Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Name It / Claim It: Epigenetics Now Just Another Evolutionary Mechanism

In Spite of the Cognitive Dissonance

It is often said that all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. And so it is with epigenetics which evolutionists opposed and blackballed for a century before finally appropriating it as just another mode of evolutionary change. (see here, here, and here for more discussion of this history of misdirections regarding Lamarckism and epigenetics). Here is an example of evolutionists, after a century of denial and rejection, claiming epigenetics as their own.

Our example comes from this 2011 review paper on epigenetics in plants. Since plants are sessile they cannot simply move away from environmental challenges that occur. Therefore they need adaptation mechanisms. And since seeds are dispersed not too far from the parent plant, the next generation is likely to face the same environmental challenge. Therefore the adaptation mechanisms should be transgenerational, or heritable. Finally, since environmental challenge may be relatively short lived, lasting only a few generations, there is insufficient time for evolution by random mutations and natural selection to act. Therefore the adaptation mechanisms need to be fast-acting and reversible. These various requirements make epigenetics an “attractive alternative”:

The heritability of reversible epigenetic modifications that regulate gene expression without changing DNA sequence makes them an attractive alternative mechanism.

Note the design language. Not only are evolutionists naming and claiming the once evil epigenetics as just another mode of evolution, they also identify it as “an attractive alternative mechanism,” which is precisely how engineers discuss their design options.

Note, as we have discussed, the notion that such epigenetic mechanisms are just another mode of evolution makes no sense for several reasons. Unlike evolutionary change which is slow, epigenetics is fast. Unlike evolutionary change which propagates through the population from a single mutation occurring in a single individual, epigenetics works in parallel, occurring in many individuals across the population. Unlike evolutionary change which must come about by the selection of changes that must not be induced by the environment, epigenetics is induced by the environment. Unlike evolutionary change which generally is not repeatable, epigenetics is repeatable.

Furthermore, epigenetic mechanisms are, themselves, sophisticated designs. Their origin is far beyond evolution’s meager resources. Random mutations are not going to produce such directed adaptation mechanisms. And even if such a miracle were to occur, it would not survive, because it would not be selected for. This is because such mechanisms provide a differential reproductive advantage, and therefore a fitness improvement, not under the current conditions, but under some future, unforeseen conditions. There is no fitness improvement at the time of origin by random mutations.

There is a reason why evolutionists have so vehemently opposed this Lamarckian idea—it contradicts evolutionary theory. But like saltationism which was once rejected (by Darwin) due to its obvious implications, only to be guardedly accepted years later when the coast was clear (though it makes no sense on evolution), so too epigenetics must be accepted while downplaying the cognitive dissonance it forces on evolution.

97 comments:

  1. Excellent second to last paragraph. Well worth re-reading:

    "Furthermore, epigenetic mechanisms are, themselves, sophisticated designs. Their origin is far beyond evolution’s meager resources. Random mutations are not going to produce such directed adaptation mechanisms. And even if such a miracle were to occur, it would not survive, because it would not be selected for. This is because such mechanisms provide a differential reproductive advantage, and therefore a fitness improvement, not under the current conditions, but under some future, unforeseen conditions. There is no fitness improvement at the time of origin by random mutations."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Furthermore, epigenetic mechanisms are, themselves, sophisticated designs. Their origin is far beyond evolution’s meager resources. Random mutations are not going to produce such directed adaptation mechanisms. And even if such a miracle were to occur, it would not survive, because it would not be selected for. This is because such mechanisms provide a differential reproductive advantage, and therefore a fitness improvement, not under the current conditions, but under some future, unforeseen conditions. There is no fitness improvement at the time of origin by random mutations."

      Poor Creationists. Always a day late and a dollar short.

      RNA-Directed DNA Methylation: The Evolution of a Complex Epigenetic Pathway in Flowering Plants
      Matzke et al
      Annual Review of Plant Biology
      Vol. 66: 243-267 April 2015

      Abstract: RNA-directed DNA methylation (RdDM) is an epigenetic process in plants that involves both short and long noncoding RNAs. The generation of these RNAs and the induction of RdDM rely on complex transcriptional machineries comprising two plant-specific, RNA polymerase II (Pol II)–related RNA polymerases known as Pol IV and Pol V, as well as a host of auxiliary factors that include both novel and refashioned proteins. We present current views on the mechanism of RdDM with a focus on evolutionary innovations that occurred during the transition from a Pol II transcriptional pathway, which produces mRNA precursors and numerous noncoding RNAs, to the Pol IV and Pol V pathways, which are specialized for RdDM and gene silencing. We describe recently recognized deviations from the canonical RdDM pathway, discuss unresolved issues, and speculate on the biological significance of RdDM for flowering plants, which have a highly developed Pol V pathway.

      Science progresses, Creationists sit stationary in their deep hole of ignorance.

      Delete
    2. ghostrider,

      "Poor Creationists. Always a day late and a dollar short."

