Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Getting Crushed: Evolutionists Are Now Saying That Some Species Have a Reputation For “Doing Things Their Own Way”

We have seen that the mitochondria DNA of the single-cell eukaryote Trypanosoma brucei is incredibly complex and unique, and make no sense on evolution, and more over that these incredible mitochondria designs reappear in distant species on the evolutionary tree. For instance, the Euglenids and the Dinoflagellates share these bizarre mitochondria similarities. Evolutionists are calling it “Corresponding evolutionary histories” or “Cascades of convergent evolution,” and it is far beyond the explanatory power of the usual just-so stories, such as gene transfer, gene duplication or gene loss. Furthermore, we saw that these incredible similarities go beyond the mitochondria. The Euglenids and Dinoflagellates, for example, also share very odd peculiarities at the molecular level in general, such as polycistronic transcription, trans-splicing and intron poverty. And there is more to the molecular similarities. For instance, both these groups have secondary plastids with unique characteristics. But for now, let’s step back even further, and look at the higher level cell morphology.

In addition to their mitochondria, plastids and protein synthesis details, these distant groups in the evolutionary tree of life share “stunningly similar” cell morphology “although completely different from what is the rule of the eukaryotic cell.” These similarities include:

Dorsoventral flattening
Ventral groove/sulcus
Recurrent flagellum
Subapical flagellar insertion
Paraxonemal rods
Gliding motility
Thickened cell surface
Photoreceptive eyespots

You can hear about these beginning at the [10:05] mark here. It is well worth a listen. And in a related paper, here is how the authors summarize this situation:

Both euglenozoans and alveolates have a reputation for “doing things their own way,” which is to say that they have developed seemingly unique ways to build important cellular structures or carry out molecular tasks critical for their survival. Why such hotspots for the evolution of novel solutions to problems should exist in the tree of life is not entirely clear. However, the deeper we look into these groups, the more often it is found that they are also evolving strikingly similar mechanisms for achieving these essential biological functions. Significantly, however, there is a great weight of phylogenetic data that show these lineages are not closely related: of the 5 eukaryotic supergroups hypothesized to explain all eukaryotic diversity, alveolates and euglenozoans fall into 2 different supergroups, chromalveolates and excavates, respectively. The support for these supergroups as a whole remains contentious, but there is strong support from phylogenomics and many individual phylogenies and rare genomic characters for a specific relationship between alveolates and stramenopiles on one hand, and euglenozoans and heteroloboseans on the other hand. Moreover, no analysis of eukaryotic phylogeny has ever suggested they are closely related to one another. Still more significantly, the majority of the characteristics we discuss below are not universal to all members of either alveolates or euglenozoans, but rather appear to have evolved within a subgroup of each lineage. Altogether, the distribution of these characteristics can really only adequately be explained by convergent evolution. Below, we will examine some of these examples of convergence and what the cooccurrence of convergent traits may tell us about how they evolved.

Doing things their own way? Developed unique ways to build important structures and carry out tasks? Strikingly similar solutions in lineages not closely related?

So what does all this mean? For those not familiar with molecular and cellular biology, and not familiar with the details of evolutionary theory, all of this may seem confusing. Here then is the take-home message. Evolution is a lie.

Evolution may be true, false or somewhere in between. It is difficult to be certain of how the species arose. I’d love to tell you it’s obvious but the science just isn’t that clear. The science is certainly against evolution, but that does not necessarily mean evolution is completely false. We simply can’t know for certain.

So when someone tells you they do know for certain then run, for it’s a lie.

And that’s the rub. Evolutionists are certain and that’s a lie. Over and over evolutionists have made this abundantly clear. In their lectures and in their writings, evolutionists have consistently mandated that evolution is a fact beyond any reasonable doubt. It is the one common thread in evolutionary thought. They say it would be perverse to deny this fact. It is as obvious and true, they say, as is gravity, heliocentrism and the roundness of the Earth.

The problem here is that these are not minor mistakes. It is not merely a technical scientific detail that evolutionists have missed.

This fundamental tenet of evolutionary thought—that evolution is a fact—is utterly at odds with the evidence. It is in spite of the evidence, not because of the evidence. This is because evolution is not about the evidence. Evolution is not about an objective analysis of the biology. You see, evolution is not science, it is dogma.


