity between human and nonhuman animals is largely due to the degree to which human and nonhuman minds are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system. (i.e. process functional information)
    http://www.mendeley.com/research/darwins-mistake-explaining-discontinuity-between-human-nonhuman-minds-1/

    And yet matter-energy reduces to functional information:

    ‘In chapter 2, I talk at some length on the Schroedinger Equation which is called the fundamental equation of chemistry. It’s the equation that governs the behavior of the basic atomic particles subject to the basic forces of physics. This equation is a partial differential equation with a complex valued solution. By complex valued I don’t mean complicated, I mean involving solutions that are complex numbers, a+bi, which is extraordinary that the governing equation, basic equation, of physics, of chemistry, is a partial differential equation with complex valued solutions. There is absolutely no reason why the basic particles should obey such a equation that I can think of except that it results in elements and chemical compounds with extremely rich and useful chemical properties. In fact I don’t think anyone familiar with quantum mechanics would believe that we’re ever going to find a reason why it should obey such an equation, they just do! So we have this basic, really elegant mathematical equation, partial differential equation, which is my field of expertise, that governs the most basic particles of nature and there is absolutely no reason why, anyone knows of, why it does, it just does. British physicist Sir James Jeans said “From the intrinsic evidence of His creation, the great architect of the universe begins to appear as a pure mathematician”, so God is a mathematician to’. Granville Sewell - Mathematics professor - UTEP

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. i.e. the Materialist is at a complete loss to explain why the Schroedinger Equation should be in place over the material realm, whereas the Christian Theist presupposes such ‘transcendent’ 'logical' control of our temporal, material, realm,,,

      John 1:1
      In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

      of note; 'the Word' is translated from the Greek word ‘Logos’. Logos happens to be the word from which we derive our modern word ‘Logic’.

      Moreover besides functional information controlling matter-energy, matter-energy is shown to reduce to functional 'quantum' information:

      Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009
      Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,,
      "What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.
      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts

      Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Big Bang
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agaJIWjPWHs5vtMx5SkpaMPbantoP471k0lNBUXg0Xo/edit

      And yet even though functional information is found to exercise dominion of matter-energy space-time, and even though matter-energy is found to reduce to functional quantum information, matter-energy has yet to demonstrate it can generate any functional information whatsoever:

      The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010
      Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
      http://www-qa.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html

      Yet the human mind can fairly easily generate functional information. In fact every time a person writes a few sentences he or she is exceeding the amount of functional information that can reasonable be expected to be generated by the material processes of the universe, over the entire history of the universe! Since man is easily doing something that is impossible with nature does this not make man 'supernatural'?

      Genesis 1:26
      Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

      notes:

      Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - Stuart Hameroff - video
      http://vimeo.com/39982578

      Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description)
      http://vimeo.com/29895068

      Delete
    3. Bornagain77, I'm still curious about your definition of lying from the ""You Won’t Believe What Evolutionists Are Celebrating" Thread.

      Care to enlighten me?

      Delete
    4. Well Derick, I'm content to let the thread you mentioned stand as to my definition. Your 'Theological Naturalism' speaks for itself in the thread for all non-partisan people (and God) to see.

      Delete
    5. bornagain77: Well Derick, I'm content to let the thread you mentioned stand as to my definition. Your 'Theological Naturalism' speaks for itself in the thread for all non-partisan people (and God) to see."

      That doesn't make any sense - nowhere in the thread did you ever define 'lying'. Let me re-ask the hypothetical questions:

      1. It is the middle of the month and my wife asks me If I've paid the mortgage yet, which was due on the 1st. I haven't, because I spent the money on a new gadget, yet I reply "Yes," because I did pay the mortgage last month, and while I know what she meant, she technically didn't specify which month she was asking about.

      Am I being dishonest?
      a. Yes
      b. No

      2. I am the manager of a car dealership and I am with one of my salesmen talking to a prospective customer about a large SUV that I know gets around 10 mile per gallon. The salesperson tells the customer that the SUV gets 40 miles per gallon. I do not know if the salesperson is lying or misinformed but the cutsomer turns to me and says "That's fantastic! I was on the fence about this but the great gas mileage clinches it. Let's finish the paperwork." "Super," I say, as I proceed to sell her the car and watch her drive off the lot.

      Am I being dishonest?
      a. Yes
      b. No

      Those are two simple, straightforward yes-or-no questions that I've asked several times now. It always seems strange to me how hard it is for Christians like you and Neal to answer simple questions like that.

      Delete
    6. I also gave my definition of lying, "An attempt to deceive", and asked you if you agreed with it. Do you?

      Can you lie without 'attempting to deceive'? Can you 'attempt to deceive' without lying?

      Delete
    7. Derick, since God is the source of all truth (and 'truth' is something your atheistic philosophy can't even begin to explain) all God has to do is withhold His presence from a man and the man, since truth does not arise 'naturalisticly' within man, will soon deceive himself into destruction. But since you are far more concerned with calling God a liar than ever hearing the truth, I'm sure you will droll on about how God is a deceiver to your definition of it. But look at it from my perspective Derick, in doing your level best to try to call God a liar you have but convinced me that you yourself are a liar for you are trying to equate God with the father of lies, Satan! No Derick I shall not play your stupid games for you are not seeking truth in humble earnestness, but you are merely seeking, for whatever twisted reason, anything you can get your hands on that you imagine you can accuse God with.

      Delete
    8. Bornagain77, Are my questions worded to complexly for you? Are they not simple straightforward questions about moral behavior? For someone who fancies himself on the moral high ground, shouldn't those questions be easy to answer?

      ba77: "I'm sure you will droll on about how God is a deceiver to your definition of it."

      That's a topic for later conversation. For now, I can't even tell what your definition of 'deceiver' is. As I said before, don't shoot the messenger; your Bible portrays God as a deceiver by almost everyone's definition, not just mine.

      " you are merely seeking, for whatever twisted reason, anything you can get your hands on that you imagine you can accuse God with."

      You misunderstand me then. I am not accusing God of anything, I am merely pointing out that the Bible clearly portrays God as intentionally deceiving humans from time to time to accomplish his purposes. I'm not even making a judgement call. I think that there can be times where lying is the correct moral action, so I'm not saying that God is wrong to deceive, merely that the Bible records him as doing so.

      Before we go any further discussing truth, please demonstrate you know the difference between deceit and truth by answering my questions. They're numbered for your convenience.



      (In case there is any confusion, I consider God to be a fictional character, so any time I talk about what God does or does not do according to canonical sources, I talk about in the same sense as I would talk about what spiderman does or does not do according to his canon; God's actions in the bible are a simple matter of reading comprehension)

      Delete
    9. My answer stands. (God is the source of all truth, and all God has to do, to destroy someone with deception, is withhold His presence from them). This is my last comment to you on this.

      Delete
    10. bornagain77: "My answer stands."

      You have not given an answer.

      Do you agree that 'an attempt to deceive' is a lie? Yes, or no?

      1. It is the middle of the month and my wife asks me If I've paid the mortgage yet, which was due on the 1st. I haven't, because I spent the money on a new gadget, yet I reply "Yes," because I did pay the mortgage last month, and while I know what she meant, she technically didn't specify which month she was asking about.

      Am I being dishonest?
      a. Yes
      b. No

      2. I am the manager of a car dealership and I am with one of my salesmen talking to a prospective customer about a large SUV that I know gets around 10 mile per gallon. The salesperson tells the customer that the SUV gets 40 miles per gallon. I do not know if the salesperson is lying or misinformed but the cutsomer turns to me and says "That's fantastic! I was on the fence about this but the great gas mileage clinches it. Let's finish the paperwork." "Super," I say, as I proceed to sell her the car and watch her drive off the lot.

      Am I being dishonest?
      a. Yes
      b. No

      I think you are terrified of answering this question, not just here publicly, but privately in your own mind, because you know it is clear, clear that the answer to both those questions is "Yes, the person is being deceitful, and you know that it is equally clear that those situations are analogous to what God is portrayed as having done in scripture. The cognitive dissonance caused by saying "If humans do it, it's lying, but if God does it, it's not lying" must be overwhelming.

      Please, correct me If I'm wrong.

      Delete
    11. My answer stands, it is your mind that is blind if you do not see the answer that is self-evident! But, so much for being bored with you, here is a topic of yours that interests me;

      'any time I talk about what God does or does not do',,, I talk about in the same sense as I would talk about what spiderman does or does not do'

      Now this is interesting for me, for by you denying God as ultimate reality, you have cut yourself off from ever establishing a ultimate rational basis in reality. Which is going to make you rationally doing science, in any meaningful sense, extremely difficult to put it mildly:

      This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.

      Presuppositional Apologetics - easy to use interactive website
      http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php

      Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description)
      http://vimeo.com/32145998

      Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit

      The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video
      http://vimeo.com/34468027

      This 'lack of a guarantee', for trusting our perceptions and reasoning in science to be trustworthy in the first place, even extends into evolutionary naturalism itself;

      Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter
      Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties.
      http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind

      What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw

      Delete
    12. And let's not forget, besides Theism being necessary for us to do science in the first place, now, because of advances in science, Theism is now established as true. So Derick this is not only going to make it extremely difficult for you to do science in this life, but spiritually, you could have a very, very, rough go of it in the next life as well!

      Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Big Bang
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agaJIWjPWHs5vtMx5SkpaMPbantoP471k0lNBUXg0Xo/edit

      The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.
      Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978

      Delete
    13. My answer stands, it is your mind that is blind if you do not see the answer that is self-evident! But, so much for being bored with you, here is a topic of yours that interests me;

      'any time I talk about what God does or does not do',,, I talk about in the same sense as I would talk about what spiderman does or does not do'

      Now this is interesting for me, for by you denying God as ultimate reality, you have cut yourself off from ever establishing a ultimate rational basis in reality. Which is going to make you rationally doing science, in any meaningful sense, extremely difficult to put it mildly:

      This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.

      Presuppositional Apologetics - easy to use interactive website
      http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php

      Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description)
      http://vimeo.com/32145998

      Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit

      The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video
      http://vimeo.com/34468027

      This 'lack of a guarantee', for trusting our perceptions and reasoning in science to be trustworthy in the first place, even extends into evolutionary naturalism itself;

      Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter
      Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties.
      http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind

      Delete
    14. correction: the two previous posts should be reversed in order

      Delete
    15. bornagain77: "My answer stands, it is your mind that is blind if you do not see the answer that is self-evident!"

      I do not think that word means what you think it means.

      As I said before, you have not given an answer at all. An answer must be given before it can stand.