      That is just too funny for words. Creationists have been saying from day one organisms had a built-in ability to adapt to change and evolutionists insisted they were ignorant fools. Now that the facts are too overwhelming to deny any longer evolutionists suddenly claim they knew it all along and simply morph epigenetics into the evolutionary paradigm. Simply laughable.

      So what is it, ghostrider? Do organisms adapt to their environment via natural selection acting on random mutations or do organisms possess a built-in system which allows rapid reaction to changing environments? Or are you just going to claim both by saying the epigenetic system simply came about by RMNS?

      A day late and a dollar short. That is just so funny, really, I am going to laugh about this one for a long time.:)

      Delete
    3. Nic

      Do organisms adapt to their environment via natural selection acting on random mutations or do organisms possess a built-in system which allows rapid reaction to changing environments?


      (facepalm) Both Nic. They aren't mutually exclusive. Not all life has evolved epigenetic pathways either. Why did the Magic Designer only give it to a few species, mostly plants?

      Delete
    4. ghostrider,

      "(facepalm) Both Nic. They aren't mutually exclusive."

      No, they are not mutually exclusive and no one said they were. However, evolution for decades ridiculed the idea of epigenetics claiming RMNS was doing all the work.

      "Not all life has evolved epigenetic pathways either."

      So, I was right, now you're going to claim epigenetics is just another evolved system. It should be interesting listening to that story.

      "Why did the Magic Designer only give it to a few species, mostly plants?"

      Seriously? Maybe you should type in epigenetics and see what pops up.

      Delete
    5. ghostrider

      "organisms possess a built-in system which allows rapid reaction to changing environments"
      And this system came about via natural selection acting on random mutations?
      Sounds like the evolution of the gaps theory.

      Delete
    6. Nic

      However, evolution for decades ridiculed the idea of epigenetics claiming RMNS was doing all the work.


      No Nic, that is simply false. Science has know about epigenetic effects since the mid 40's.

      Delete
    7. Nic

      Maybe you should type in epigenetics and see what pops up.


      OK, I did. This is one of the first hits

      Epigenetics: Fundamentals

      History:

      What began as broad research focused on combining genetics and developmental biology by well-respected scientists including Conrad H. Waddington and Ernst Hadorn during the mid-twentieth century has evolved into the field we currently refer to as epigenetics. The term epigenetics, which was coined by Waddington in 1942, was derived from the Greek word “epigenesis” which originally described the influence of genetic processes on development.[2] During the 1990s there became a renewed interest in genetic assimilation. This lead to elucidation of the molecular basis of Conrad Waddington’s observations in which environmental stress caused genetic assimilation of certain phenotypic characteristics in Drosophila fruit flies. Since then, research efforts have been focused on unraveling the epigenetic mechanisms related to these types of changes.[3] Currently, DNA methylation is one of the most broadly studied and well-characterized epigenetic modifications dating back to studies done by Griffith and Mahler in 1969 which suggested that DNA methylation may be important in long term memory function.[4] The renewed interest in epigenetics has led to new findings about the relationship between epigenetic changes and a host of disorders including various cancers, mental retardation associated disorders, immune disorders, neuropsychiatric disorders and pediatric disorders.

      Of course to desperate creationists any time science investigates a new phenomenon it means all of evolutionary theory must be wrong.

      Delete
    8. ghostrider,

      "Of course to desperate creationists any time science investigates a new phenomenon it means all of evolutionary theory must be wrong."

      Creationists are not desperate at all. Whatever gave you that idea? They simply go on their merry way watching evolution grope and stumble trying to incorporate failed predictions and contrary evidence into its paradigm so they can assert they knew it all along and it was always part of the theory.

      As for your C&P I really don't understand what you think that does to help your cause. If you were to actually search the hundreds of articles which come up under epigenetics you will quickly see the system goes way beyond plants.

      "No Nic, that is simply false. Science has know about epigenetic effects since the mid 40's."

      You say 'science' as if science refers only to evolutionary thought. That is hardly the case. You see, ghostrider, whether you wish to admit it or not creationists can be fully qualified and highly competent scientists. And yes, they have spoken of epigenetics for decades, just as I said earlier.

      Delete
    9. "You say 'science' as if science refers only to evolutionary thought."

      Very good point Nic. They're trying to make evolution and science synonymous and interchangeable.
      If it's science it's evolutionary and if it's not evolutionary it's not science.

      Delete
    10. Nic

      You see, ghostrider, whether you wish to admit it or not creationists can be fully qualified and highly competent scientists


      They just can't do so while using the YEC paradigm.

      Delete
    11. Christophobic, atheist homosexual, Timothy Horton, aka ghostrider:

      They just can't do so while using the YEC paradigm.

      Isaac Newton, the father of modern physics, although not a YEC, was certainly a Christian creationist. What have you done for science lately, you spineless, dirt-worshipping maggot?

      BTW, it's Sir Isaac for you, dirt worshipper.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahah...

      Delete
    12. ghostrider,

      "They just can't do so while using the YEC paradigm."

      Genetics is genetics and biology is biology. Whether you approach your research with evolutionary presuppositions or creationist presuppositions the results of the experiments will be the same, only the interpretation of the results will differ. If you cross an Irish Wolfhound with a Great Dane the results will not differ between the evolutionist and the creationist.