  1. Dr. Hunter, the clarity of your last paragraph reminds me of the clarity of this quote:

    Bernard d'Abrera on Butterfly Mimicry and the Faith of the Evolutionist - October 2011
    Excerpt: For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,, Evolutionism (with its two eldest daughters, phylogenetics and cladistics) is the only systematic synthesis in the history of the universe (science) that proposes an Effect without a Final Cause. It is a great fraud, and cannot be taken seriously because it outrageously attempts to defend the philosophically indefensible.

  2. Cornelius Hunter

    So what does all this mean? For those not familiar with molecular and cellular biology, and not familiar with the details of evolutionary theory, all of this may seem confusing. Here then is the take-home message. Evolution is a lie.

    Evolution may be true, false or somewhere in between. It is difficult to be certain of how the species arose. I’d love to tell you it’s obvious but the science just isn’t that clear. We simply can’t know for certain.

    So when someone tells you they do know for certain then run, for it’s a lie.

    LOL! Your blustering rhetoric is reaching Ken Ham like levels here CH. You and the rest of the paid liars at the DI must be getting desperate.

    And can't you ever think up some new material? Your dishonest equivocation over the different meanings of the word "evolution" and how it is used got old years ago.

    For the lurkers and for the record: The word "evolution" can refer to either the fact of evolution - the empirically observed patterns of morphological and genetic variation over deep time - or the theory of evolution, which is the scientific explanation for the observed fact.

    No one in science mistakes the two, and no one in science says the theory is a fact. It's only disingenuous professional liars with no scruples who make that claim. Liars who don't mind spitting in the face of the Christian religion's teachings about the importance of honesty just to earn a few extra bucks. Liars who cut and run when called on their continued dishonesty.

    1. Thorton states:

      'For the lurkers and for the record: The word "evolution" can refer to either the fact of evolution - the empirically observed patterns of morphological and genetic variation over deep time'

      Yet, despite Thorton's deeply help belief that morphological and genetic variation over deep time establishes the 'fact' of evolution, the 'fact' is that morphological and genetic evidence is completely at odds with the gradualness that neo-Darwinism predicted.


      Bones, molecules...or both? - Gura - 2000
      Excerpt: Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology. Can the two ever be reconciled?,,, When biologists talk of the 'evolution wars', they usually mean the ongoing battle for supremacy in American schoolrooms between Darwinists and their creationist opponents. But the phrase could also be applied to a debate that is raging (between Darwinists) within systematics.

      The universal ancestor - Carl Woese
      Excerpt: No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.

      Shilling for Darwin — The wildly irresponsible evolutionist - William Dembski - Oct. 2009
      Excerpt: The incongruence of gene and species trees is a standing obstacle, or research problem, in molecular phylogenetics.

      Do orthologous gene phylogenies really support tree-thinking?
      Excerpt: We conclude that we simply cannot determine if a large portion of the genes have a common history.,,, CONCLUSION: Our phylogenetic analyses do not support tree-thinking.

      Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - 2009
      Excerpt: "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,"
      Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist

      Uprooting The Tree Of Life - W. Ford Doolittle
      Excerpt: as DNA sequences of complete genomes have become increasingly available, my group and others have noted patterns that are disturbingly at odds with the prevailing beliefs.

    2. further notes:

      Here are some quotes by leading paleontologists on the true state of the fossil record:

      Let's not forget the Cambrian explosion:

      "The Cambrian Explosion was so short that it is below the resolution of the fossil record. It could have happened overnight. So we don't know the duration of the Cambrian Explosion. We just know that it was very, very, fast."
      Jonathan Wells - Darwin's Dilemma Quote

      Materialistic Basis of the Cambrian Explosion is Elusive: BioEssays Vol. 31 (7):736 - 747 - July 2009
      Excerpt: "going from an essentially static system billions of years in existence to the one we find today, a dynamic and awesomely complex system whose origin seems to defy explanation. Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye, with little or no warning of what is to come in rocks that predate this interval of time." ---"Thus, elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists."

      Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - Sept. 2009
      Excerpt: "The truth is that (finding) “exceptionally preserved microbes” from the late Precambrian actually deepen Darwin’s dilemma, because they suggest that if there had been ancestors to the Cambrian phyla they would have been preserved."

      Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - The Cambrian Explosion - video

      Darwin's Dilemma - Excellent Cambrian Explosion Movie

      But what about the pattern in the fossil record after the Cambrian explosion?:

      Ancient Fossils That Have Not Changed For Millions Of Years - video

      Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record - Casey Luskin
      Excerpt: “The Cambrian Explosion is by no means the only “explosion” in the fossil record. One evolutionist concedes that for the origin of fishes, “this is one count in the creationists’ charge that can only evoke in unison from paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere [no contest].” Plant biologists have called the origin of plants an “explosion,” saying, “the … radiation of land (plant) biotas is the terrestrial equivalent of the much-debated Cambrian ‘explosion’ of marine faunas.” Vertebrate paleontologists believe there was a mammal explosion because of the few transitional forms between major mammal groups: “There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate ‘transitional’ forms between species, but also between larger groups — between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals.” Another study, “Evolutionary Explosions and the Phylogenetic Fuse,” found a bird (as well as a mammal) “Early Tertiary ‘explosion’” because many bird and mammal groups appear in a short time period lacking immediately recognizable ancestral forms. Finally, others have called the origin of our own genus Homo, “a genetic revolution” where “no australopithecine (ape) species is obviously transitional” leading one commentator to call it, like others called the Cambrian Explosion, a “big bang theory” of human evolution."

      Thus either Thorton is severely misled about the evidence or Thorton is being deliberately misleading with the evidence, for despite what he firmly imagines to be true, the 'fact' of evolution is by no means established by morphological and genetic evidence as he maintains it is.

    3. "or the theory of evolution, which is the scientific explanation for the observed fact."

      Then you agree that the origin of all forms of life from a UCLA trough RM+NS is not a fact, only a theory.

    4. Blas

      T: "or the theory of evolution, which is the scientific explanation for the observed fact."

      Then you agree that the origin of all forms of life from a UCLA trough RM+NS is not a fact, only a theory.

      No, the origin of all forms of life from a LUCA is a hypothesis which, although extremely well supported by the available evidence, is not yet considered by the scientific community to be fact.

      Can't any of you IDiots be honest enough to use the terms fact, theory, and hypothesis correctly?

    5. " ... a LUCA is a hypothesis ..."

      That means the evolution theory is also just a hypothesis. Accordingly, evolution is nothing but a non-scientific hypothesis.

  3. Thanks batspit77 for yet another fetid pile of worthless C&Ped drivel.

    Why don't you back to spamming Uncommonly Dense? At least there you have a chance that someone will pay attention to your idiot blithering.

    1. But Thorton I find your religiously motivated insults to be the best at the task of establishing evolution as a 'fact'. People at ID just don't appreciate the subtle way neo-Darwinists like you go about establishing your theory,,, and here at Dr. Hunter's site I have the opportunity to sit at the feet of a master on par with PZ Myers and Larry Moran!

  4. Dr. Hunter, besides the widespread incidence convergence you have recently been hammering home in a very direct manner, and besides the widespread convergent protein sequences noted by JonathanM in this cited paper here,,,

    Frequent and widespread parallel evolution of protein sequences - 2008
    Excerpt: To quantify the extent and type of homoplasy among evolving proteins, we used phylogenetic methodology to analyze 8 genome-scale data matrices from clades of different evolutionary depths that span the eukaryotic tree of life. We found that the frequency of homoplastic amino acid substitutions in eukaryotic proteins was more than 2-fold higher than expected under neutral models of protein evolution.

    ,,,Dr. Hunter I would like to point out something that I have never seen stressed by ID proponenets. A point that I think should be stressed. I would like to see the dramatic differences in protein sequences between chimps and humans, which are supposedly very closely related, stressed. This is important because for one thing it will highlight the importance of junk DNA in the pre-translational phase of coding proteins and two it will dramatically highlight just how different humans and chimps actually are in reality.

    Chimps are not like humans - May 2004
    Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that "83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect," Sakaki said.