      I don't think I've been unclear, but let me try again, reducing the questions to their simplest form:

      1. If you give an answer to a question that you know gives a false impression, regardless of whether your answer is 'technically' true, is that being dishonest? Yes, or no.

      2. If you direct someone to lie, or if you witness a lie in your presence and do nothing to correct it when it is well within your power, is that being dishonest? Yes, or no?

      3. Do you agree that "an attempt to deceive" is a lie? Yes or no?

      Now, an 'answer' to these three questions does not look like a treatise against philosophical naturalism. It does not look like links to Michael Behe Articles. It does not look like youtube videos.

      An 'answer' to those three questions looks something like this:
      "1. yes. 2. no. 3. yes," or "1.no. 2.yes, but only if a human does it. 3. it depends on the exact circumstances."

      Now, if the cognitive dissonance is getting to be too much for you and you simply do not want to answer the questions, I won't pester you anymore. However, if you keep acting as if you have answered them, I'll keep asking.

      Delete
    16. Note that the above questions have nothing to do with God, nor am I asking if one should or should not do these things. I am simply asking to determine if we agree upon what 'dishonest' 'deceive' and 'lie' mean. I am not asking about philosophy or epistemology, I am merely asking what actions constitute a lie. If I'm going over your head just let me know; it is puzzling that a Christian can't answer such a simple question as "what does it mean to lie?"

      Delete
    17. Derick, now let me spell it out real slow for you so that you might get a glimpse of just how ludicrous your atheistic position is to me. You have no basis to appeal to for absolute morals in your atheistic worldview, but at the same time you hold God as unreal and you want to prove God as not the standard of absolute morals. Are you starting to get the drift??? You cannot hold a worldview that cannot ground, and even denies, the reality of absolute morals and yet at the same time appeal to the virtues of absolute morals in order to make your argument against God. You simply reveal how misguided you are in your argument. To ignore such a profound, even devastating, flaw in the basis of your reasoning only further confirms Dr. Hunters observation that it never was about the evidence. Religion drives science and it matters!

      Delete
    18. BA, please, either just say you are not inclined/capable of answering those simple questions, or answer them. I've made the same offer to Neal dozens of times: ask me any questions you want about my beliefs. Any questions. I'll answer them. (It's really not that hard, -if you're not ashamed of your beliefs. You're not ashamed of your beliefs, are you?)

      BA, my 3 questions are not about God. They are not about absolute morals. They're simply questions about what you believe. I don't know how you define 'lying'. I want to find out. I'm curious. I want to take what you say seriously. But I can't do that if you can't communicate your views.

      Please, either answer the questions, or declare that you can't/won't answer the questions, but please just stop trying to change the subject.

      Delete
    19. But alas Derick, my responses have gone right to the heart of the matter and killed any pretense you had of being honest in the matter. Indeed I have exposed you as a dogmatic atheist who has no leg to stand on as far as morality is concerned in the first place and to boot ruined any chance you had at being rational with your atheistic worldview. And you are still babbling about silly questions. Go figure. But I guess you can dawdle in you little mud puddle of feigned certitudes all the while being stripped naked of any defense you may have claimed.

      Delete
    20. bornagain77: "But alas Derick, my responses have gone right to the heart of the matter"

      I'm sure you think that. But I'm not asking you 'heart' questions. I'm asking you what you consider 'lying'. That, you have most certainly not answered.

      ba77: "... and killed any pretense you had of being honest in the matter."

      Please, please, please point out where I've been dishonest. (I hope that the irony is not lost on you that you seem to be accusing me of being dishonest for asking you to define 'dishonest')

      ba77: "Indeed I have exposed you as a dogmatic atheist.."

      Er, how have you done that exactly? By refusing to answer simple questions?

      ba77: "And you are still babbling about silly questions. "

      Then for Pete's sake just say why you're incapable of answering them. (or answer them, I don't care which) The answers require 3 'yesses' or 'nos'

      ba77: "But I guess you can dawdle in you little mud puddle of feigned certitudes"

      What in the world are you talking about? What certitudes? When have I professed certainty on anything? And in what way were they 'feigned'? And why would someone 'feign a certitude'? Do you even know what those words mean?

      ba77: "all the while being stripped naked of any defense you may have claimed."

      What defense have I claimed? And against what?

      You're having an imaginary conversation, and attributing things to me that I have not said or implied.

      I am genuinely puzzled as to why you're being so paranoid and evasive about these questions.

      Please, either answer them, or officially decline from answering.

      Delete
    21. ba77: "Indeed I have exposed you as a dogmatic atheist"

      I've never made my atheism secret in this forum, so I think you've got a slight delusion of grandeur in thinking that you've 'exposed' me as one. (Ah HA! I've exposed your screen name as bornagain77! Take that)

      And 'exposing' someone's atheism isn't really that hard: Just ask them if they believe God exists. If they say yes, they're not an atheist. If they say no, they're an atheist. No pulitzer prize for journalism there.

      Now as for the dogmatic part, that's equally easy to investigate. Ask me If I'd change my mind if I came across compelling evidence. If my answer is 'no', then I'm dogmatic. If my answer is yes, then I'm not. (spoiler: my answer is "yes").

      Delete
    22. Okie Dokie children, fun with Derick time,

      See Derick? Derick is an atheist! Derick does not believe in objective morality! Poor Derick! Poor Derick cannot ground objective morality! Poor, Poor, Derick! Liar lie badly to Derick! Don't cry Derick! See Derick make moral argument against lying? Oh but poor Derick have no objective morality to appeal to! Poor, Poor, Derick! See Derick go to rubber room if he lived consistently in his atheistic worldview? Poor, poor, Derick!

      Delete
    23. BA, that last reply is like a squid who just squirts ink everywhere in the face of something unexpected. JustCurious answered those three questions on the first try. Why can't you take a stab at it (or explain why you won't) instead of just babbling incoherently. (And I'm not exaggerating, your last response is unreadable.)

      Also, you're continuing your imaginary conversation with NotMe. I've never said I don't believe in objective morality. Atheism is not a 'worldview'. Atheism is a an opinion on a single topic: The lack of a belief in a deity. One cannot derive a moral system from a lack of a belief in one particular object, and I don't claim to. My moral system comes from elsewhere. (the same place most of yours comes from I'd wager; though I bet you wouldn't admit it.)

      Delete
    24. Interesting,,, I'm accused of being squidish and incoherent by a man who purposely argues with obfuscated mush as premises. Such as you believe in atheism as your personal opinion on, get this, 'a single topic', yet you hold morals as objective. ,,, Heads I win, tails you lose! You were not much fun to play games with growing up were you? Any more arbitrary, self-serving, rules you'd like to impose?

      Delete
    25. Derick Childress

      BA, that last reply is like a squid who just squirts ink everywhere in the face of something unexpected. JustCurious answered those three questions on the first try. Why can't you take a stab at it (or explain why you won't) instead of just babbling incoherently. (And I'm not exaggerating, your last response is unreadable.)


      You haven't dealt with batspit77 much before I'm guessing.

      Delete
    26. Uhh goodie, Thorton has come to your defense Derick, now we can have some unbiased neutrality of a impartial observer! LOL

      Delete
    27. Batspit77, you forgot your usual 6000 C&Ped words of blithering non-sequiturs and YouTube links.

      Delete
    28. You see Derick, all you have to do is insult people like Thorton constantly does, and Wa La, you are instantly a genius in your own mind who can do no wrong! No messy logic to deal with, no messy empirics to go through, Just state your opinion as fact and trash anyone who disagrees. Case closed.

      Delete
    29. LOL at "Wa La"

      Hey batspit77, I bet this is your favorite gospel song:

      "Bringing in the sheep,
      Bringing in the sheep,
      We will come rejoicing
      Bringing in the sheep!"

      :D :D :D

      Delete
    30. So your irrational hatred for Old Time hymns counts as evidence for a objective moral basis for atheists? You guys are going to have to walk me through how irrational hatred constitutes rigid proof for your position. as well, Actually, my favorite 'Christian' song right now is this one:

      Evanescence – My Heart Is Broken
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1QGnq9jUU0

      Delete
    31. Thorton: "I bet this is your favorite gospel song: "Bringing in the sheep........Bringing in the sheep!" :D :D :D "

      bornagain77: "So your irrational hatred for Old Time hymns counts as evidence for a objective moral basis for atheists? You guys are going to have to walk me through how irrational hatred constitutes rigid proof for your position."

      BA, you're having an imaginary conversation again, then attributing it to someone else. That's called making a straw man argument. Thorton neither said, nor implied, that he 'hated' hyms, let alone 'irrationally' hates them. (And if someone doesn't prefer a music style, how cold that preference be 'irrational'?)
      Do you just throw words into your sentences to make them longer? Next, you go completely off the rails. Thorton was just teasing you. He even has emoticons at the end. He did not offer his taste in music up as 'evidence' against anything. (I'm not sure if you know that word means either, the way you misuse it) The words you put into Thorton's mouth are almost to silly to deserve a response. When you blatantly concoct ridiculous arguments and then put them in your opponent's mouth, it only makes you look stupid, not them.

      Delete
    32. bornagain77: "Interesting,,, I'm accused of being squidish and incoherent by a man who purposely argues with obfuscated mush as premises."

      Seriously, do you not own a dictionary? Do you have any idea what 'obfuscated' means? How have I obfuscated my premises? For that matter, what premises have I made, or have you asked me about? You seem to prefer asserting what I believe rather than asking. As far as I can tell, our conversation hasn't even gotten past you being unable to define 'lying.'

      Again, if you accuse me of 'obfuscating' my premises, show me where, and I will clarify. Ask me any question about what I believe or how I define a word, and I promise, I will answer as clearly as possible. I don't know why you can't do the same.

      Delete
    33. Derick

      I don't know why you can't do the same.

      You don't? Really?

      I think it's crystal clear why he won't do the same.

      You're clearly backing him into a corner. You want him to define lying. Then you will show him Bible verses which show God doing just that. Which disproves his opinion that God does not lie.

      BA can see this as clearly as we can. That's why he's playing all the linguistic games he can pull out to avoid giving a straight answer.

      Delete
    34. Ritchie: "You're clearly backing him into a corner. You want him to define lying. Then you will show him Bible verses which show God doing just that. Which disproves his opinion that God does not lie.
      BA can see this as clearly as we can."

      BA, is this true? Is the claim "God does not lie" completely indefensible, as Ritchie suggests? Have I really refuted your premise so easily? Is that why you refuse to comment further - because you know that I'm correct?

      And where did JustCurious go? I thought there was going to be at least one person to address my argument.