      Delete
    13. Nic

      ghostrider: "They just can't do so while using the YEC paradigm."

      Genetics is genetics and biology is biology


      Yes Nic, genetics is genetics and biology is biology. Show me a Creation geneticist or biologist who uses the YEC created "kind" paradigm to do research and analysis. Or show me a professional geologist who uses the Noah's Flood paradigm to explain geologic features. Or a physicist who uses the YEC RATE group's claim of Accelerate Nuclear Decay in radiometric dating.

      Delete
    14. ghostrider,

      "Show me a Creation geneticist or biologist who uses the YEC created "kind" paradigm to do research and analysis."

      Jeffrey Tompkins, John Sanford, Robert Carter, Lane Lester, Georgia Purdom, to name a few.

      "Or show me a professional geologist who uses the Noah's Flood paradigm to explain geologic features."

      Steve Austin, Kurt Wise, John Morris, Emil Silvestru, Andrew Snelling.

      Delete
    15. Sorry Nic but not a one of them has published any research in the scientific literature using the YEC paradigm. Lots of crap on YEC websites and popular press books but no actual scientific work.

      Delete
    16. ghostrider,

      "Lots of crap on YEC websites and popular press books but no actual scientific work."

      This may come as a complete shock to you, but you don't get to decide what is or is not scientific work. All these men possess doctorates in their field and all of them do research. Because you do not like how they do their work or the conclusions they draw does not give you the right to say their work is not acceptable science. Nor do the 'established' scientific journals possess that right

      Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you, but that is just the way it is.

      Delete
    17. Nic

      This may come as a complete shock to you, but you don't get to decide what is or is not scientific work.


      True. That's established by the quality of published and peer reviewed work which then determines the scientific consensus.

      You're perfectly free to look to the anti-science garbage produced by the YEC clown circus as some sort of "truth." The scientific community is free to laugh at the clowns and then ignore them.

      Delete
    18. I don't understand why peer review is such a big deal:

      http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1512330

      It looks like not only does lots of fraud get past peer review, but the peer review itself is fraudulent.

      Delete
    19. natschuster

      I don't understand why peer review is such a big deal:


      Because it's the best system we have for checking if proper scientific processes have been followed. Is it perfect? No. Do some people attempt to cheat and bypass the system? Yes, see Sternberg and Meyer. Still, it's much better than no system of validation at all.

      Delete
    20. natschuster,

      Of course, peer review is a fraud. This is how the con artists maintain control over their religion. In a truly democratic society, there should be many competing schools of thought and it should be up to the people to decide which schools to subscribe to. This is the way it used to be in ancient Greece, the cradle of democracy.

      Atheist, however, being the fascist a-holes that they are, will have none of that. Their religion, you see, must be the one true religion, whether the people like it or not.

      Delete
    21. Fruit loop Louis

      In a truly democratic society, there should be many competing schools of thought and it should be up to the people to decide which schools to subscribe to


      LOL! Sure thing fruit loop. We'll hold a democratic election and let the people decide want they want the force of gravity to be. I'd personally vote for 1/2 of what those evil scientists claim. Then I'd finally be able to dunk a basketball. :)

      Delete
    22. ghostrider, aka Timothy Horton, aka Christophobic, atheist, dirt worshipping homosexual:

      LOL! Sure thing fruit loop. We'll hold a democratic election and let the people decide want they want the force of gravity to be.

      Spoken like a true fascist cult monger with a superiority complex. If the people can choose their political leaders, they can also choose their scientific leaders.

      The insufferable pomposity and condescending attitude of atheists are now legendary. One would have to go to the priesthood of ancient Egypt or Babylon to find a worse group of self-entitled a-holes.

      Delete
    23. ghostrider,

      "You're perfectly free to look to the anti-science garbage produced by the YEC clown circus as some sort of "truth." The scientific community is free to laugh at the clowns and then ignore them."

      You're perfectly free to look to the anti-science garbage produced by the evolutionary thought clown circus as some sort of "truth." The Christian scientific community is free to laugh at the clowns and then ignore them.

      See how that works, ghostrider? :)

      Delete
    24. Nic

      See how that works, ghostrider? :)


      works for me Nic. I'll stick with the real scientific community doing honest scientific research, putting the results up for critical review, increasing our scientific data base. You can play at science with your YEC pretend scientists, self-publish your pre-decided results on heavily censored web pages that don't allow criticism, fantasize that your YEC nonsense in Da Truth. :)

      BTW the YEC clown circus =/= the Christian scientific community. The large majority of scientists who are Christian are smart enough to recognize and avoid YEC stupidity.

      Delete
    25. GR:

      So peer review is not The Way to The Truth.
      Okay, so now I don't have to feel stupid if I read something peer reviewed that doesn't make sense to me.

      Delete
    26. ghsotrider,

      "I'll stick with the real scientific community doing honest scientific research,..."

      Ah, the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

      Delete
    27. No fallacy Nic. You can play Wiffle Ball with the kids in your back yard but that doesn't make you a member of MLB and equivalent to the New York Yankees.