    Chimp chromosome creates puzzles - 2004
    Excerpt: However, the researchers were in for a surprise. Because chimps and humans appear broadly similar, some have assumed that most of the differences would occur in the large regions of DNA that do not appear to have any obvious function. But that was not the case. The researchers report in 'Nature' that many of the differences were within genes, the regions of DNA that code for proteins. 83% of the 231 genes compared had differences that affected the amino acid sequence of the protein they encoded. And 20% showed "significant structural changes". In addition, there were nearly 68,000 regions that were either extra or missing between the two sequences, accounting for around 5% of the chromosome.,,, "we have seen a much higher percentage of change than people speculated." The researchers also carried out some experiments to look at when and how strongly the genes are switched on. 20% of the genes showed significant differences in their pattern of activity.

    Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005:

    1. To put it mildly this huge +80% difference between chimps and humans is more than a slight problem for evolutionary materialists. Moreover there is another area of difference between chimps and humans, that I don't know if it has been fully investigated yet, but is an area that I think may very well provide another severe point a demarcation between chimps and humans:

      i.e. There is, 'surprisingly', found to be 'rather low' conservation of Domain-Domain Interactions occurring in Protein-Protein interactions:

      A Top-Down Approach to Infer and Compare Domain-Domain Interactions across Eight Model Organisms
      Excerpt: Knowledge of specific domain-domain interactions (DDIs) is essential to understand the functional significance of protein interaction networks. Despite the availability of an enormous amount of data on protein-protein interactions (PPIs), very little is known about specific DDIs occurring in them.,,, Our results show that only 23% of these DDIs are conserved in at least two species and only 3.8% in at least 4 species, indicating a rather low conservation across species.,,,

      If 'low conservation' can be established for DDIs and PPIs between chimps and humans then this will be very good for ID since Michael Behe has shown it to be extremely difficult to generate novel protein-protein binding sites.

      "The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable."
      Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book "Edge of Evolution")

      Nature Paper,, Finds Darwinian Processes Lacking - Michael Behe - Oct. 2009
      Excerpt: Now, thanks to the work of Bridgham et al (2009), even such apparently minor switches in structure and function (of a protein to its supposed ancestral form) are shown to be quite problematic. It seems Darwinian processes can’t manage to do even as much as I had thought. (which was 1 in 10^40 for just 2 binding sites)

      Protein-Protein Interactions (PPI) Fine-Tune the Case for Intelligent Design - Article with video - April 2011
      Excerpt: The most recent work by the Harvard scientists indicates that the concentration of PPI-participating proteins in the cell is also carefully designed.

    2. Indicating that 80% of the proteins is different can also be interpreted as 100% of the DNA is different… The human and Chimpancee DNA are not identical thus 100% of the DNA is different. However, when looking to the amino acids (the building blocks of these proteins) the number of differences are really small, on average only 1 or 2 amino acids per protein, which generally has no or limited effect on the functionality of these proteins…

      Unlike religion, science and knowledge are also evolving. One cannot proof evolution by pointing to “unexplainable” facts, as time may teach us. Or is it still a fact that the earth is flat and the center of our universe.

    3. Evolutionists are forever trying to proof their theory correct and forever they fail. Still others should believe that their theory is correct. Funny.

  5. Batspit77 just can't help himself. He's a serial C&P spammer.

  6. Mr.Bornagain77:
    Spammers like you have convinced me that it´s preposterous to find any truth in people that don´t believe in self, or free-will, or in meanings.
    thank you very much.
    Juan, from Spain (Europe)

  7. Arguments against evolution have changed in the last five years with an increasing number of arguments being of a very specific and measurable scientific quality... such as this post here.

    Arguing about the interpretation of fossils and such will always have a valuable place (like the Cambrian fossils), but evolutionists are able to create some fudge room in those discussions.

    But stuff like this strikes definitively and scientifically at the heart of the objective nested hierarchy.

    This is absolutely and exactly what evolutionists said would not be found.

    There is no religious rhetoric in observing and scientifically documentating the unique similarities in these supposedly distant organisms.

    It is observable, it is measurable and it is devastating to the so called fact of evolution.

  8. Tedford the idiot

    It is observable, it is measurable and it is devastating to the so called fact of evolution.

    LOL! Gee Tedford, I've lost track of the number of times you Creationists have 'devastated' evolution. Strangely enough, despite being 'devastated' the scientific community has gone right on using evolutionary theory to produce new discoveries and increase understanding without skipping a beat.