      Delete
    35. Ritchie, of course I know why BA won't define lying, I just want to hear him say why. It's funny because Christians usually go out of their way to tell you what they think on topics of morality, until you actually ask them what they think. Then, trying to get a straight answer is like trying to nail jello to the wall. And answering the question didn't seem hard for JustCurious. (Though perhaps JC was slow in realizing the implication of answering the question, and has not responded for that very reason)

      Delete
  3. Evolution is an assumed fact, therefore missing retroviruses in humans must have been purged.

    It would never enter into the mind of an evolutionist that the retroviruses were never there to begin with. When they find matches in DNA they cherry pick the data and claim it as evidence for evolution. When rare matches are found in supposed distant species, that isn't a problem because they have a label for that... it is convergence. But, when the data doesn't match, that isn't a problem, it somehow was purged. The lamborghini used to be a covette, but it was purged. It is a theory of everything that explains nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What does your theory of everything explain? Why if The The Designer used off the shelf parts to design man(,this is the explanation for commonalities right), why were retroviruses eliminated? What was the thinking behind designing a high mortality rate in child birth? Sin? Birth control?Use your theory to explain.
      Would an iPad be in the nested hierarchy of the iPod? It certainly has features of the touch, but it is also like the iPhone , and Mac Air.

      Delete
    2. vel, you ask a lot of questions, so lets go for the gusto and ask the really hard question;

      Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit

      Now I know you think childbirth mortality scientifically proves your case, but that just ain't so, you got to actually show that a organism a can change into a completely different organism. Now a perfect demonstration would be if you changed a chimp into a human. But I'll be much more modest in my demands, can you please show me exactly where a functional protein was generated by purely material processes, I will then concede that neo-Darwinists are not stark raving mad.

      Delete
    3. I like to understand what people think, examine their thinking,don't you? As for the protein,ask a biologist . I believe I got a C in biology. I have to admit it seems unlikely that 95% of biologists are stark raving mad. I do find is interesting that you have such confidence in your accurate analysis. That is why I ask questions. But be honest,if the exact processes for protein creation was discovered ,this would not convince you.

      No, I don't believe that the lack of efficiency in reproduction is proof. A Inscrutable designer is inscrutable. My point is to Neal,claiming that since evolutionary theory doesn't explain everything it explains nothing and therefore it is worthless, is if he is willing to use the same criterion towards his creation theory.

      Delete
  4. *sigh* Did you even bother googling your list, or were you just jotting things down off the top of your head?

    Relative brain size: Not unique to humans

    hairless sweaty skin: Not unique to humans, as humans don't have hairless skin, they have less hairy skin than other primates

    striding bipedal posture: Not unique to humans

    long-distance running: Not unique to humans

    ability to learn to swim: Not unique to humans

    innate ability to learn languages in childhood: A quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.

    prolonged helplessness of the young: Not unique to humans; helplessness is usually relative to parent's childcare ability

    ability to imitate and learn: Not unique to humans

    inter-generational transfer of complex cultures: A quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.

    awareness of self and of the past and future: Not unique to humans

    theory of mind: Not unique to humans

    increased longevity: Compared to what? Many animals outlive us, by centuries in some cases.

    difficult childbirth: Not unique to humans; that's a subjective observation.

    cerebral cortical asymmetry: Not unique to humans.

    Most of those things you listed aren't even unique to humans. Of the ones where humans are different the differences are quantitative, not qualitative. And why in the world would evolution not expect there to be differences between different species? Good gosh I hope you're joking with all this. The sad thing is some of your readers are stupid enough to take this seriously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This list is from the linked study, with a caveat that these aspects are relative not absolute. Was Dr Hunter "lying" if a reader got the impression that the authors thought these were absolute? Good luck with BA.

      Delete
    2. ahahaha...

      Infatuation with music and the arts: Unique to humans.

      I'm still waiting to hear from the usual bozos the explanation of how natural selection decided that our fanaticism for the arts was necessary for survival. And don't forget to show all the gradual missing links between music-impaired ancestors (humans or apes) and the music-crazy modern humans.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

      Delete
    3. Total silence. Why am I not surprised that the evolutionists cannot explain music? Not even a just-so story. What a bunch of bozos!

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

      Delete
  5. Let's take a look at your side's "explanations":


    Relative brain size: God made us that way.

    hairless sweaty skin: God made us that way.

    striding bipedal posture: God made us that way.

    long-distance running: God made us that way.

    ability to learn to swim: God made us that way.

    innate ability to learn languages in childhood: God made us that way.

    prolonged helplessness of the young: God made us that way.

    ability to imitate and learn: God made us that way.

    inter-generational transfer of complex cultures: God made us that way.

    awareness of self and of the past and future: God made us that way.

    theory of mind: God made us that way.

    increased longevity: God made us that way. (as long as we honor our father and mother)

    difficult childbirth: A talking snake tricked a woman into eating a magic apple.

    cerebral cortical asymmetry: God made us that way.

    Did I miss any?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Derick, you seem to be a pretty smart fellow, Do you mind actually 'proving' Darwinism true with a empirical demonstration since no one else can?

      Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit

      “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010
      Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit')
      http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/

      And perhaps Derick, in your spare time, you can produce the empirical evidence so as to refute this falsification of neo-Darwinism:

      Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

      Delete
    2. What's your explanation for computers, airplanes, clothing, music, art, automobiles? Isn't it "humans made them that way"? Bozo.

      ahahahaha...

      Delete
    3. Louis, don't think that my response to you means that I take anything you say seriously.

      Louis: "What's your explanation for computers, airplanes, clothing, music, art, automobiles? Isn't it "humans made them that way"? Bozo."

      No, my explanation for why those things are the way they are is not "because humans made them that way."

      "Because humans made them that way," is not an explanation.

      Airplanes are in the configuration they are in because that is one of the few configurations of matter that will fly under its own power. Airplanes aren't the shape of cars or computers due only to inscrutable human whim, there are very specific design considerations that explain their shape. Same for all those other objects.

      Delete
    4. ahahahaha... I was right about you, Derick Childress. You are stupid as donkey dung. But then again, I have never met a smart evolutionists. You are all stupid. LOL.

      There are all kinds of airplanes, cars, TVs computers, buildings, stairways, roads, paintings, music, songs, poems, etc. They are the way they are precisely because this is the way we humans designed them. We, humans, make the conscious decision to choose one design over another in order to achieve a goal. Sometimes our designs are constrained by nature and sometimes they are not. Get a clue, bozo.

      ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...

      Delete
    5. Louis: "They are the way they are precisely because this is the way we humans designed them."

      If someone asks "Why are airplanes designed the way they are?" and you respond "They are the way they are because that is the way humans designed them," that is a correct statement.

      But it is not an explanation.

      It's like if someone asked: "Why does the flow of electricity in a lightbulb cause an emission of photons," and you responded: "Because thomas Edison invented the lightbulb."

      Delete
    6. Yo, bozo. Why are paintings, songs, houses, office buildings, etc. designed the way they are? Along the line, the designer has to make a great many conscious choices.

      The question is not about the physics of electrons and photons but about why a particular light bulb is round or oval or square or red or white or yellow or big or small, etc. Wake up, jackass.

      This is my last comment in this boring series. Knock yourself out.

      ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...

      Delete
    7. Lie first:

      *sigh* Did you even bother googling your list, or were you just jotting things down off the top of your head? ...

      Most of those things you listed aren't even unique to humans. Of the ones where humans are different the differences are quantitative, not qualitative. And why in the world would evolution not expect there to be differences between different species? Good gosh I hope you're joking with all this. The sad thing is some of your readers are stupid enough to take this seriously.


      Think second:

      Let's take a look at your side's "explanations": Relative brain size: God made us that way. ... If someone asks "Why are airplanes designed the way they are?" and you respond "They are the way they are because that is the way humans designed them," that is a correct statement. But it is not an explanation.

      If we can call scientism "thinking."

      Delete
    8. Cornelius Hunter: "Lie first:"

      Where did I lie? I merely accused you of not knowing what you were talking about with your list of 'unique' human traits that mostly aren't unique, not of lying.

      Delete
    9. Louis Savain: "The question is not about the physics of electrons and photons but about why a particular light bulb is round or oval or square or red or white or yellow or big or small, etc. :

      Try to make a lightbulb the shape of a whiffle ball. The design of lightbulbs isn't an arbitrary human decision. Incandescent lightbulbs are generally round because that's the best compromise between manufacturing/performance. Bulbs don't have to be round to work, but glass is easier to make that way. They do have to be airtight, regardless of how that looks. Those last three sentences are an explanation of why lightbulbs are round, not "Because that's just how Thomas Edison wanted them to be."

      Regardless of whether it is factually correct to say "God created it that way," It would not explain the design any more than asking why an airplane is shaped like an airplane rather than a tank is explained with "The airplane was invented by the Wright Brothers."

      Delete
    10. Derick:


      Evolution is dogmatically held to be a fact. So criticism must be wrong. So you make some accusations and deny there is any scientific problem when the problems are obvious. In fact this list comes from evolutionists. And it is just a sampling. Sure, there is more to be said about each entry in the list. There are few absolutes in biology. But these represent substantial degrees of uniqueness. Your seemingly automatic rejection of obvious evidence is a misrepresentation.

      And why in the world would evolution not expect there to be differences between different species?

      As you said, it is a matter of degree. Sure evolution expects “differences between different species.” But we’re not talking about differences that even fall within the generous evolutionary narrative. These are far more significant. I realize you can stretch that narrative to fit whatever you observe, but that doesn’t mean you are honestly representing the evidence when you say it easily falls within evolutionary theory.

      Delete
    11. CH: Evolution is dogmatically held to be a fact. So criticism must be wrong.

      If it's all settled and any criticism must be wrong, then why on earth should we bother to do any more research? What purpose would it serve?

      Again, we create knowledge by conjecture and refutation. That is, we create theories via conjecture then test them for errors using observations.

      If we formed an explanatory theory for the origin of biological complexity using conjecture, but ever bothered to criticize it then we could never find any errors in it. We couldn't make any progress nor would we create knowledge.

      Or we could say that evolution is just a useful fiction to predict biological complexity, so the only thing that matters is whether it has utilitarian value. But this would be instrumentalism.

      But we've done neither of these things.

      CH: I realize you can stretch that narrative to fit whatever you observe, but that doesn’t mean you are honestly representing the evidence when you say it easily falls within evolutionary theory.

      What you've conveniently omitted, is that there is an infinite number of interpretations that accept the same observations, while at the same time, implying that something completely different is happening in reality. This is not in any way limited to evolutionary theory.

