Saturday, February 10, 2018

Here is How Evolutionists Respond to the Evidence

Unresponsive

Mutations are rare and good ones are even more rare. One reason mutations are rare is because there are sophisticated error correction mechanisms in our cells. So according to evolution random mutations created correction mechanisms to suppress random mutations. And that paradox is only the beginning. Because error correction mechanisms, as with pretty much everything else in biology, require many, many mutations to be created. If one mutation is rare, a lot of mutations are astronomically rare. For instance, if a particular mutation has a one-in-a-million (one in 10^6) chance of occurring in a new individual, then a hundred such particular mutations have a one in 10^600 chance of occurring. It’s not going to happen.

How do evolutionists reckon with this scientific problem?

First, one common answer is to dismiss the question altogether. Evolution is a fact, don’t worry about the details. Obviously this is not very compelling.

Second, another common answer is to cast the problem as a strawman argument against evolution, and appeal to gradualism. Evolutionists going back to Darwin have never described the process as “poof.” They do not, and never have, understood the process as the simultaneous origin of tens or hundreds, or more mutations. Instead, it is a long, slow, gradual process, as Darwin explained:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case […] Although the belief that an organ so perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection, is enough to stagger any one; yet in the case of any organ, if we know of a long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor, then, under changing conditions of life, there is no logical impossibility in the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection through natural selection

The Sage of Kent could find “no such case”? That’s strange, because they are ubiquitous. And with the inexorable march of science, it is just getting worse. Error correcting mechanisms are just one example of many. Gradualism is not indicated.

What if computer manufacturers were required to have a useful, functional electronic device at each step in the manufacturing process? With each new wire or solder, what must emerge is a “long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor.”

That, of course, is absurd (as Darwin freely confessed). From clothing to jet aircraft, the manufacturing process is one of parts, tools, and raw materials strewn about in a useless array, until everything comes together at the end.

The idea that every single biological structure and design can be constructed by one or two mutations at a time, not only has not been demonstrated, it has no correspondence to the real world. It is just silly.

What evolution requires is that biology is different, but there is no reason to believe such a heroic claim. The response that multiple mutations is a “strawman” argument does not reckon with the reality of the science.

Third, some evolutionists recognize this undeniable evidence and how impossible evolution is. Their solution is to call upon a multiverse to overcome the evidence. If an event is so unlikely it would never occur in our universe, just create a multitude of universes. And how many universes are there? The answer is, as many as are needed. In other words, when confronted with an impossibility, evolutionist simply contrive a mythical solution.

Forth, another common response that evolutionists make is to appeal to the fitness of the structure in question. Biological designs, after all, generally work pretty well, and therefore have high fitness. Is this not enough to prove that it evolved? For evolutionists, if something helps, then it evolves. Presto.

To summarize, evolutionists have four different types of responses to the evidence, and none of the responses do the job.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

156 comments:

  1. Living creatures aren't manufactured items like computers or jet airplanes where the piece parts are gathered first then assembled all at once.

    Another incredibly stupid Creationist analogy they just won't let die.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very impressive.

      Argument #1: Life is different than non life; biology is different than physics. Therefore, the millions of species and all their structures and designs can undoubtedly be constructed via a long, long sequence of functional structures, separated by only 1 or 2 mutations, most of which have never been observed. Ignore the fact this completely contradicts what we do know from what we actually can build.

      Argument @2: It's stupid.

      Delete
    2. And oh, by the way, if it was true (that long pathways of finely-graded functional structures are ubiquitous and lead to the millions of species in the world), it would certainly have to be one of the most profound, incredible scientific discoveries in history. Second only to the finding that evolution just happened to create a molecular and cellular architecture (nucleic acids, transcription and translation protein machinery for protein synthesis, etc.) which then could just happen to access and traverse those myriad pathways.

      Delete
    3. Idiot Ghost: Another incredibly stupid Creationist analogy they just won't let die.

      All Darwinists kiss each other's asses for fun. It's gross.

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

      Delete
    4. Living creatures aren't manufactured items like computers or jet airplanes where the piece parts are gathered first then assembled all at once.

      How do you know how the originally designed organisms were manufactured? You definitely don't have a scientific explanation to account for living organisms. So perhaps you should focus on that.