      Delete
    28. ghostrider,

      "You can play Wiffle Ball with the kids in your back yard but that doesn't make you a member of MLB and equivalent to the New York Yankees."

      Good for you, you managed to repeat the fallacy through an analogy.

      By the way, the Yankees are last in the East Division of the American League and 12th overall. But that's okay, it's just an analogy.:)

      Delete
    29. RNA-Directed DNA Methylation: The Evolution of a Complex Epigenetic Pathway in Flowering Plants

      And how does unguided evolution explain plants?

      Delete
  2. I didn't see anything in the abstract posted that addressed the post made by Dr. Hunter. It seems it is along the lines of "It just had to evolve, it just had to" that is a typical evolutionary argument.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One wonders when the dirt worshippers are going to figure out that RM+NS is a pile of crap. It is not only unnecessary (epigenetics adaptation is more than adequate for survival), it cannot account for the evolution of epigenetics in the first place since living organisms could not survive without rapid adaptation.

    Darwinian evolution is the biggest hoax/scam perpetrated on the public ever. There are others, I'm sure, but DE is the longest lasting one and the most damaging to the well-being of society.

    Dirt worshippers, beware. Your time is getting short. I see the coming of weeping and gnashing of teeth in the not too distant future.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe your doctors should try electro-shock therapy.

      Delete
    2. Says the Christophobic atheist homosexual. Have your gonads-reducing meds stopped working?

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

      Delete
    3. I changed my mind. Electro-shock probably would not be effective. That requires that their be some brain activity.

      Delete
    4. Let me get this straight, dirt worshipper. Am I the new target of your atheist, Christophobic homosexual fantasies?

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

      Delete
    5. "Target" implies that it requires skill to accurately point out your insanity. My cat could do that.

      Delete
    6. LOL

      Your cat is neither Christophobic, atheist nor homosexual. And I'm positive it is not a dirt worshipper. So it could not possibly entertain the kind of sick fantasies you're thinking about.

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

      Delete
    7. But he would still detect your insanity. Sucks to be you.

      Delete
    8. Nah. I'm having a really great time lately. I got a great project coming up and I spend my free time bashing dirt worshippers and other tree-dwelling primitives on the net. LOL

      But I'm sure it sucks to be a Christophobic, atheist homosexual. Too bad for you that I can indulge your deranged fantasies for only a little while longer.

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

      Delete
    9. The lady doth protest way too much, methinks. Just come out of the closet already.

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

      Delete
    10. Louis doesn't like cats. When he was a kid every time he played in the sandbox the neighborhood cats tried to cover him up. :D

      Delete
    11. Two Christophobic, dirt-worshipping, closet gay atheists having a pussy-cat fight on a Christian blog. LOL!

      Why don't you two daffodils scurry on back to that gay atheist site, antievolution.org, where you belong. LOL

      Oops! Never mind. For a minute there, I plum forgot that your homosexual obsession is with Christian heterosexual males.

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

      Delete
    12. I wonder what Cornelius thinks about Mapou's racist, bigoted rants. Given that he has never made a single comment, I must assume that he is as big a homophobic bigot as Mapou.

      Since he allows Mapou to treat people like this on his own site, I must assume that he would have no problem with us treating Cornelius in the same way on other sites.

      Delete
    13. LOL! So now, I'm not just homophobic but I'm also racist? ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...

      You'd have a hard time proving that in court. Believe me. I'm just exercising my constitutional right to free speech. It does not surprise that a Christophobic atheist homosexual would want to silence me. Fascism and intolerance are in your blood.

      And what's with the constant and repeated attempts as using cheesy psychology to manipulate Cornelius? The lady doth protest way, way, way too much, methinks.

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

      Delete
  4. Darwinists are taking lunacy to new levels. Poor tormented creatures. Thinking themselves wise, they became fools.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Louis, reading your posts is absolutely painful and embarrassing for others on your side of the argument.

    They are full of insults and add nothing - absolutely nothing - to the conversation.

    Dr. Hunter, can't you do something about this guy? I don't think anyone wants to read the kinds of things he posts. This is his regular pattern.

    I'm off this board as long as Louis is permitted to be fill the board with his rude rhetoric. I don't post that often, so it's not a big loss to the board at all, but his posts just make me cringe.

    Even the atheists are better behaved than he is!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. tokyojim,

      "Louis, reading your posts is absolutely painful and embarrassing for others on your side of the argument.

      They are full of insults and add nothing - absolutely nothing - to the conversation.

      Dr. Hunter, can't you do something about this guy? I don't think anyone wants to read the kinds of things he posts. This is his regular pattern.

      I'm off this board as long as Louis is permitted to be fill the board with his rude rhetoric. I don't post that often, so it's not a big loss to the board at all, but his posts just make me cringe.

      Even the atheists are better behaved than he is!"

      The only thing I can say to this is AMEN!