    You're going to need a better way to get this "evolution is crushed!!" message out to working scientists besides just running your fat mouth on a backwater Creationist blog.

    1. Thorton claims:

      'Strangely enough, despite being 'devastated' the scientific community has gone right on using evolutionary theory to produce new discoveries and increase understanding without skipping a beat.'

      Yet the truth is:

      Materialists like to claim evolution is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs in medicine, Yet in a article entitled "Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology", this expert author begs to differ.

      "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
      Philip S. Skell - (the late) Professor at Pennsylvania State University.

      Podcasts and Article of Dr. Skell

      Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video

      Intelligent Design and Medical Research - video

      Darwinian Medicine and Proximate and Evolutionary Explanations - Michael Egnor - neurosurgeon - June 2011

      In fact, as to the somewhat minor extent evolutionary reasoning has influenced medical diagnostics, it has led to much ‘medical malpractice’ in the past:

      Evolution's "vestigial organ" argument debunked
      Excerpt: "The appendix, like the once 'vestigial' tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body's immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary 'left over,' many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice" (David Menton, Ph.D., "The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution," St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1).
      "Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery" (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137).
      The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting.

    2. Not to mention the horrific teachings in biology teachers John Scopes' Civic Biology textbook and such.

      The ACLU sided with the teacher at the famous Scopes Monkey trial that taught from a book that...

      "If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country.’

      Following in footpath of the boneheaded statement from Charles Darwin (in his classic Origin of Species which is venerated by the evolutionist elites today) that...

      ‘At some future period … the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous [Having or suggesting human form and appearance] apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope … the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla"

      Such words today would be noted as those of a white supremacist.

      The Civic biology text book had contempt for people with disabilities. It offered the 'solution'.

      Meanwhile the media made all kinds of jokes at the expense of Bryan and the local Tennessee populace. hahaha...

      The true boneheaded ideas of the day came from those that advocated putting people into asylums... all in the name of the scientific advancement of evolution.

      Fortunately America moved towards compassion and treatment and away from contempt for people with disabilities. No thanks to Darwin and friends.

    3. Tedford, you bring up a good point. Let's not forget the horror of the holocaust which, though Darwinists are in complete denial of this fact of history, Richard Weikart has done a excellent job in tying evolutionary reasoning directly to the 'scientific justification' of the holocaust:

      From Darwin To Hitler - Richard Weikart - video

      Can Darwinists Condemn Hitler and Remain Consistent with Their Darwinism? - Richard Weikart -October 27, 2011

      How Evolutionary Ethics Influenced Hitler and Why It Matters - Richard Weikart: - January 2012

      How Darwin's Theory Changed the World
      Rejection of Judeo-Christian values
      Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide.
      “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75).
      Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.).

      footnote: the body count for abortion is now over 50 million in America since it was legalized, by judicial fiat not by public decree, in 1973 (legislation by liberal justices from the bench!):

      Abortion Statistics

    4. I agree that eugenics was breach of the right of self determination among other things.I am glad dictating who one can marry and restricting reproductive rights is a thing of the past. Then you mentioned that passage from the textbook was white supremacist 101, this caused me to wonder. If eugenics sprang from some interpretations of Darwin's Theory, what is the comparable source of the belief that some people were animals? The institution of slavery was built on that theory. The accepted theory of origins in those days was the bible. Is it possible the cause of slavery was creationism? Too simpleminded? Well ,we can say that slavery is compatible with creationism ,just like eugenics is compatible with Darwin's Theory

      And Neal, no one likes eclipses in a quotation. It gives one the feeling that perhaps,there is a chance,that inadvertently, the meaning of the quote is changed.

    5. vel, if anything is too simpleminded it is you equating the origin of slavery to the Bible. Atheistic Materialism has been around since before the ancient Greeks. Not to mention that the sinful heart of man has been around since way before the ancient Greeks!

      you ask, 'Is it possible the cause of slavery was creationism?'