      Delete
    5. Hey Louis,

      Why not give Ghostrider an intelligent, mature response which addresses his point? Speak to his argument that the manufacture of an airplane is not analogous to the construction of a living organism.

      Delete
    6. The dirt worshipper will get nothing but scorn and ridicule from me. He's a jackass.

      Delete
    7. Now that we have much more insight into how a cell split happens "growing" is much more like a manufacturing process than we ever could have imaged. Have you seen what Kensin's are and how they do their work in a cell?

      Delete
  2. The complexity problem, aka the curse of dimensionality, kills Darwinism before it is even born. Bleep! Darwinism immediately becomes a big pile of BS. What does this make Darwinists? It makes them little walking sacks of BS, of course.

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

    ReplyDelete
  3. I remember many years ago before I was a Christian and before I knew even a single thing about the theory of evolution, when I heard that the theory required random/blind mutations, I literally laughed out loud. I knew immediately that it was horse crap....and to watch this crowd 10 years later continue to circle the wagons and religiously-defend chance as a "scientific" explanation for the origin of complex features, is as touching as it is pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. as touching as it is pathetic.

      You're very kind. The truth is that it is a sign of a predisposition to be evil in the face of hard truth. This is what makes them stupid. They might even be very intelligent in other matters and some are. So it's not a brain disorder. It's a spiritual disorder.

      Delete
  4. Dr. Hunter,

    At what point are these random mutations suppose to happen? When a cell divides? Are there other times when DNA is transmitted? If so, are there error correcting functions in these as well?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey. From my understanding, mutations happen during cell replication. When the dna strand is being split, and mirrored. But mutations that affect offspring, only happen in the sex cells (creation of sperm, and ova).

      Delete
  5. The reason that cells have error correcting mechanisms is that almost all genetic mutations are deleterious. Without error correction, nothing would survive, period. The only mutations normally allowed by genetic systems are the ones that facilitate epigenetics and adaptation. This is, of course, programmed adaptation, not some Darwinist evolution BS.

    Only rarely do we get mutations that the correction mechanisms somehow failed to prevent. This is usually due to a high amount of toxicity in the environment that overwhelms the system. These mutations are almost invariably deleterious.

    The idea that correction mechanisms evolved via random mutations is so laughable that those who support it (i.e., Darwinists aka dirt worshippers) deserve nothing but scorn and ridicule. Day in and day out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yea, the error correcting function is a defeater of Darwinian evolution. Its pure fantasy to think that a random mutation by random mutation can build an error correcting function that eliminates random mutations.

      What I'm trying to ask is that how do Darwinist claim that these mutations occur? It cannot be by cell division for in cell division you have the error correcting function preventing mutations. So how else do they propose it happens?

      Delete
    2. They have no plausible answer. They pulled everything about evolution straight out of their rear ends. They are all liars and gutless aholes. Their method of persuasion is intimidation but not everybody is afraid.

      Delete
  6. Seems to me it would have to be in the sperm or egg cell if it's going to be passed to the next generation. If your liver cell has a mutation that would not be passed on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, Bob, it seems to me that we have lots and lots of life we can study to see how these mutations could propagate to the next generation.

      So we know that cell division is guarded by error correction functions. What other paths are there? How can a mutation enter the sperm and egg cycle and be beneficial. In addition to this how many beneficial changes are needed at one time to create a new function?

      Delete
    2. Even the sickle cell trait can be beneficial. And that requires just one point mutation in one parent's gamete.

      Delete
  7. In metazoans, a genetic repair mechanism in somatic cells would be very beneficial. No cancer. If this results in no mutations in gamete cells then evolution would grind to a halt. Thankfully, with modern DNA mapping techniques, we can figure this out. In humans, between 50 and 100 per generation. Is this enough?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite the own goal. For evolutionists, the demonstration of fitness is sufficient. If something helps, then it evolves. Presto.

      Delete
    2. “Own goal” seems to be the response you make when you can’t address the comment. I wish I get to play poker with you. I would like to retire early.

      You do realize that evolution is all about fitness within local environments. Not progress. Not increased complexity. Not a purpose. As Gould said, bacteria are the dominant life forms on earth and will be until the sun burns out. Metazoans and humans are just “lucky” accidents.