      It's unclear why you keep implying this, other than you're incompetent as a scientist, or that you're attempting to knowingly present a falsehood.

      For example, if one claims that quantum mechanics "proves" that conciseness precedes material reality, observations of viral DNA is neither evidence of past infection or common ancestry, but merely evidence that those observations took place by a conscious being.

      We could say the same about dinosaur fossils, the moon, etc.

      In other words, what you're doing is appealing to a general purpose means of denying absolutely anything, not just the origin of the knowledge used to build the biosphere.

      Delete
    12. Cornelius Hunter: "Evolution is dogmatically held to be a fact."

      Not by me. It is provisionally held to be a fact. Huge difference, I don't think you understand the distinction.

      CH: "So criticism must be wrong."

      Nope. Never said or implied that. Just that this particular criticism is wrong.

      CH: "So you make some accusations..."

      I accused you of not doing research before compiling that list, yes.

      CH "...and deny there is any scientific problem when the problems are obvious."

      I did no such thing. I merely pointed out that several things you claimed were unique to humans, were in fact, not unique. I'm going by the most common meaning of the term: adjective, being the only one of its kind, unlike anything else. If you just meant that humans were at the end of the gradient, then how is that a problem for descent with modification? There would always be organisms at the ends of the gradient.

      CH: "Sure, there is more to be said about each entry in the list."

      Like: "Sure, there are other organisms with this "unique" trait to a lesser or greater degree."

      CH: "As you said, it is a matter of degree. Sure evolution expects “differences between different species.”

      Yep, and yep.

      CH: "But we’re not talking about differences that even fall within the generous evolutionary narrative. These are far more significant."

      What? Did scientists just recently discover homo sapiens? Of course these differences fall within the evolutionary explanatory framework, or 'narrative' as you call it. Not only have scientists known about these differences since the theory was first proposed, we're learning that many organisms are closer to us on the gradient than we first realized. It's not convincing when you proclaim that evolution can't explain these differences when you don't think evolution can explain hardly any difference.

      Delete
    13. What? Did scientists just recently discover homo sapiens? Of course these differences fall within the evolutionary explanatory framework, or 'narrative' as you call it. … It's not convincing when you proclaim that evolution can't explain these differences when you don't think evolution can explain hardly any difference.

      No Derick, they do not fall within the evolutionary explanatory framework. Nor is this merely a matter of someone’s skeptical opinion. Evolutionists do not have an explanation for human uniqueness. In fact here we have a paper (peer-reviewed), written by evolutionists, stating just that. To wit:


      Although Wallace was criticized for apparently invoking spiritual explanations, one of his key points remains valid — that it is difficult to explain how conventional natural selection could have selected ahead of time for the remarkable capabilities of the human mind, which we are still continuing to explore today. … Thus, ‘Wallace’s Conundrum’ remains unresolved

      Delete
    14. CH -

      Evolutionists do not have an explanation for human uniqueness.

      That seems a silly thing to say. All species are unique. What explanation is needed?

      The more I discover about myself, biologically, the more I discover that I am unique. I am physically different to any other member of the human race that has ever lived or will ever do so. And yet more investigation will doubtless simply turn up more distinctions.

      Does that mean I am not a human? Does that mean I am not the product of humans? I am, after all, biologically different from every other being that fits that description...

      Delete
  6. Dr. Hunter, in twisting the scientific literature into his "just-so" stories deceives his readers by omitting the following from the first quote:

    "Rather, there seems to have been an episode in which the ancestral human lineage was somehow ‘purged’ of these endemic viruses. One testable hypothesis is that human-specific loss of the sialic acid N-glycolylneuraminic acid, which would normally be acquired by such enveloped viruses, could restrict viral transmission because of the simultaneous appearance of antibodies against this sialic acid in hominins 179,180"

    Are testable hypotheses="just so" stories? Why did you leave the last line off Dr. Hunter? Why didn't you mention the cited research, or other research done in the years since this review was written?

    And elsewhere in the text: "Humans might have been spared this retroviral invasion owing to selective mutations of the tripartite motif 5 (TRIM5) immune-response protein 84"

    In short, humans have mutations that eliminate certain carbohydrates viruses dock with and use to enter cells, that create new antigens for the immune system to recognition, and that restrict viruses. Scientists can functionally test which of these purged the viruses from the hominid lineage.

    Contrast the actual content of this review, and Hunter's dishonest retelling of it:

    "In other words, when evolution spontaneously created humans our DNA must have been “purged.” We got a do-over! Hilarious."

    I don't think any scientifically literate adult refers to human evolution as an event of "spontaneously creation." And why reduce the loss of carbohydrates viruses recognize, and mutations to viral restriction to a "do-over."

    Is it worth lying about the science to make it appear sillier? Is this how you teach your students to critically evaluate the scientific literature-by looking for snippets you can take out of context and twist into something silly-sounding?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ahahahaha... Let's see now.

      ...there seems to have been...
      ...might have been...
      ...must have been...


      Ah, I get it. The favorite scientific method of brain-dead evolutionists. We've seen those "certainties" before. Heck, they're all over the place. Those must-haves, might-haves, could-haves, seems-to-have-beens? Why, there can be no evolution without them. It's science.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

      Delete
    2. You seem to have learned Dr. Hunter's reading comprehension system well.

      In the context of the paper, "there seems to have been" is an observation based on evidence.

      Followed by: "One testable hypothesis is"

      What is your objection, exactly?

      Delete
    3. The only problem with this "one testable hypothesis" has a beautiful little "could" hidden right smack in the middle of it.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

      Delete
    4. Louis wants his science done with certainty in hypotheses? How odd.

      Delete
    5. Moron. The hypothesis cannot be falsified precisely because the premise to be tested is not categorical: it's only a "maybe". Get a clue, bozo.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

      Delete
    6. Hey Louis, answer this:

      Do you think there is something in germ-line DNA to "purge" from endemic infectious retroviruses or has Dr. Hunter confused them with endogenous retroviruses?

      Delete
    7. Kiss my derriere, bozo. You address my objection first. Then I'll decide whether the rest of your crap is worth my time.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

      Delete
    8. What objection-saying that if true, a hypothesis explains an observation, but if not, it doesn't?

      Hypothesis X could explain Y. Some objection.

      Now you....

      Delete
    9. Yeah. I got a hypothesis for you that needs falsification, bozo. How about this:

      I could bury my foot up your asteroid orifice if you were close enough.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

      Delete
    10. RobertC:

      Dr. Hunter, in twisting the scientific literature into his "just-so" stories deceives his readers by omitting the following from the first quote:

      "Rather, there seems to have been an episode in which the ancestral human lineage was somehow ‘purged’ of these endemic viruses. One testable hypothesis is that human-specific loss of the sialic acid N-glycolylneuraminic acid, which would normally be acquired by such enveloped viruses, could restrict viral transmission because of the simultaneous appearance of antibodies against this sialic acid in hominins 179,180"

      Are testable hypotheses="just so" stories?


      No, with science that is not possible. But with evolution, anything is possible. Evolutionists often construct explanations (to patch their failures) which they eventually drop due to implausibility. For example, evolutionists said the fossil record was no good, and that was why new forms appear abruptly in the strata. After a century or so they finally said the new forms must sometimes appear abruptly due to rapid evolution. But the patchy fossil record story still hangs around, for use when needed.

      Why did you leave the last line off Dr. Hunter? Why didn't you mention the cited research, or other research done in the years since this review was written?

      You’ve got to be kidding. The citations don’t answer anything, they just raise more problems which you would easily see if you weren’t an evolutionist. And their answers are the usual circular, “but evolution somehow created it all.” For example:

      There is also no clear explanation for the extreme complexity and diversity of glycans that can be found on a given glycoconjugate or cell type. …, it is difficult to see clear trends or patterns consistent with different evolutionary lineages. It appears that closely related species may not necessarily share close similarities in their glycan diversity

      Followed by the usual bailout:

      We suggest one general explanation for these observations, that glycan diversification in complex multicellular organisms is driven by evolutionary selection pressures of both endogenous and exogenous origin.

      And the other paper:

      Many glycans show remarkably discontinuous distribution across evolutionary lineages. … Certain lineage-specific glycans have become important signals for multicellular host organisms,

      Each new layer brings yet more absurdities. But that’s another post.

      Continued …

      Delete
    11. Continued …


      And elsewhere in the text: "Humans might have been spared this retroviral invasion owing to selective mutations of the tripartite motif 5 (TRIM5) immune-response protein 84"

      This is another interpretation of the evidence according to evolution. The evidence shows a conflict with the model. Yes, you can always hypothesize complex, often difficult to test, explanations. And years later if the explanation becomes utterly untenable you just move to another. Are such explanations therefore worthless or false? No, but let’s understand what they are.


      I don't think any scientifically literate adult refers to human evolution as an event of "spontaneously creation."

      Sure, because that illuminates what evolution actually says, as opposed to the euphemistic “X arose due to environmental pressures” evolutionary language with its usual teleological undertones so hide the absurdity.


      And why reduce the loss of carbohydrates viruses recognize, and mutations to viral restriction to a "do-over."

      Don’t you see, over and over the evidence does not fit evolution. We’re always having to resort to special-case explanations. You’re going to need a whole lot more of these stories for all the other features unique to humans. And then a whole lot more for all the other lineage-specific designs. And when you’re done, then you’ve hardly begun, but there are a whole lot more problems with evolution beyond this. Doesn’t anti realism ever bother evolutionists?


      Like HIV, these primate endemic infectious retroviruses don't integrate into the germ line and propagate through the genome of the species. Hence INFECTIOUS (acquired), not ENDOGENOUS. So when the virus was cleared, there's nothing in our DNA to "purge."

      Nit-picky, but you made one good point at least. Now back to believing that everything came from nothing.

      Delete
    12. CH: Don’t you see, over and over the evidence does not fit evolution. We’re always having to resort to special-case explanations.

      And the problem with this is?

      Why shouldn't evolution be a complex process that requires adjustments when we make new discoveries? Why wouldn't even our best theories still contain errors that can be discovered and corrected though further criticism? Why should we be surprised when things do not exactly match what we expected when our predictions are made based on incomplete knowledge?

      Clearly, you're making assumptions about how we create knowledge, in that theories should not expand to explain more phenomena and become more accurate over time.

      It's unclear why this is a reasonable or even rational assumption.

      Knowledge gets created. And, until this creation occurs, we cannot predict how it will impact what we observe, even if this process is determined. We discover subtle details about the process, which have effects we couldn't have predicted. There is nothing anti-realist about it. In fact, ignoring how we actually create knowledge is a form of anti-realism.