      The answer is no

      Does God Approve of Slavery According to the Bible?
      Excerpt: According to Old Testament law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed:

      "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)

      But lets look at the fruit of Atheism compared to the fruit of Christianity:

      Matthew 7:18-20
      A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

      The unmitigated horror visited upon man, by state sponsored atheism, would be hard to exaggerate,,, Here's what happens when Atheists/evolutionists/non-Christians take control of Government:

      “169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]
      2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide]
      3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide
      4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
      5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
      6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
      7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
      8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military
      9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
      10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges
      11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
      12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
      13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
      14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse
      15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
      16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
      17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia”

      This is, in reality, is probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world.

      From Josh McDowell, Evidence for Christianity, in giving examples of the influence of Jesus Christ cites many examples. Here are just a few:
      1. Hospitals
      2. Universities
      3. Literacy and education for the masses
      4. Representative government
      5. Separation of political powers
      6. Civil liberties
      7. Abolition of slavery
      8. Modern science
      9. The elevation of the common man
      10. High regard for human life

    6. BA,
      Sometimes you miss the point, sometimes I think you ignore it.

      First ,did not mention Christainity or atheism. Support for Eugenics,Nazism,and slavery came from both religious and non religious.This is an historical fact. So all of the good and ill done by people with those beliefs is beside the point.

      Neal and CH,in a another post, religiously contend that Darwin's Theory leads one to view a segment of humanity as subhuman. If that is true,if a overwhelming majority of US slaveholders believed in the Bible Theory of Origins that must be what lead them to view a segment of humanity as subhuman. But as I said, this was an oversimplification just to bring an emotional argument into play. However what is true is that Slavery is as compatible with creationism as eugenics is with Darwin's Theory. Now do you want to address that hypothesis?

    7. Vel, you have no argument of any substance to address! I let you chase your own tail!

    8. My point exactly,that is why Neal's argument is of the same value. Finally we agree.

    9. 'Finally we agree.'

      No we don't! In fact the more I see of your purposely evasive tactics, The more I have come to distrust you!

    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    11. Sorry,but I think we agree ,but of course we can disagree about that. Why the distrust,maybe you could give me a specific example? And as for tactics,there is no design,I am just acting on a whim

    12. You are right - evolution can't be crushed because there is no evolution. As Ghostrider wrote, the so called fact of evolution has been crushed.

      Evolution theory is also crushed, whether evolutionists admit it or not. There isn't a single empirical study proving evolution.

  9. Batspit77, go wipe your chin. You're drooling again.

    1. Moreover Thorton, besides evolutionary reasoning NOT 'producing new discoveries and increasing understanding', and besides the medical malpractice that evolutionary reasoning had led to, is the fact that it can be forcefully argued that evolutionary reasoning, the more dogmatically it has been clung to, has in fact inhibited 'producing new discoveries and increasing understanding'. This is clearly illustrated in the junk DNA fiasco that evolutionary reasoning has foisted off on biology. Indeed imposed on it prior to investigation for any functionality in the non-coding regions of DNA;

      Is Panda's Thumb Suppressing the Truth about Junk DNA?
      Excerpt: Dr. Pellionisz sent me an e-mail regarding his recent experiences at Panda's Thumb. Pellionisz reports that Panda's Thumb is refusing to print his stories about how he has personally witnessed how the Darwinian consensus rejected suggestions that "junk" DNA had function. Dr. Pellionisz's e-mail recounts how some rogue Darwinian biologists have believed that "junk" DNA had function, but it also provides historical proof that this went against the prevailing consensus, and thus such suggestions that "junk"-DNA had function were ignored or rejected by most Darwinian scientists.

      International HoloGenomics Society - "Junk DNA Diseases"
      Excerpt: uncounted millions of people died miserable deaths while scientists were looking for the “gene” causing their illnesses – and were not even supposed to look anywhere but under the lamp illuminating only 1.3% of the genome (the genes)."

      Moreover the supposed Junk regions, once they were looked at more closely, were, amazingly, found to be 'more functional' than the protein coding regions:

      Astonishing DNA complexity update
      Excerpt: The untranslated regions (now called UTRs, rather than ‘junk’) are far more important than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in five different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in seven different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes.

      Incredibly, many leading evolutionists (Ayala in 2010; Francis Collins in 2010) still insist that most of the genome, which does not directly code for proteins, is useless 'Junk DNA'.