      And your DNA repair mechanisms aren’t even a hindrance in the evolution of bacteria. If they were, we could have stopped with pennicillin.

      Delete
    3. “Own goal” seems to be the response you make when you can’t address the comment.

      A strange comment given that I explained the problem. Evolutionists just don’t understand it, which explains why you made your original comment in the first place. You are providing a good demonstration of something we have discussed here from time to time. As I explained:

      For evolutionists, the demonstration of fitness is sufficient. If something helps, then it evolves. Presto.

      As the OP explains, a fundamental problem with evolution is that you cannot demonstrate, and everything in science argues against, long, gradual pathways of finely-graded intermediate forms of generally increasing fitness, separated by only one or two mutations, going from the first crude life form to every single extant species (many millions), and all of their designs. This is what Darwin claimed is real, over against all science, and without a shred of empirical evidence, let alone common sense. This claim is utterly bizarre and silly. As soon as you need more than just a few mutations to occur together, then it’s game over. Evolution is demolished.

      Your rejoinder that “Well it has high fitness” is not only a non sequitur and non responsive to the OP, but it is what would be expected under design, and hence the perfect own goal. I do owe you, however, because we left this common rejoinder out. You have reminded us of this common answer, and the OP will be edited accordingly.

      Delete
    4. Only one to two mutations? You have between 50 and 100 mutations just from your parents to you. And how many generations between you and our common anscestor with the chimp, or the vole, or the frog? With intermingling of these mutations with a similar number of mutations amongst each member of each local population along that track.

      Your incredulity, and lack of understanding of basic math, is showing.

      Delete
    5. Those mutations don't generally do anything. You can't just have random mutations creating things.

      Delete
    6. Dirt worshipper: Your incredulity, and lack of understanding of basic math, is showing.

      What is it about liars and propagandists that causes them to project their own deficiencies on others. The basic math that destroys all Darwinist crap is called the curse of dimensionality.

      Now, you evil little man, look into a mirror and smack yourself really hard over and over until you get it.

      Delete
    7. Lets do some math, William:

      Starting with Lucy (which has been debunked but is still be used) 3.2 million years ago.
      This gives us 80k generations of changes.

      Using your upper end of 100 mutations from parent to child lets see how much of the human genome will be impacted by these changes. First a few assumptions in favor of evolution:

      1. Once a positive change has been made there will never be a negative change to undo that change.
      2. Assume that changes happen in such a way that new specified information is added to the genome that results in actually building something new.
      3. Well assume that changes that do not add new functionality are kept for future enhancements. This is in contrast to what Darwinian Evolution states.

      First, these mutations are nucleotide's being changed in the DNA. Most of these 100 changes are do nothing changes. They do not help. A small percentage is disease causing so they do not count.

      To support our second assumption above lets say that 10% of these changes are actually good changes that help to build something new. This is being extremely generous to evolution. Why? Because I'm going to assume that these 10% is actual changes that make something new. Upgrade something that needs to be better, etc... We do NOT observe this kind of changes. What we do observe are do nothing changes or disease causing changes.

      So in 80k generation we have 800,000 nucleotide changes that actually build something new. But how many nucleotide pairs are there in the human genome? Over 3 billion. That is less than 0.03% of the human genome. So that means that 99.97% of the human genome remains untouched. So lets go with the contested value of DNA difference between a chimp and human of 1.2%. But 1.2% is WAY higher that 0.03% by a factor of 40.

      This is not enough changes necessary to get from Lucy to us.

      Delete
    8. Excellent argument, Mr. Shea. The preponderance of solid arguments against Darwinism should convince everybody except, of course, Darwinists. It's not rocket science. This is why I say Darwinism is a religion of cretins and aholes.

      Delete
    9. And how many generations between you and our common anscestor with the chimp, or the vole, or the frog?

      There isn't any scientific evidence that says we have chimps as a common ancestor. There isn't any way to scientifically test the claim. And to top it off no one even knows if any amount of genetic change can produce the physiological and anatomical differences between chimps and humans.

      And given the alleged fact that chimps and humans are only less than 2% genetically different it should be easy to link the genetic differences to those anatomical and physiological differences observed. So either evolutionists are total imbeciles or there isn't any such links.