      It's as if you're comparing the complex process of evolution to an implied claim "that's just what a designer must have wanted", which explains nothing by pretending to explain everything. But this simply pushes the complexity into an unexplainable realm.

      Again, you seem to be assuming that this designer is simple in that, despite being supposedly well adapted at designing things, it wouldn't itself need to be designed, etc. Knowledge of how to build the biosphere wasn't created though some complex process, but was spontaneously generated by will or had always existed, and itself isn't complex.

      Despite the fact that all of these assumptions just so happen to coincide with theological assumptions about your favorite supernatural being, are we supposed to think they represent a neutral position?

      Are you claiming the simplicity of this designer is somehow and accepted axiom? Is there empirical evidence that the designer is simple?

      In other words, rather than merely assert or presuppose that discovering more details about how evolution occurs is somehow a failure, where is your detailed argument assuming it is true, in reality?

      Of course, no such argument will be made, because you do not need to convince your target audience of these assumptions. You know they hold them as truth based on faith. Nor do you want to explicitly disclose these assumptions as you know they would not withstand criticism.

      Delete
    13. CH: CH: Don’t you see, over and over the evidence does not fit evolution. We’re always having to resort to special-case explanations.

      And the problem with this is?

      Why shouldn't evolution be a complex process that requires adjustments when we make new discoveries? Why wouldn't even our best theories still contain errors that can be discovered and corrected though further criticism? Why should we be surprised when things do not exactly match what we expected when our predictions are made based on incomplete knowledge?

      In other words, you seem to be making assumptions about how we create knowledge, in that theories should not expand to explain more phenomena and become more accurate over time.

      It's unclear why this is a reasonable or even rational assumption.

      Knowledge gets created. And, until this creation occurs, we cannot predict how it will impact what we observe, even if this process is determined. We discover subtle details about the process, which have effects we couldn't have predicted. There is nothing anti-realist about it. In fact, ignoring how we actually create knowledge is a form of anti-realism.

      It's as if you're comparing the complex process of evolution to an implied claim "that's just what a designer must have wanted", which explains nothing by pretending to explain everything. But this simply pushes the complexity into an unexplainable realm.

      Again, you seem to be assuming that this designer is simple in that, despite being supposedly well adapted at designing things, it wouldn't itself need to be designed, etc. Knowledge of how to build the biosphere wasn't created though some complex process, but was spontaneously generated by will or had always existed, and itself isn't complex.

      Despite the fact that all of these assumptions just so happen to coincide with theological assumptions about your favorite supernatural being, are we supposed to think they represent a neutral position? Are they somehow evident though observations?

      In other words, rather than merely assert or presuppose that discovering more complexity is somehow a failure, present a detailed argument.

      Of course, you won't, because you do not need to convince your target audience of these assumptions. They hold these assumptions are true based on faith. Nor do you want to explicitly disclose these assumptions as you know they would not withstand criticism.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dang it RobertC you seem concerned with honesty, can you help me since no one else will? Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?

    Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment (as predicted) instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species…
    (Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_research_paper_o042191.html

    Four decades worth of lab work is surveyed here:

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/

    Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper in this following podcast:

    Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time – December 2010
    http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00

    How about the oft cited example for neo-Darwinism of antibiotic resistance?

    List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
    Excerpt: Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” ,,, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution. These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding.
    http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That doesn't seem to be helping! How about we look really, really, close at very sensitive growth rates and see if we can catch almighty evolution in action???

      Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives – November 2010
      Excerpt: Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case regardless whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not.,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed.
      http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-unexpectedly-small-effects-mutations-bacteria.html

      Shoot that doesn't seem to be helping either! Perhaps we just got to give the almighty power of neo-Darwinism ‘room to breathe’? How about we ‘open the floodgates’ to the almighty power of Darwinian Evolution and look at Lenski’s Long Term Evolution Experiment and see what we can find after 50,000 generations, which is equivalent to somewhere around 1,000,000 years of human evolution???

      Richard Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiments with E. coli and the Origin of New Biological Information – September 2011
      Excerpt: The results of future work aside, so far, during the course of the longest, most open-ended, and most extensive laboratory investigation of bacterial evolution, a number of adaptive mutations have been identified that endow the bacterial strain with greater fitness compared to that of the ancestral strain in the particular growth medium. The goal of Lenski’s research was not to analyze adaptive mutations in terms of gain or loss of function, as is the focus here, but rather to address other longstanding evolutionary questions. Nonetheless, all of the mutations identified to date can readily be classified as either modification-of-function or loss-of-FCT.
      (Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).)
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/richard_lenskis_long_term_evol051051.html

      Now that just can’t be right!! Man we should really start to be seeing some neo-Darwinian fireworks by 50,000 generations!?!

      Delete
    2. Hey I know what we can do! How about we see what happened when the ‘top five’ mutations from Lenski’s experiment were combined??? Surely now the Darwinian magic will start flowing!!!

      Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations)
      Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually.
      http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7

      Now something is going terribly wrong here!!! Tell you what, let’s just forget trying to observe evolution in the lab, I mean it really is kind of cramped in the lab you know, and now let’s REALLY open the floodgates and let’s see what the almighty power of neo-Darwinian evolution can do with the ENTIRE WORLD at its disposal??? Surely now almighty neo-Darwinian evolution will flex its awesomely powerful muscles and forever make those IDiots, who believe in Intelligent Design, cower in terror!!!

      A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
      The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155).
      http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution

      Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution
      “Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell–both ones we’ve discovered so far and ones we haven’t–at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It’s critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing–neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered–was of much use.”
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/swine_flu_viruses_and_the_edge020071.html

      Now, there is something terribly wrong here! After looking high and low and everywhere in between, we can’t seem to find the almighty power of neo-Darwinism anywhere!! Shoot we can’t even find ANY power of neo-Darwinism whatsoever!!! It is as if the whole neo-Darwinian theory, relentlessly sold to the general public as it was the gospel truth, is nothing but a big fat lie!!!

      Delete
    3. Let us stay on topic for once.

      1) Do you think it is honest to omit the functional hypothesis from a quote, in framing it as a "just so story"?

      2) Do you think there is something in germ-line DNA to "purge" from endemic infectious retroviruses or has Dr. Hunter confused them with endogenous retroviruses?

      Going off topic with you isn't worth it. No many how many times I list bacteria with antibiotic resistance that are as potent as wild-type, or the gain of functions in Behe's review, or correct your misuse of other papers, you come back with the very same cut and paste. Somewhat shameless.

      Delete
    4. Now Dang it RobertC, you said you were concerned with honesty, right? Then why in blue blazes is it not more honest to establish whether Darwinian evolution is even feasible in the first place before you go off on wild goose chases, speculating this and speculating that, as if you have established this question that is of far more importance? It simply is completely disingenuous of you to proceed in such a backwards manner!

      Delete
    5. bornagain77: "It simply is completely disingenuous of you to proceed in such a backwards manner!"

      Now ba, why is it you can tell RobertC if a certain statement is disingenuous, but you can't tell me?

      Delete
    6. Well by golly, you can't provide proof that evolution is true, but that is of no consequence, so you just pretend as if you had a leg to stand on? PATHETIC!!!

      Delete
    7. Bluster---you don't even get the huge mistake you've rushed to defend, do you?

      Delete
    8. RobertC, If you believe in neo-Darwinian evolution, as it appears by all appearances that you are, it is you who is rushing to defend a HUMONGOUS mistake! Not I.

      Delete
  9. An edit for clarity:

    By the way, the line "In other words, when evolution spontaneously created humans our DNA must have been “purged"" only makes sense if Hunter has confused endemic infectious retroviruses (like HIV or simian foamy viruses or simian infectious retroviruses) with endogenous retroviruses.

    Like HIV, these primate endemic infectious retroviruses don't integrate into the germ line and propagate through the genome of the species. Hence INFECTIOUS (acquired), not ENDOGENOUS. So when the virus was cleared, there's nothing in our DNA to "purge."

    So yeah, if you get the science wrong, and heap dishonesty on top of that, you'll end up with some pretty silly sounding stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I would only add that people are indeed quite different from animals.
    Yet we are within the equation of biology.
    We have ape bodies which are slightly different from mice.
    We have the same concepts and practical organs and processes.
    We are off the same rack.
    therefore there is a single program made by God.
    We could only be within that programs boundaries.
    Only our soul is made in the image of God and is unique from nature.
    We do have details of difference.

    By the way the childbirth problem of our women is on;y after the fall.
    Before the fall there would be no difference between us and apes.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Agree, huge reading/science comprehension FAIL by Dr Hunter. In other news, the sun rose in the east this morning...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Derick Childress:

    I think you are terrified of answering this question, not just here publicly, but privately in your own mind, because you know it is clear, clear that the answer to both those questions is "Yes, the person is being deceitful, and you know that it is equally clear that those situations are analogous to what God is portrayed as having done in scripture. The cognitive dissonance caused by saying "If humans do it, it's lying, but if God does it, it's not lying" must be overwhelming.

    Please, correct me If I'm wrong.


    Okay, you're wrong. And, I’m happy to answer your questions: Yes and Yes.

    It's sad how people who hold similar positions to yours use the same tactic: Take a verse or verses out of context, ignore all scholarly work pertaining to these very verses, use the verses to say something completely incompatible with what they're actually saying, and parade yourself as smarter than those who have spent more time studying than you have. These verses have been thoroughly studied and expounded upon, and do not say what you want them to say. Even a cursory study of them would have told you that.

    The holiness of God undergirds all of Scripture. If there is any one clear teaching of Scripture, this is definitely it. Of course there are many others, but this one is the beginning of all the others. He is holy > we are not > sin > consequences > sacrifice > atonement > forgiveness > salvation > and so on.

    To attempt to take a handful of non-foundational verses to undermine a key foundational truth is slopping thinking, at best, and dishonest, at worst. A basic hermeneutical principle (how to approach a text responsibly) is “The implicit is to be interpreted by the explicit.” Responsible readers of any text never take a verse out of context and try to use it to bring down an explicit foundational truth.

    The Bible is clear: God does not lie.

    Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent.”

    1 Samuel 15:29 “And also the Strength of Israel (God) will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.”

    2 Samuel 7:28
    “Thou art that God, and thy words be true.”

    Titus 1:2
    “In hope of eternal life, which God, that (who) cannot lie, promised before the world began.

    Revelation 4:8
    “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.”