      Francis Collins, Darwin of the Gaps, and the Fallacy Of Junk DNA - Wells, Meyer, Sternberg - video

      Some materialists have tried to get around the failed prediction of Junk DNA by saying evolution never really predicted Junk DNA. This following site list several studies and quotes by leading evolutionists that expose their falsehood in denying the functionless Junk DNA predictions that were made by leading evolutionists:

      Functionless Junk DNA Predictions By Leading Evolutionists

    2. This comment (among others) proves you have no response to CH, Bornagain, Tedford, etc. My confidence in ID increases when you post.

  10. Still waiting to see this on a bumper sticker; "Gravity, it's just a theory, like evolution!"

    Sometimes it's what you don't say that makes it obvious what you really believe.

    1. Northernsun. com, same thought, better wording

    2. John

      Still waiting to see this on a bumper sticker; "Gravity, it's just a theory, like evolution!"

      Yeah, those darn gravity-ists, always claiming gravity is a fact! What a bunch of liars! Everyone knows gravity is a religious belief!

      Just like evolution, right John?

    3. Can you deal with the substance of CH's post?

    4. John, if natural selection is your definition of evolution then, yes we observe it just like we do gravity.

      But evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

      But evolutionists can't even come up with a single and definitive example of an animal speciation event that has been observed in the history of mankind. The best they seem to come up with is mating preferences influencing some reproductive isolation and hybrids which are normally sterile which keeps both parent species distinct.

      French zoologist Pierre Grasse said it well that "selection gives tangible form to and gathers together all the varieties a genome is capable of producing, but does not constitute an innovative evolutionary process".

      It seems like if you want to compare gravity to evolution you could at least give a comparable example of an observed example of evolution. Anything?

    5. Though neo-Darwinists are infamous for claiming that Darwinian evolution is as well established as gravity. This claim is false! For one thing Gravity, as formulated within General Relativity, can be falsified:

      The happiest thought of my life.
      Then the Principle of Equivalence states that
      'the inertial and gravitational masses are identical.'
      The whole of the General Theory of Relativity rests on this postulate, and will fail if one can find a material for which the inertial and gravitational masses have different values.

      Whereas, neo-Darwinism has no identifiable falsification criteria:

      Science and Pseudoscience – Imre Lakatos
      “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

      Moreover, General Relativity has been confirmed to stunning degree of accuracy:

      Einstein’s General Relativity Tested Again, Much More Stringently - 2010
      Excerpt: As Müller puts it, “If the time of freefall was extended to the age of the universe – 14 billion years – the time difference between the upper and lower routes would be a mere one thousandth of a second, and the accuracy of the measurement would be 60 ps, the time it takes for light to travel about a centimetre.”

      Whereas neo-Darwinists have yet to demonstrate that even a single protein can arise by purely material processes:

      Evolution vs. Functional Proteins - Doug Axe - Video

      ,,, Moreover, though neo-Darwinists refuse to accept any reasonable falsifications criteria for Darwinism, the fact is that science itself could care less and falsification has been provided against neo-Darwinism by advances in quantum mechanics:

      Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information

      Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description)

    6. We can see gravity working but no evidence for evolution. Subspecies are not evolution but devolution, as their genome impoverish.

  11. Good point Neal,if only there was a source which creates variation within a population for NS to act on. Too bad stupid French zoologists didn't understand that in your version of the theory

  12. velikovskys, so what have mutations really been observed to do? Speciation? Example please.

  13. Change the genome, in a seemingly random way.

  14. Lenski long term e coli experiment .

  15. What's the new species called?

  16. Hawaiian Silversword alliance

    "Silversword alliance refers to an adaptive radiation of over 50 species in the composite or sunflower family, Asteraceae. The group is endemic to Hawaiʻi, and is derived from a single immigrant to the islands. For radiating from a common ancestor at an estimated 5.2±0.8 Ma, the clade is extremely diverse, composed of trees, shrubs, subshrubs, mat-plants, cushion plants, rosette plants, and lianas."

    But we have no evidence of speciation ever happening, right idiot?

  17. Speciation is not evolution. Evolution would need functionally new genes but speciation causes gene loss. Speciation means devolution not evolution.

  18. Speciation has nothing to do with evolution. Speciation is devolution as it occurs through gene speciation which again means smaller gene pool.