      As for not posting, I was going to do the same a while ago and decided otherwise. Why let an immature twerp like Louis get in the way of civil dialogue? William, ghostrider and I agree on precious little but we have fun kicking each other around. It need not degenerate to Louis' level of childishness.

      Delete
    2. LOL

      tokyojim, another Christophobic atheist dirt worshipper pretending to be interested in science:

      I'm off this board as long as Louis is permitted to be fill the board with his rude rhetoric.

      LOL. So you think Cornelius needs your presence on his blog, eh? Have you noticed that Cornelius does not accept advertising? What makes this blog so brilliantly special is the specific message that Cornelius conveys: Darwinism is a religion in disguise. It is a religious cult pretending to be about science. I personally just like to call it, the "Church of the Flying Dirt monster." LOL

      You atheists can't stand it, I know. Your own medicine is very bitter, indeed. Stop whining and twisting about and take it, goddammit. You embarrass yourselves.

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

      Delete
    3. Nic, the spineless Christian:

      Why let an immature twerp like Louis get in the way of civil dialogue? William, ghostrider and I agree on precious little but we have fun kicking each other around.

      LOL. You call your exchanges with the dirt worshippers a dialog? That's a laugh. They do nothing but humiliate you day in and day out, man. Wake up. You just provide the dirt worshippers with opportunities to denigrate Christianity (the only reason that they are here) and proselytize on behalf of their stupid religion. That is all. You are the one who should be ashamed of yourself.

      Delete
    4. Louis,

      "You just provide the dirt worshippers with opportunities to denigrate Christianity,..."

      The only one here who is truly denigrating Christianity is you. Atheist remarks against Christianity are natural and to be expected, after all they do not believe in God or the diety of Christ or his atoning work.

      You, on the other hand, do make these claims. However, you do not act as Christ expects his followers to act, which is with humility, love and respect. The result is the atheists only see their misconceptions of Christians being re-enforced.

      As for your claim that they humiliate me continually, I really don't think so. It appears my comments garner at least some respect, whereas yours, for the most part, are met with disgust by both sides of the issue. It's not that you're incapable of decent respectful comments, it simply seems you prefer to be rude and disgusting. It's a pity really.

      Delete
    5. "As for your claim that they humiliate me continually, I really don't think so. It appears my comments garner at least some respect, whereas yours, for the most part, are met with disgust by both sides of the issue."

      Your comments, and yourself, garner respect because you treat others with respect. As you said, we don't agree on much, but it is always a pleasure discussion things with you.

      Delete
    6. Nic the spineless Christian:

      You, on the other hand, do make these claims. However, you do not act as Christ expects his followers to act, which is with humility, love and respect. The result is the atheists only see their misconceptions of Christians being re-enforced.

      As for your claim that they humiliate me continually, I really don't think so. It appears my comments garner at least some respect, whereas yours, for the most part, are met with disgust by both sides of the issue. It's not that you're incapable of decent respectful comments, it simply seems you prefer to be rude and disgusting. It's a pity really.


      Man, pack it up where the sun does not shine. You are nothing but a self-righteous jackass in my book. The only thing Jesus expects from me is faith. My righteousness counts for nothing and neither does yours. We don't have any.

      I don't give a flying marsupial's ass what misconceptions atheists have of Christianity. The atheists hate me precisely because they know right from the get-go that they have absolutely no chance of converting me to their stupid cult. Why? Because I refuse to be preached to by mental midgets.

      You, OTOH, give them a pulpit to spread their doctrine. This is why they like you and praise you and why they are doing their best to silence me. Praise coming from an atheist dirt worshipper just makes me want to puke. Thankfully, Cornelius has more gonads than all of you idiots combined.

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

      Delete
    7. Louis,

      "The only thing Jesus expects from me is faith.My righteousness counts for nothing and neither does yours. We don't have any."

      You're right, salvation comes by grace alone, not by works of righteousness. However, you're wrong if you think Jesus does not expect more of you. You can be a bastion of faith, but if you treat people with contempt and hatred you are not obeying Christ and as such, what good is your faith if it drives others away from you and from Christ? Your faith and your life are to be a light on a hill drawing people towards it, not a club to beat them down with hatred and ridicule.

      "You, OTOH, give them a pulpit to spread their doctrine."

      No, Louis, you do that by acting in a way which is totally contrary to Christ's teaching. Atheists and those who have not yet made a decision for Christ see your conduct and say if that is what it means to be a Christian I want no part of it. That is what makes me so sad, Louis, you're driving people away from Christ.

      Delete
    8. Nic, the spineless Christian:

      You're right, salvation comes by grace alone, not by works of righteousness. However,

      I knew there was going to be "but" or a "however" somewhere. I don't know what I despise the most, self-righteous Christians or Christophobic dirt worshippers.

      No, Louis, you do that by acting in a way which is totally contrary to Christ's teaching. Atheists and those who have not yet made a decision for Christ see your conduct and say if that is what it means to be a Christian I want no part of it. That is what makes me so sad, Louis, you're driving people away from Christ.

      This is so pathetic. You think your job is to bring people to Christ? You think you have that kind of power? Nobody comes to Christ unless Christ draws them. Period. You and I have nothing to do with it.