    Now, given this explicit foundational truth, go back and interpret the verses that you’re attempting to use to show that God lies/deceives.

    Or, don’t. It won’t change the meaning of the texts, no matter how desperately you want it to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very well put JustCurious, especially this:

      'A basic hermeneutical principle (how to approach a text responsibly) is “The implicit is to be interpreted by the explicit.” Responsible readers of any text never take a verse out of context and try to use it to bring down an explicit foundational truth.'

      I knew the principle, but I was far from being able to articulate it as clearly as you have for Derick. Thanks again!

      Delete
    2. JustCurious Apr 23, 2012 04:24 PM

      [...]

      The Bible is clear: God does not lie.


      Yes, the Bible is clear. From the Book of Genesis:

      2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

      2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


      Or not:

      5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

      God does lie. And He did so right from the beginning.

      Delete
    3. Thank you Ian for giving a crystal clear example of exactly what JustCurious was talking about.,, Ever hear of the death in the garden pertaining to spiritual death or the need for us to be 'born again' because of that spiritual death?

      "There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (John 3:1-7).

      Delete
    4. Ian, seriously. Any scholar worth his or her salt wouldn't even continue a conversation with you after such a uneducated statement. You clearly do not know Hebrew, and you clearly have done no serious study of the texts or scholarly research and writings. There is absolutely nothing in the text that requires that Adam drop dead on the spot after eating the fruit. Nothing.

      If you really want to understand what it says, then read it responsibly.

      Delete
    5. bornagain77,

      I have benefited greatly from your many posts here and on other sites, so I'm happy to have been of help.

      Delete
    6. bornagain77 Apr 23, 2012 05:52 PM

      Thank you Ian for giving a crystal clear example of exactly what JustCurious was talking about.,, Ever hear of the death in the garden pertaining to spiritual death or the need for us to be 'born again' because of that spiritual death?


      I would say that crystal clarity of meaning is the least we could expect from a perfect and omniscient God. If He meant spiritual death then He could have said something like:

      2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thy spirit shall surely die and thy body shall be cast from Eden to live out nine hundred years of earthly suffering after which it too shall die.

      But He didn't.

      In other words, if He meant spiritual death but didn't spell it out, then He was lying by omission.

      If He meant physical death on the day of eating the fruit even though He knew full well that was not not going to happen then He was just lying.

      But either way you cut it, He lied.

      Delete
    7. JustCurious Apr 23, 2012 07:14 PM

      Ian, seriously. Any scholar worth his or her salt wouldn't even continue a conversation with you after such a uneducated statement. You clearly do not know Hebrew, and you clearly have done no serious study of the texts or scholarly research and writings. There is absolutely nothing in the text that requires that Adam drop dead on the spot after eating the fruit. Nothing.

      If you really want to understand what it says, then read it responsibly.


      The King James Version is explicit:

      But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

      On the face of it, there is no room for misinterpretation. The only possibilities are that God was lying or that the King James translation is unreliable.

      You appear to be arguing that the translation is fallible but if you are admitting errors have been made then you inevitably cast doubt on the reliability of the whole text. I somehow doubt that is what you mean but you cannot avoid the implication.

      Delete
    8. JustCurious, thank you for your (mostly) thoughtful response. See, bornagain77, it wasn't that hard was it? JustCurious answered the questions on his first try.

      Let me get two things quickly out of the way before I respond. Firstly, you have a quality that is shared by BA and many other Christians here; you are extremely and annoyingly presumptuous when it comes to the characteristics of others. BA asserts that I don't believe in objective morality, without ever even asking If I do for clarification. I do, in fact, believe that morality is objective. (but objective morality is different from absolute morality) You make four wrong presumptions in a single paragraph: That I ignore scholarly work, that I think (or act as if) I'm smarter than people who have studied more, that there's something I 'want' these verses to say, and that I haven't studied them. Now, for most rational people, those four presumptions could have been easily avoided by merely asking me questions. But instead of first asking: "How much have you studied these verses:" or "how much time have you spent studying the Bible", you simply assume that I have not, apparently because I do not arrive at the same conclusions as you. BA makes many assertions about my philosophical, worldview, and ethical opinions, all without bothering to simply ask what they are.

      Secondly, I appreciate that you answered the numbered questions, as they were open to anyone, but in the part you quoted me where I told BA what I thought (not asserted) his motivation for avoiding the question was, you seem to answer for him. Now, unless you're a sock puppet account of BA's, or you've already gone over with him in conversation, I'm curious as to how you could speak on his behalf about his internal mental processes.

      Anyway. For your second answer first. You agree that intentionally allowing a person to accept a false premise when it is in your power to correct it is dishonest. There is no significant moral difference between purposefully allowing someone to believe a lie, and telling the lie yourself. I know that if an unscrupulous car dealer had let me buy a car knowing that I was misinformed in my decision, I would be more angry with him if his defense were: "Hey, I didn't technically lie." Now I ask you: Have you not read the Bible? God orchestrates situations like this all the time.
      1 Kings 22 gives one of many clear examples of this. God needed Ahab to attack Ramoth Gilead, but knew that Ahab wouldn't if he knew he was likely to be killed. A lying spirit offered to deceive Ahab into thinking he would be successful in the attack. God of course knew that Ahab would be deceived by this, so with the expressed intention of deceiving Ahab, God orderd the spirit to lie to Ahab through the prophets. Now, this isn't just a dishonest manager standing by as an employee lies to a customer. It is the manager asking: "How can we get this customer to buy this car they otherwise wouldn't?" the employee responding "I know boss, I can straight up lie about the gas mileage," and the manager finishing with "Great Idea. I know that will work. Do it." There are many other examples, but that one is very explicit as you like to say. (and to add insult to injury, Ahab, imperfect as he was, was trying to discern God's will. Most of God's prophets were telling him one thing, a lone outlier was telling him otherwise. How would anyone know who to believe?)

      So without belaboring the point with other examples (of which there are many) I'm interested in how you square the belief that it is dishonest when a man allows deception to accomplish a goal, but not when God commands deception to accomplish a goal.

      Delete
    9. JustCurious: "The Bible is clear: God does not lie. *lists verses saying that God does not lie* "

      Almost. Some verses are clear: God does not lie. Other verses are also clear: God does lie. As I told BA earlier, if you have verses that contradict each other, you don't settle the matter just by tallying up each side. (or by ignoring the ones you don't like.)

      JustCurious: "It's sad how people who hold similar positions to yours use the same tactic: Take a verse or verses out of context, ignore all scholarly work pertaining to these very verses, "

      Yay, the old "out of context" canard. That's Bingo on my card. I do hate to break it to you but you can't just declare clear readings of unambiguous verses that you don't like "out of context". You have to explain why you think they're out of context, and explain what the right context is. I am of course very familiar with the principle "the implicit is interpreted in the light of the explicit." The problem is, God explicitly uses deception (and violence, pain, and threats) to carry out his will.

      Delete
    10. An ironic aside: It is possible that the serpent in the garden did not actually lie, either in word or intent. It told Eve two things: 1) She would not surely (necessarily) die that day as a direct result of eating the fruit, and 2) that if she ate it she would know the difference between good and evil, and therefore be more like God. Now the second statement was absolutely true; in fact, God himself confirms it in Gen 3:22. The first one was not a lie if 1) the serpent knew that Eve would not immediately die as a direct result of eating the fruit (she didn't; and he did know the result of acquiring the knowledge) or 2) if it knew about the Tree of Life, which there's no reason to think it didn't since it knew so much about the Tree of Knowledge. (The funny thing is that a core purpose of many churches is to help it's members become more like God, and Eve is punished because she tried to seize that opportunity) Ian already addressed one objection you're likely to have: It's just silly to say that God was talking about a spiritual death. Imagine announcing to the media that you were going to kill the president when he came to your town the next day, then explaining in chains to the judge that you didn't mean you were going to physically kill him, you meant you were going to spiritually kill him. You wouldn't convince many people. Imagine what God, the perfect communicator, would have said if He had meant that Adam and Eve would physically die from eating the fruit. He would have said.... Exactly what was said. There is no ambiguity in the phrase "If you do 'x' you will die that day."

      Delete
    11. Ian, if you'd actually read the entire text in context, you'd find that it is not only clear, it is deep and rich and vastly more interesting than your static and one-dimensional re-writing of a small portion of it. Death in this passage is multidimensional, encompassing 1.) separation from God spiritually, 2.) separation from God physically, and 3.) physical death. Had the passage been written the way you suggest, it would not only have lost this dimensionality, it would have been inaccurate. Surely you're familiar with the very common practice of using a term early in a text and then defining all its facets in the rest of the text.

      If you use your approach above when reading other writings - plucking a word off of page 1 and then criticizing the author for not making sense, being truthful, being accurate, etc., when the fleshing out of the definition of the word was given on pages 2, 45, and 238, and summarized on page 542 - your going to look like a fool.

      Do the work. Read the entire Book.

      Delete
    12. Derick, you have way more time to devote to this than I do. I will send this response and then I must get back to something else.

      You see my observations as presumptuous, I do not. I know ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek, and have translated large portions of both the Old and New Testaments. In the process, I have devoted a great deal of study to scholarly research and writings. Whether you want to accept the criticism or not, your responses here do not evidence the same effort. As with Ian, your responses are mostly amateurish and practically shout that you have an axe to grind. If you attempted to use many of these arguments in any serious scholarly discussion, you'd be either laughed at outright, "dressed down" to the point of humiliation, or avoided at all costs.

      I can see when a discussion is going nowhere, and that is clearly true of this one, so I'll simply end by wishing you well, which is said with all sincerity.

      Delete
    13. I asked: "I'm interested in how you square the belief that it is dishonest when a man allows deception to accomplish a goal, but not when God commands deception to accomplish a goal."

      JustCurious: "I can see when a discussion is going nowhere, and that is clearly true of this one, so I'll simply end by wishing you well, which is said with all sincerity."

      Well, that's one way to say "Ya got me there."

      Delete
    14. Derick:

      Like I said, "amateurish".

      Delete
    15. JustCurious: Like I said, "amateurish".

      You know what they say: "If you can't beat 'em, call 'em names."

      I take it then that you're not even going to try to answer that last question? (don't worry, I don't blame you; it's a doosie)

      Delete
    16. Derick,

      "Amateurish" is not a noun; it is an adjective. I have not called you a name, I have described your approach. This is tiresome.

      If I can break away tomorrow, I will answer your question, although I see the effort as futile. It's clear you're not really interested in an answer.

      Goodnight.