      Delete
    10. Metazoans and humans are just “lucky” accidents.

      Thank you for proving your position is not about science.

      Delete
    11. Steve, ignoring the fact that you are using a ridiculously large generation length of 40 years, your math is based on a direct one-to-one lineage. But we are starting with a population of Lucys with some level of genetic variation to start with (whatever mutations tat had accumulated over history. Each generation adds more variation due to mutation. and with each generation, there is also a mixing of DNA, with their incumbent mutations, amongst different lineages in the population. When you take all of this into account, there is plenty of time and sufficient generations to get the change that we see.

      Delete
    12. CH: "You can't just have random mutations creating things."

      They do it all of the time.

      Delete
    13. When you take all of this into account, there is plenty of time and sufficient generations to get the change that we see.

      That is your science-free opinion, anyway. Too bad you don't have anything for support.

      They do it all of the time.

      And more science-free opinion.

      Look, willie, we know that you don't have anything beyond your say-so so why even bother?

      Delete
    14. Lies, intimidation and incessant propaganda are the only tools used by Darwinists to BS the people. Their goal is not science but fascism. They are not against religion. They are against the other religions. They want to be the only religion left standing and they will try to achieve it by force and violence if necessary. They have already tried it many times: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, North Korea, the de facto control of education in western nations, etc.

      This is not about the origins of the species. It's about control. They are an evil bunch.

      Delete
    15. Just a reminder - when calculating the mutation rate per generation, don't forget that the mutation itself must be located in reproductive cells - like eggs or sperm. These ‘germ-line mutations’ are the ONLY ones that count.

      Somatic mutations, those that do not produce mutations in gametes, cannot be passed on to future generations.


      Delete
    16. Louis: "This is not about the origins of the species. It's about control. They are an evil bunch."

      What do you think should be done to thwart this evil? Your blog indicates you have some special knowledge - maybe now is the time to share it?

      Or is this just a sign of the end times and we should pray for grace and enlightenment for them?

      Delete
    17. What do you think should be done to thwart this evil?

      Nothing other than be aware of it. They're not going away any time soon. Besides, they are not the source of the evil. They are just being used like every other group. The evil non-human powers that control the world don't want any particular group to win. They are only interested in playing humans against one another. They enjoy our suffering. They love the mayhem, the wars, the crime, the lies, deceptions, etc. It's entertainment to them.

      As a Christian, I know that we're approaching the end of this world and the beginning of the new one. A powerful prophet was promised to arrive first and deliver a powerful message from Yahweh. Yahweh will return soon after that, in the nick of time to prevent the world from destroying itself. I'm just one of the workers whose job it is to decipher the ancient mysteries that have been sealed until now.

      Take it or leave it.

      Delete
    18. Map Ou: “A powerful prophet was promised to arrive first and deliver a powerful message from Yahweh.“

      If Joe is that prophet, please don’t take me up in the rapture.

      Delete
    19. Yo, Spear Shaker. Was I talking to you, maggot?

      Delete
    20. William,

      CH: "You can't just have random mutations creating things."

      William: "They do it all of the time."

      But that is the question at the heart of the debate, do random mutations actually create? You believe they do. But is your argument actually supported by the evidence or simply your philosophical position vis a vis the interpretation of the evidence?

      Delete
    21. Louis: "'m just one of the workers whose job it is to decipher the ancient mysteries that have been sealed until now."

      That's interesting...how did you come to the realization that you were called to do this? Are there others you collaborate with on this?

      Delete
    22. how did you come to the realization that you were called to do this?

      The idea came to me decades ago that most of the ancient religious metaphors in the Bible (Ezekiel's wheels, the 7-branch menorah and the 7 Churches of Asia, for example) had modern scientific meanings that would transform the world. All of my understanding of the brain and intelligence came from two occult books: Revelation and the book of Zechariah. Then I began to implement what I learned in software. That's when I knew I had something. It's not up to me to release my findings. They will be released at the appointed time.

      Are there others you collaborate with on this?

      I found a handful of people who are very interested, especially in my physics findings. No active collaborators yet other than a couple of people implementing my computer hardware/software ideas (Project COSA).

      Delete
    23. "And your DNA repair mechanisms aren’t even a hindrance in the evolution of bacteria. If they were, we could have stopped with pennicillin."