      Some of you Christians take yourselves way too seriously, I swear. Just worry about your own salvation which can only come through faith and grace. God does not need you to take care of his flock. He knows who they are and takes care of them. The flock knows his voice and will come to him without your help.

      When God decides to choose an actual prophet to send a special message to the world, believe me, you and the entire world will know about it. And I can assure you that he or she will not be some spineless, pious-looking and pontificating fool.

      Delete
    9. Louis,

      "This is so pathetic."

      Yes, Louis, it is. I do pity you. So much hatred, it is really sad.

      Delete
    10. "Yes, Louis, it is. I do pity you. So much hatred, it is really sad."

      Actually, I think it is self-hatred. Which is understandable.

      Delete
    11. Nic the spineless Christian:

      I do pity you.

      I don't care.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    12. Nic

      The only one here who is truly denigrating Christianity is you


      For the record Nic I don't take Louis or his psychotic outbursts as anything close to representing Christianity.

      Delete
    13. Dirt worshipper:

      For the record Nic I don't take Louis or his psychotic outbursts as anything close to representing Christianity.

      You make perfectly clear that you equate Christianity with YEC. Nic is your strawman and you regularly wrestle it to the ground and declare victory. I just laugh at your stupidity.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahaha..

      Delete
    14. ghostrider,

      "For the record Nic I don't take Louis or his psychotic outbursts as anything close to representing Christianity."

      I am glad to hear that, thank you.

      Delete
    15. Dirt worshipper:

      Actually, I think it is self-hatred. Which is understandable.

      And here I was thinking the same thing about you and all the Christophobic atheists who post here.

      Delete
    16. I am glad to hear that, thank you.

      You know something is wrong when a Christian and a dirt worshipping atheist are holding hands.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    17. Louis,

      "You know something is wrong when a Christian and a dirt worshipping atheist are holding hands."

      That raises a question, Louis. Whose example should I follow? Should I follow yours which is to express hatred and contempt to all who disagree with me? Or should I follow Christ's which is to express love and respect towards those with whom I disagree?

      I know how I would answer the question. How about you?

      Delete
    18. Nic the spineless Christian,

      Jesus never showed compassion to the unbeliever. He was especially ruthless with regard to the pious-looking hypocrites who loved to be seen as righteous by others (not unlike you and the evotards on this blog, by the way). If I recall correctly, Jesus also chased a bunch of jackasses from the Temple. No hugs and kisses for those a-holes that I remember.

      By contrast, Jesus hung around those who were despised by the "righteous", e.g., the adulterers, the prostitutes, the tax collectors, the drunkards, a thief condemned on the cross, a Roman centurion, a murderer (Paul of Tarsus), etc. Jesus was also especially fond of women, seeing that they were repressed by society.

      When Jericho fell, only the prostitute and her family were spared. The self-righteous, the Judases, and the holier-than-thous he despised. They look like sheep on the outside but are really wolves on the inside. We see this false piety in all the so-called Christian churches. The Catholic Church, especially, has turned this fake righteousness into a science and an art form. But we should not ignore the self-serving piety of Protestants either.

      Put that in your bong and smoke it.

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

      Delete
    19. Louis,

      "Jesus never showed compassion to the unbeliever."

      You're right, he never showed compassion for the unbeliever. He just died for them.

      Delete
    20. No he did not. Before he departed, he clearly said, "When the Son of man returns, shall he find faith in the world?" Jesus, over and over, would say, "it shall be done according to your faith."

      He did not say, "Shall he find unbelievers" in the world?" As Paul said, Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.

      John also says that Christ died so that anyone who believes in him will not perish but will receive eternal life. Faith and grace are all you need to obtain salvation. Everything else is self-righteousness and hypocrisy.

      IOW, if you don't believe, you're up shit creek.

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

      Delete
    21. Louis,

      Nic: "He just died for them."

      Louis: "No he did not."

      Louis: "John also says that Christ died so that anyone who believes in him will not perish but will receive eternal life."

      So, your argument is you had to believe in him before he died? That would seem to be what you are saying here. Did he not die for those who came to believe in him after his death? If so, then he did indeed die for unbelievers.

      So, which is it Louis? Did he die only for those who believed in him before he died or for unbelievers as well, who came to believe in him after his death?

      If it is the former, you're up the same creek without a paddle, or a life jacket.

      I await your learned response.

      Delete
    22. Nic: "I await your learned response."

      It must have been extremely hard to write that with a straight face.

      Delete
    23. Louis: How many people share your beliefs and worldview? Seems to me that you belong to a religion with a membership of just one - you? I guess you'll have a grand time in heaven all on your own.

      Delete
    24. CaroleTim: "Louis: How many people share your beliefs and worldview? "

      Thankfully, only a handful of hateful, homophobic, mentally challenged people.

      Delete
    25. Nic the spineless Christian:

      So, your argument is you had to believe in him before he died? That would seem to be what you are saying here. Did he not die for those who came to believe in him after his death? If so, then he did indeed die for unbelievers.