      Delete
  13. It doesn't seem like much progress is being made in any of the discussions as of late.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You haven't found the deconstruction of Inherit The Wind enlightening?

      Delete
    2. Bits. A few pieces. Lot's of whining though. Perhaps reason followed Elvis out of the room.

      Delete
    3. Small steps to wisdom,grasshopper.

      Delete
    4. The grasshoppers ate the wisdom.

      Delete
  14. I see Dr. Hunter has realized he conflated ERVs with endemic infectious retroviruses, and the original post has been modified from: "In other words, when evolution spontaneously created humans our DNA must have been “purged" to "In other words, when evolution spontaneously created humans we must have been “purged.”

    But this now is a silly objection. The purging of the relics of ERVs would really be something, but gain of resistance to a virus in humans that infects other primates? With tractable molecular mechanisms? This is your proof of design?

    Does Dr. Hunter believe nothing ever changes in evolution-that having an ancestor susceptible to a virus makes all lineages evolving from that ancestor susceptible? No chance of acquiring resistance? If my parents had 1968 flu, so must I, or evolution is disproved?

    What a utterly laughable portrayal of evolution.

    But to those might accuse him of dishonesty, realize he confuses endogenous and infectious retroviruses, and says "Another such feature is the lack of endemic infectious retroviruses in humans" (um, wrong: HIV!!!!!), and please chalk it up to plain ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But this now is a silly objection.

      Boy, you agree to a wording change and the evolutionist thinks he has solved all the problems.


      I see Dr. Hunter has realized he conflated ERVs with endemic infectious retroviruses,

      No, that was your silly accusation, remember? This is the dilemma when discoursing with evolutionists. Occasionally they do make a good point, but if you agree they accuse you of all manner of things and trumpet evolution as proven yet again.


      This is your proof of design?

      Sorry, but you can’t avoid problems by using strawman arguments.


      Does Dr. Hunter believe nothing ever changes in evolution-that having an ancestor susceptible to a virus makes all lineages evolving from that ancestor susceptible? No chance of acquiring resistance? If my parents had 1968 flu, so must I, or evolution is disproved?

      You’d have a point if the evidence were anywhere close to your simplistic rendition. The evidence shows yet another major phylogenetic incongruence. Primates have multiple, *species-wide*, endemic retroviruses. We don’t. And yet humans *are* susceptible to these viruses.

      Evolutionists proclaim from the rooftops how all the evidence falls so neatly into the evolutionary tree. In fact it doesn’t. And papers such as this one illustrate how the thinking is theory driven. Evolution is dogmatically assumed to be true, so the only thought is to think up something in our history that must have mysteriously eliminated these viruses while not doing so in any of the other lineages.

      So while evolutionists proclaim from the rooftops the positive evidence, for the contradictions they quietly conjure up speculative mechanisms. There is always another mechanism available, and this is a great example. Let’s see, we have here are huge incongruity. Umm, maybe X and Y cleverly occurred suddenly to solve the problem.

      Likely? No. Impossible? Of course not. But this happens over and over. The evidence didn’t come out anything like what evolution expected and evolutionists simply continue with their epicycles. You can never actually criticize the theory because there is always an epicycle that explains away the problem.


      But to those might accuse him of dishonesty, realize he confuses endogenous and infectious retroviruses, and says "Another such feature is the lack of endemic infectious retroviruses in humans" (um, wrong: HIV!!!!!), and please chalk it up to plain ignorance.

      There you go again. Lest people fall for your games, HIV is not a solution, it is part of the problem. It is a recent addition, and yet another demonstration that we are susceptible. That fact that some humans now have HIV does not help to explain the puzzle of why primates had species wide endemic infectious retroviruses and the human lineage did not. This is another example of how evolutionists so-often make false accusations and play games with the evidence.

      It would be different if evolutionists acknowledged the scientific problems, agreed that truth claims are way out of bounds here, and simply were exploring the theory. That’s not the case. They insist it is a fact, and manipulate the evidence to support that claim.

      Delete
  15. RobertC, I take it you believe that neo-Darwinian evolution is true. Yet, you seem to be intelligent. Regardless of this ironic appearance, you have purposely dodged a very serious challenge to the fundamental tenets of neo-Darwinism to focus on some sort of crusade of yours to label Dr. Hunter as dishonest on some esoteric point of ERV (as if the process were truly random), which I personally find to be a very ironic charge to come from a neo-Darwinist, especially since in my years of dealing with neo-Darwinists I have found the vast majority of them to be the most deceitful people I have ever run across in my life! (And that is saying quite a bit!) Now I have some severe problems with your belief in neo-Darwinism that empirics brings up, as already shown, and that physical reality brings up. Please deal honestly with what I have posted thus far and prove you are not severely dishonest like the rest of the neo-Darwinists, and then we will deal the falsification issues from physics itself.

    ReplyDelete
  16. bornagain77,

    If you think the difference between an ERV and an infectious retrovirus is "some esoteric point," politely remove yourself from the discussion and educate yourself before opining on this post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RobertC, if you think pontificating with a completely bogus theory is honest please remove yourself from science completely! I ask you again to prove that neo-Darwinism is true. This is not a minor point! Are you honest? Do you have integrity? Then address the points raised!,,, Now proving something true scientifically is a interesting point in and of itself and is actually a point that, when carefully investigated, reveals the necessity of Theism to be true in order for us to prove anything else true scientifically! i.e. If Theism is not true then the scientific enterprise itself ends up epistemological failure!

      Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description)
      http://vimeo.com/32145998

      Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit

      And indeed the fruitful endeavor of a modern science which was birthed and is currently grounded in Theism has been born out to show Theism is true for the foundation of reality:

      Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Universe
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agaJIWjPWHs5vtMx5SkpaMPbantoP471k0lNBUXg0Xo/edit

      Now RobertC, this is extremely problematic for neo-Darwinists, especially atheists, to put it mildly, since their theory is based on materialism, but the problem goes much deeper in that not only is the universe 'Theistic' but non-local quantum information is now also found in molecular biology on a massive scale, and thus necessitates that a 'non-local' cause operated, or perhaps even operates, within space time to create life.

      Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

      This is certainly not a minor point of interest RobertC. Moreover, as far as the best science we have is concerned neo-Darwinism is dead no matter how much perfume you neo-Darwinists spray on the corpse!

      Delete
  17. Hold on folks... let's keep in mind some of the posts from Cornelius last week.


    The mitochondria DNA of the single-cell eukaryote Trypanosoma brucei shares very detailed and specific features in completely different organisms, on completely different parts of the so called evolutionary tree that are not shared by other organisms that are supposedly closer on the tree. This is not speculation or interpretation but empirical evidence.

    This IS A FALSIFICATION OF EVOLUTION. This is a slam dunk against the fact of evolution. It is one of the most devastating falsifications of evolution that I have seen in 35 years.

    Evolutionists have claimed the objective nested hierarchy as their holy grail for 150 years (see Theobalds 31 evidences- falsification 1.2), as Ricky Ricardo of I Love Lucy fame would say, "you got some splaining to do".

    Empty rhetoric, name calling, and changing the subject will not make this go away. The Mitochondria DNA does not fit the nested hierarchy whatsoever. Period. Evolutionists have absolutely have a huge problem hear whether they want to step out of their denial box and smell the coffee or not.

    Secondly, there is documented proof of a lying media machine that indoctrinated millions of Americans about the Scopes trial. True to their lack of character, evolutionists continue to outright lie about it. The Civic biology book that Scopes used was horrific in its proposed solution to disabled people. This connection that many powerful people were making between evolution and disabled people solutions was real and dangerous.

    http://www.themonkeytrial.com/

    Third, we saw in the Cornelius' letter to the LA Times that evolutionists are still lying about legislation in Tennessee in 2012. Almost a hundred years later. No one was able to actually quote where the amendment endorsed creationism and such.

    To summarize... the evolutionary objective nested hierarchy is clearly falsified by Trypanosoma brucei. Evolutionists can offer absolutely nothing in response other than an empty term "convergence". Hello? Anyone home? Clear documented evidence exists from the Scopes trial and media coverage of a massive media campaign of outright lies and propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neal,what was the status of the physically and mentally disabled pre Darwin?

      Delete
    2. Tedford the idiot

      This IS A FALSIFICATION OF EVOLUTION. This is a slam dunk against the fact of evolution. It is one of the most devastating falsifications of evolution that I have seen in 35 years.


      See folks, this is exactly why it's impossible to have a rational scientific discussion with an idiot like Tedford. The fat fool is so ignorant of all things scientific that every time a new discovery increases our understanding he bellows "EVOLUTION IS FALSIFIED!!" like there's no tomorrow. He just can't grasp that any one interesting discovery doesn't magically negate all the millions of other pieces of positive corroborating evidence. That every new discovery still needs to fit in a framework which includes all the other evidence too.

      Tedford will always be an idiot because he's quite happy being an idiot. He has no desire to learn or understand, only preach. All you can do with the gasbag is point and laugh.

      Delete
  18. CH: Humans, like everything else in biology, contradict evolution. Human uniqueness has sent evolution spiraling for years.

    Again, there are an infinite number of alternate interpretations that accept the same empirical observations, yet suggest something complexly different was or is happening in reality. As such, you're merely appealing to one of many general purpose ways to deny anything.

    From my previous analogy, regarding denying the existence of dinosaurs as the cause of fossils. …

    Another interpretation would be that dinosaurs are such weird animals that conventional logic simply doesn't apply to them. (Cornelius makes this sort of appeal when he implies some aspect of biology is so weird that is "beyond our comprehension")

    In other words, we Human Beings are so exceptional that conventional logic simply doesn't apply to us. Therefore, details behind these features cannot be explained using human reasoning and problem solving.

    For example. there is the case of the missing sentence, which you conveniently left out of your quote from the paper.

    Given that humans remain susceptible to re-infection with both SFVs178 and SIVs177 from other hominids, this seems unlikely to be explained solely on the basis of more efficient host restriction systems. Rather, there seems to have been an episode in which the ancestral human lineage was somehow “purged” of these endemic viruses. One testable hypothesis is that human-specific loss of the sialic acid N-glycolylneuraminic acid, which would normally be acquired by such enveloped viruses, could restrict viral transmission because of the simultaneous appearance of antibodies against this sialic acid in hominins179,180

    Answers lead to questions, which lead to better answers, which lead to better questions, etc. This is how science works.

    What's hilarious is that, apparently, you think that evolution has to have answers for everything that are exhaustively true, all at once, or it's in "free fall".