      Repair mechanisms in prokaryotes are great models that make learning about eukaryotes much easier, yet their repair mechanisms are still quite intricate with many unknown pieces. For example, in the process of replicating DNA and the systems put in place so the bacteria can distinguish the template strand are quite amazing.

      It appears that organisms have gone to great lengths to ensure molecules to man evolution does not occur.

      As a microbiologist I do get tired of people pointing out microbes and antibiotic resistance as proof of evolution. The long term E.coli project (LTEE) keeps getting touted that way and it is mostly a bust in that sense. It is my understanding that the E. coli picked up the ability to metabolize citrate which is an inaccurate spin because it had always had the ability to metabolize citrate. So, Lenski has been going at it since 1988 using bacteria and by now he has done countless generations (bacteria replicate really fast) but at the end of the day he still has E. coli. The project also has seen several mutations in the DNA repair systems which then allowed for more mutations. So, its mutation rate appears to be possibly artificially inflated.

      As for antibiotic resistance, it is known that most of this resistance is picked up by bacteria either from sex or biofilms and incorporated into a strand of circular, extracellular DNA called a plasmid.

      In no way does antibiotic resistance or even the LTEE provide a mechanism of a mutation that actually even turns E.coli into Shigella which have subtypes that are almost indistinguishable.

      Bacteria does not have species issues like with higher organisms as RNA is used to classify bacteria now much less a biochemical analysis and gram stain.

      Delete
    24. Louis: "I found a handful of people who are very interested, especially in my physics findings."

      I hope you have other Christians in your life that mentor and encourage you. We all need fellowship and support of others.

      Delete
    25. Nic: “But that is the question at the heart of the debate, do random mutations actually create? You believe they do. But is your argument actually supported by the evidence or simply your philosophical position vis a vis the interpretation of the evidence?“

      Actually there are plenty of examples of mutations “building things”. Antibiotic resistance, Lenski’s experiments. Nylonase. The research literature is full of examples. Joke would deny that these examples are real, but we both know what his opinions are worth.

      Delete
    26. You just gotta love dirt worshippers acting like they are the wisdom givers of the world.

      Darwin and other dirt worshippers did not invent mutations. Mutations are a natural part of adaptation and programmed variability. Part of the correction mechanism in the genes is to allow a limited number of random mutations in order to promote variability. This is true by design. Heck, our immune system would not work without mutations. And mutated bacteria are still bacteria. Mutations do not prove dirt worshippers know what they're talking about. They're a bunch of liars and cowards preaching a stupid religion.

      Finally, mutations do not build anything. They modify existing genes within programmed limits.

      Delete
    27. Anti-biotic resistance doesn't entail building things. Lenski's experiments doesn't demonstrate random mutations building things. How did you determine nylonase was the result of random, as in chance, mutations?

      The debate pertains to blind and mindless processes. So your equivocation is meaningless.

      There isn't anything in the literature that shows random mutations/ natural selection can build protein machines. There isn't anything that shows it can produce new genes.

      One thing is clear, willie's opinions don't matter at all.

      Delete
    28. Is Bacterial Resistance
      to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?
      :

      Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” However, analysis of the genetic events causing this resistance reveals that they are not consistent with the genetic events necessary for evolution (defined as common “descent with modification”). Rather, resistance resulting from horizontal gene transfer merely provides a mechanism for transferring pre-existing resistance genes. Horizontal transfer does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes. Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated. Instead, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution. These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding. Antibiotic resistance may also impart some decrease of “relative fitness” (severe in a few cases), although for many mutants this is compensated by reversion. The real biological cost, though, is loss of pre-existing systems and activities. Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot validly be offered as examples of true evolutionary change.

      Strike one

      Delete
    29. This website eats posts... (:

      William, you stepped into the trap that my last post had in it. I had several assumptions in it that gave away the stop to evolution. In particular number 2: Assume that changes happen in such a way that new specified information is added to the genome that results in actually building something new.