      So, which is it Louis? Did he die only for those who believed in him before he died or for unbelievers as well, who came to believe in him after his death?

      If it is the former, you're up the same creek without a paddle, or a life jacket.

      I await your learned response.


      Don't you dare use sarcasm on me, you self-righteous jackass. Understanding is given to those who truly believe.

      You argued that I should behave like Jesus expect me to but when I refuted your nonsense, you ignore the refutation and conjured up a new argument, thinking you found a way to trick me. You have no power against me, man. You're a spineless weakling, just like the evotards who comment here.

      Everybody who is called must be tested. If not in this life, then they must be tested in the next life after the resurrection. There is no getting around this.

      But God does not call everybody. He can search the heart and decides right then and there whether you're worthy of being called and tested. But once you've been called and your faith has been tested, you are a new being. You no longer fear anything.

      King David was an example of a believer who had no fear. This is why he walked up to that jackass Goliath, killed him and cut off his head. David was a man after God's own heart. Why did he kill Goliath? Because the a-hole was insulting David's faith and his God, that's why? Faith makes one zealous this way. That's all. If God wanted to save Goliath, he would have told David and David would have spared the unbeliever and given him a hug instead. But he didn't.

      Delete
    26. CaroleTim:

      Louis: How many people share your beliefs and worldview? Seems to me that you belong to a religion with a membership of just one - you? I guess you'll have a grand time in heaven all on your own.

      No. I'll be in the kingdom with the prostitute from Jericho, Mary Magdalene the prostitute who washed Jesus feet with her hair, King David who murdered a man to take his wife, and many others like them. I'll be in the kingdom with the liars, thieves, murderers, gang bangers, drunkards, enslavers, rapists, adulterers and yes the pedophiles, the lesbians, the transgendered and the male homosexuals too. Why? Because they all believed and God paid for their sins whatever they were.

      Those who do not believe will not be forgiven and will not be given eternal life. They will go to sleep forever. This is what I believe.

      Delete
    27. Evotard:

      CaroleTim: "Louis: How many people share your beliefs and worldview? "

      Thankfully, only a handful of hateful, homophobic, mentally challenged people.


      I actually believe that homosexuals will also be in the kingdom, as long as they believe. I don't judge murderers and pedophiles, let along homosexuals.

      You don't know me, man. I only come out against those unbelievers who attack my religion, I don't care if you're a homosexual or a preacher man. But if you're a believer in Yahweh, you are welcome in my house, regardless of what you are. We can drink good wine, tequila and smoke the peace bong together.

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

      Delete
    28. Mapou: "But if you're a believer in Yahweh, you are welcome in my house, regardless of what you are."

      Thanks for the invitation but, in the immortal words of Jack, "I would rather stick needles in my eyes."

      Delete
    29. I don't care.

      Besides, it was not an invitation. It was a rhetorical statement.

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

      Delete
    30. Louis, you can be my bong coach in the afterlife but that's quite a "zoo" you listed. We have to get rid of pedofiles at least

      Delete
    31. Louis: "You don't know me, man. I only come out against those unbelievers who attack my religion, I don't care if you're a homosexual or a preacher man. "

      You're right Louis, I don't know you and it isn't my place to judge you either. For all I know this persona you use here is just a facade, or perhaps some kind of elaborate ruse, and not who you are in real life. Because I think if you said these kinds of things in the real world it would make you a very unhappy soul. So I like to think what you do here is some form of acting out, for whatever reason you may have.

      Delete
    32. Louis,

      "Don't you dare use sarcasm on me, you self-righteous jackass."

      Okay, I'll take that rant as an 'I don't know.'

      "when I refuted your nonsense, you ignore the refutation and conjured up a new argument, thinking you found a way to trick me."

      I'm not trying to trick you, I'm just pointing out the fact you know nothing about being a Christian. You don't understand even the basics of the faith.

      As for whether or not Christ died for unbelievers, maybe you should work on this a little bit:

      "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

      Romans 5:6-8

      So there you have it, Louis, clear evidence that Christ died for all, that all may come to him and receive forgiveness.

      Delete
    33. Eugen:

      Louis, you can be my bong coach in the afterlife but that's quite a "zoo" you listed. We have to get rid of pedofiles at least

      Don't worry. My understanding is that there will be no pedophiles or anything of the sort in the kingdom. The promise is that we will be reborn in new incorruptible bodies (made of a different kind of matter). We will be neither male nor female and we will all do the right thing because we will be filled with a spirit of goodness. Eventually, we will end up forgetting most if not all of the things that we once did when we were flesh and bones.

      And as far as smoking the bong is concerned, why not? What harm would that do?

      By the way, the nastiness we see in the world is not entirely due to humans. There are alien (non-human) evil spirits that constantly tempt us to do bad things. We humans are just too weak spiritually to resist the urges. Those evil spirits will not be in the kingdom because Yahweh has a plan for them.

      After that, we will have the entire universe to play around with, I guess. Who knows?

      Delete
    34. Nic the idolater:

      So there you have it, Louis, clear evidence that Christ died for all, that all may come to him and receive forgiveness.