    It's unclear why you wouldn't expect even our best theories to contain errors and to always be incomplete.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott, evolutionists including yourself, refuse to admit when evolution has errors. How can better questions and answers come about when you are stuck with evolution as a fact. Falsification of the objective nested hierarchy is a falsification of the very fact of evolution... but no data will be allowed to falsify the fact. You have no criteria for falsifing the fact. You are content with explanations that explain nothing as long as it doesn't contradict the fact of evolution.

      Delete
    2. Huh?

      I just said that all theories are incomplete and contain errors. Yet "evolutionists like me" refuels to admit when evolution has errors?

      Do you see the problem with this sort of accusation?

      Neal: Falsification of the objective nested hierarchy is a falsification of the very fact of evolution..

      Why is that, exactly? Please be specific.

      Neal: but no data will be allowed to falsify the fact. You have no criteria for falsifing the fact. You are content with explanations that explain nothing as long as it doesn't contradict the fact of evolution.

      Except, I've already listed a number of observations that would falsify the underlying explanation of evolutionary theory.

      Have you forgotten them already? Did you simply choose to ignore them?

      Why do you keep making the same mistaken claims over and over again?

      Delete
  19. Tedford the idiot

    Scott, evolutionists including yourself, refuse to admit when evolution has errors. How can better questions and answers come about when you are stuck with evolution as a fact.


    Evolution - the changes in populations that have occurred over deep time - is an observed fact. What is not a fact is the theory that explains the observed fact. But you'll never get it because you don't want to get it.

    Falsification of the objective nested hierarchy is a falsification of the very fact of evolution.

    Sorry idiot, but this latest finding does not falsify ToE's objective nested hierarchy, any more than a one day local drop in temperature falsifies the fact that the average global temperature has risen significantly over the last 100 years.

    You have no criteria for falsifing the fact.

    Yes we do idiot. But you need to come up with new evidence that somehow casts doubt on ALL the work that's been done and ALL the evidence that's been gathered in the last hundred years. Not just modifies a tiny corner of it.

    Not falsified still doesn't mean not falsifiable, not matter how much gas you belch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Throton claims, 'the changes in populations that have occurred over deep time - is an observed fact.'

      Observed fact?? Deep time????

      Hmmmm,

      Examples of OBSERVE

      The class will be observing the movements of fish.
      The patient must be observed constantly.
      Children learn by observing their parents and others.
      The new teacher will give the lesson today and the principal will observe.
      We observed a large flock of birds heading north.
      He observed two children playing with marbles on the street corner.
      She observed that every man in the room had removed his hat.
      Few cases of the disease have been observed in humans.
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/observe

      Delete
    2. What we observe for changes,,,

      “Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin’s gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless.”
      R. Milner,

      Delete
  20. bornagain77, your quote sums up perfectly what we actually observe in real life. From bird beaks, peppered moths, ring species, e-coli, fruit fly's... you name it. The changes we observe are never unbounded and directional. What they observe is a historical fossil record that they interpret through the view that evolution is a fact. It's another of their tautologies. The mixing and matching of traits throughout the mosaic of life falsifies this interpretation.

    But real time observation... never... only the bounded changes are observed. Not a single definitive example of a clear speciation event in animals has ever been observed.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Cornelius, I think you have confused endogenous retroviruses, which leave traces of themselves in the genome, with endemic retroviruses which are those that simply cause disease in a particular population!

    The presence of shared endogenous retroviruses in the human and great ape genomes is just one of many powerful pieces of evidence to support shared ancestry.

    The fact that we differ in the viruses that cause us illnesses is not particularly strange at all - after all, resistance to disease-causing viruses would be powerfully selected for, as well as being specific to our habitat ("endemic").

    Certainly not enough to put evolution in "free-fall", especially given the huge confirmatory evidence for common descent provided by endogenous retroviruses!

    "Endemic" ~= "Endogenous".

    Cheers

    Lizzie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lizzie:

      Cornelius, I think you have confused endogenous retroviruses, which leave traces of themselves in the genome, with endemic retroviruses which are those that simply cause disease in a particular population!

      Thank you, but no, I think rather that you are confused about the evidence. More below …


      The presence of shared endogenous retroviruses in the human and great ape genomes is just one of many powerful pieces of evidence to support shared ancestry.

      No, this is not powerful evidence. If you can explain why you think this is so, then I can clarify.


      The fact that we differ in the viruses that cause us illnesses is not particularly strange at all - after all, resistance to disease-causing viruses would be powerfully selected for, as well as being specific to our habitat ("endemic").

      This is not the evidence. The evidence is that primate lineages multiple, species-wide, endemic infectious retroviruses. The human lineage didn’t have these. And yet humans are susceptible to these viruses.


      Certainly not enough to put evolution in "free-fall", especially given the huge confirmatory evidence for common descent provided by endogenous retroviruses!

      Again, you seem to be confused about endogenous retroviruses and common descent, which gets back to my question for you above.

      Delete
    2. OK, if you were not confused about "endemic" versus "endogenous", I simply don't understand your argument.

      Your expression "these viruses must be present in their common ancestor" suggested that you were thinking of virus material was passed on in the germline, as endogenous viral material is (enabling us to track divergences in lineages).

      But if you are just talking about viral disease vectors endemic to a population, not viral DNA sequences passed on in the germline, what is the problem supposed to be?

      Delete
    3. Aha - just noticed you have added:

      "[Ed: Deleted "DNA" for clarity]"

      Well, I guess it makes it clearer! The deletion certainly alters your meaning completely!

      But it's scarcely surprising that I thought you had confused endogenous (viral DNA in the germline) and endemic (disease causing viruses endemic to a population) viruses.

      I take it you had ;)

      Perhaps you should now reframe your argument?

      Delete
    4. So why did you think the shared endogenous retroviruses are powerful evidences for evolution?

      Delete
    5. I said they were powerful evidence for shared ancestry. The reason, of course is that they form a matching nested hierarchy to that inferred from morphological characteristics. But that is irrelevant to your OP it turns out.

      Can you explain why you think the endemic virus story poses a difficulty for evolutionary theory?

      Delete
    6. Cornelius Hunter

      So why did you think the shared endogenous retroviruses are powerful evidences for evolution?


      Because evolution through common descent provides a simple straightforward explanation for their presence that is consilient with all the rest of the evidence we have.

      Unless you have another explanation that explains all the data in a better, more consilient manner.

      Hint: Saying "the Designer made it that way for reasons unknown" is not an explanation.

      Delete
    7. I see CH has bailed out rather than provide his own explanation for the observed patterns of shared endogenous retroviruses.

      What a surprise.

      Delete
    8. Well, to be fair, it turns out he wasn't talking about endogenous retroviruses, but endemic retroviruses.

      But he hasn't explained why those are present any kind of problem for evolutionary theory.

      Delete
    9. And he still hasn't.

      Cornelius: given that you have changed your suggestion that human DNA must have been "purged" of endemic retroviruses (which would only make sense if you had been talking about endogenous retrovirus material, and of course our DNA has not been purged of ERVs), what is it, exactly, that our "lineage" is supposed to have been "purged" of?

      Do you just mean that it is odd that we should have a separate set of endemic viral diseases to other ape populations? Why would that be odd, given that our environment is radically different, and that we mostly no longer live in close proximity to other apes?

      Especially when you consider that the few disease viruses we do share probably emerged in places where we do? Just as we share disease viruses with domesticated species, like poultry and pigs?

      Delete
    10. Thorton:

      Because evolution through common descent provides a simple straightforward explanation for their [shared endogenous retroviruses] presence that is consilient with all the rest of the evidence we have.

      How are they consistent with human uniqueness?


      Hint: Saying "the Designer made it that way for reasons unknown" is not an explanation.

      Is that the reason why evolution is a fact?

      Delete
    11. Lizzie:

      what is it, exactly, that our "lineage" is supposed to have been "purged" of?

      According to evolution our ancestral lineage would have been purged of the endemic viruses and so our DNA would no longer host the provirus.


      Do you just mean that it is odd that we should have a separate set of endemic viral diseases to other ape populations?

      It is not that we had a separate set, we have no species-wide infectious endemic retroviruses whereas they likely would have been present in our ancestor, according to evolution.

      Why would that be odd, given that our environment is radically different, and that we mostly no longer live in close proximity to other apes?

      No, this is not simply a matter of having a different environment. We remain susceptible to such viruses, so they must have somehow been purged. This is yet another of the dozens examples of human uniqueness that is incongruent with the expected phylogenetic pattern. As is often the case, evolution needs one lineage-specific explanations. The human lineage was purged of these viruses due to some lineage specific mechanisms.

      Delete
    12. Cornelius Hunter

      Hint: Saying "the Designer made it that way for reasons unknown" is not an explanation.

      Is that the reason why evolution is a fact?


      Which definition of the word 'evolution' do you mean?

      No answer is possible until you stop playing your silly rhetorical equivocation games.

      But we both know you won't.

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    14. Thorton:

      Thorton: Because evolution through common descent provides a simple straightforward explanation for their [shared endogenous retroviruses] presence that is consilient with all the rest of the evidence we have.

      CH: How are they consistent with human uniqueness?

      Thorton: Hint: Saying "the Designer made it that way for reasons unknown" is not an explanation.

      CH: Is that the reason why evolution is a fact?

      Thorton: Which definition of the word 'evolution' do you mean? No answer is possible until you stop playing your silly rhetorical equivocation games. But we both know you won't.


      This is an instructive exchange. Thorton’s responses are typical for evolutionists. When confronted with the evidence, evolutionists go to metaphysics. In this case, the evolutionist makes an argument from the intellectual necessity of evolution. Namely, evolution is required for good science. Non naturalistic explanations are not scientific. So they claim evolution is a fact, but then retreat to the “methodological naturalism” argument when confronted with the evidence. You can see which branch the evolution is on in this diagram (3rd from the right):

      http://www.darwinspredictions.com/Figure15.jpg

      Then, when confronted with his claim that evolution is a fact, the evolution equivocates. The one thing evolutionists agree on is that evolution is a fact. But then when confronted with the evidence and asked to back up their claim, they equivocate, saying that evolution is a fact merely because allele frequencies change, which of course was not the claim. So you have metaphysics followed by fallacy.

      Delete
  22. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  24. What are called ERVs are critically important to the gene expression which developms the human placenta. No virus genone could possibly posess the specific information necessary for the development of a vasty more complex multicellular organism. That would be like claiming the information on a bubblegum wrapper posesses the critical information necessary to regulate the information in an automobile shop manual so as to produce the car's engine. You're welcome to believe such garbage, but as for me, I have too much selfesteem to proclaim it to my own concience.

    ReplyDelete