      I see you worship a book rather than worship God. That is idolatry. Even the book tell us to test all things which include the book itself.

      The new testament was without a doubt tempered with by the Catholic Church and possibly by other groups. They even found a way to insert the pagan concept of eternal hellfire into it, an evil concept that is never mentioned in the old testament. In my opinion, the only book in the new testament that has not been tampered with is the book of Revelation but only because they have no clue as to what it means.

      Again, nobody comes to God unless God calls him. And, as John said, the Son died for us so that, anyone who believes in him will not perish but will live forever. This means that those who do not believe or those who are not called are doomed.

      PS. I'm tired of this crap. Believe whatever you want to believe. I am not responsible for your salvation. You are.

      Delete
    35. Louis,

      "The new testament was without a doubt tempered with by the Catholic Church and possibly by other groups."

      How convenient, the Bible proves you wrong, so it just so happens it was tampered with by the Catholic Church.

      It's always the same with your type. You make up your own perverted line of theology and when ever the Bible gets in your way you just wave it off by saying it was tampered with. You're playing a dangerous game, Louis, the Bible is clear about those who would pervert the word of God for their own gain.

      "Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

      2 Peter 3:15-16

      Tread carefully.

      Delete
    36. Nic the idolater:

      Tread carefully.

      Man, go pound sand or something. I know where my salvation comes from. It comes from neither you, Peter, Luke nor Paul. All of God's servants of old (e.g., Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Joseph, David, etc.) are saved and will be resurrected into eternal life. Not one of them could have lived long enough to see any of the books of the New Testament. Not one of them ever heard of the hellfire of pagan-influenced Christianity. Not one of them heard of the Catholic and Protestant Churches. How were they saved? God called them and tested their faith and they believed. Then God died for all of them to pay for their sins as he promised long ago according to the metaphor of the passover sacrifice. That's how they were saved. Everything else you latter-day self-righteous Christians add to the equation is crap.

      You are the one who should tread carefully.

      Now leave me alone.

      Delete
    37. Louis,

      "Then God died for all of them to pay for their sins,..."

      And when did this happen?

      Delete
  6. Cornelius Hunter: Therefore the adaptation mechanisms need to be fast-acting and reversible.

    Most of epigenetics can be considered part of the phenotype. This includes cell differentiation in multicellular organisms, the different lifecycle stages found in many organisms, such as butterflies and ferns, as well as phenotypic flexibility allowing adaptation to changing environments.

    Cornelius Hunter: This is because such mechanisms provide a differential reproductive advantage, and therefore a fitness improvement, not under the current conditions, but under some future, unforeseen conditions.

    Epigenetics provides a memory of past successes, and because of the nature of environmental change, conditions are often repeated. There is both theoretical and experimental support for the idea that evolution works to adapt to long-term oscillations.

    Cornelius Hunter: Unlike evolutionary change which is slow, epigenetics is fast.

    There are many biological adaptations to account for rapid environmental change. For instance, the brain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unguided evolution cannot account for brains, so that would be a major problem for your position.

      Delete
  7. Speaking of the brain, Fazale Rana has an interesting post (see below) that he says "reveals brain-mind distinctions."

    http://www.reasons.org/articles/a-christian-perspective-on-brain-computer-interfaces

    ReplyDelete
  8. So happy to see/read the following link. Like the great Bob Dylan said, "they times they are a changing."

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/04/intelligent_des_25102792.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's becoming very obvious to honest thinking scientists that the Emperor has no clothes on.

      Delete
    2. This should be interesting. The last time The Templeton Foundation offered grants up to $5 million to study alternatives to evolution (i.e. ID) not a single IDiot put forward a grant proposal. Not Dembski. Not Behe. Not Meyer. Not Wells. Not Axe. Not Gauger. Even when offered free money the IDiots couldn't think of anything ID could test. :D

      Delete
    3. Scientists would need robust evidential arguments to dissuade us from our reasonable inference.
      “The incredible complex nature of minimal life, likewise, makes it difficult to envision how natural evolutionary processes could have produced even the simplest life-forms.… It is superastronomically improbable for the essential gene set to emerge simultaneously through natural means alone.”
      Fazale Rana

      Delete
    4. This should be interesting. The last time The Templeton Foundation offered grants up to $5 million to study alternatives to evolution

      ID is not anti-evolution so how can be an alternative to it?

      Perhaps the TF should offer money to anyone who can figure out how to test the claims of unguided evolution and see who takes it.

      Delete
    5. Also there is 10 million dollars to anyone who can show that mother nature can produce codes. So far no one has collected it. Go figure...

      Delete
    6. LOL! Another lame Creationist "challenge" with imaginary money that the Creationist gets to be the sole judge of the answers. Kent Hovind tried the same stupid scam 20 years ago.

      Delete
    7. LoL! And another chicken-shit response by the master.

      The money is real, as real as the cowardice evos portray- as real as the untestable nature of the claims your position makes.

      10 million dollars and no one will ever collect it because you would have an easier time showing that mother nature can produce Stonehenges.

      Delete