      We have never observed this. Never has there ever been a new function added to a species that we can check the parents and see that this is not the case but is completely new to the child. Nothing in the bacteria level changes or virus level changes are candidates. But there is another argument that is a complete defeater of any Darwinian idea. Lets first define this idea clearly:

      A Darwinian approach to life says that the physical world is all there is and that life is here by a purposeless “creation.” Darwinian evolution says that life “evolved” by a random mutations acted upon by natural selection. This means that there is no purpose in life. This means that there is no meaning in life. If Darwin is correct then life is purposeless and meaningless. The logic then becomes:

      If Darwinian Evolution is true then Life has no meaning.

      The contropositive of this is:

      If life has meaning and purpose then Darwinian evolution is not true.

      But this is exactly what we find. We find that life does indeed have meaning an purpose. So its not logically possible for life to have “evolved” by a unguided, purposeless “creation”.

      Since there is no empirical verification of Darwin's claims and since all such claimed evidence can be explained by other worldviews then there is no basis by which Darwin's views should be accepted.

      This means, William, that you are more than dirt. That life is more that this life. And there is purpose in your life.

      Delete
    30. William,

      "Antibiotic resistance,.."

      Antibiotic resistance results from a loss of information not a gain which would necessary if something was 'built'.

      As for Lenski's work, bacteria remaining bacteria is not really evidence of mutations building things.

      Just got back from Jasper. It was a great week for snow and skiing. My wife had a great time while I was unable to ski this trip due to nerve issues in my leg.

      Delete
    31. Nic: "Antibiotic resistance results from a loss of information not a gain which would necessary if something was 'built'."

      There are many different ways in which antibiotic resistance happens. To say that they are all the result of loss of information is simply not correct.

      "As for Lenski's work, bacteria remaining bacteria is not really evidence of mutations building things."

      Nic, you are much smarter than this. To argue that evolution isn't true just because we haven't seen a bacteria change into something else is Joe logic.

      If you couldn't get on the slopes, I hope that you could at least drown your sorrows in the Jasper Brewing Company restaurant.

      Delete
    32. There are many different ways in which antibiotic resistance happens. To say that they are all the result of loss of information is simply not correct.

      Already covered.

      To argue that evolution isn't true just because we haven't seen a bacteria change into something else is Joe logic.

      Bacteria evolving into bacteria is evolution. So I don't understand your problem. If you don't have an argument then just say so. No need to get personal every time your weaknesses are exposed.

      Also you don't have a mechanism capable of producing anything but bacteria given populations of bacteria. To say otherwise is Cinderella logic.

      Delete
    33. Cinderella logic? He he. Is it like dirt worshipper logic?

      Delete
    34. WIlliam,

      "To argue that evolution isn't true just because we haven't seen a bacteria change into something else is Joe logic."

      Thanks for the compliment. :) But the logic is sound when applied to the argument for descent from a common ancestor. For evolution from a common ancestor to be demonstrated you would need to see bacteria become non-bacteria. As such, Lenski's work does nothing to support the idea of common descent.

      "I hope that you could at least drown your sorrows in the Jasper Brewing Company restaurant."

      I spent my days in the chalet listening to music and people watching which is always entertaining. I also took the opportunity to watch Casablanca once again.

      Did not get to Jasper Brewing Company this time but did do Jasper Pizza. Funny thing is, we never order pizza.

      Delete
    35. Joke: “No need to get personal every time your weaknesses are exposed.“

      Pot. Kettle. Black.

      http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=5a8609d235da2890;act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=11220

      Delete
    36. LoL! Your weaknesses were exposed there too. What was your point? That I expose your weaknesses wherever you blather about?

      Delete
    37. Yup. I guess calling people “faggots” and “ass munchers” is part of exposing weaknesses.

      Delete
    38. LoL! Of course you would focus on my responses and not what led to them. All you do is call people names, post childish images, bluff, lie, misrepresent and bloviate. Focus on that and not how people respond to your trope.

      Delete
    39. Joke: “LoL! Of course you would focus on my responses and not what led to them.“

      I’m interested. What could lead to you calling people “faggots” and “ass munchers”? Most of us grew out of that infantile stage by the age of ten or twelve.

      Delete
    40. If you're a homosexual male who goes around acting like there is nothing wrong with you and that it's perfectly normal human male behavior to enjoy being pounded in the rear end, then you are indeed a "faggot".

      On the other hand, if you are a homosexual and you acknowledge there is something abnormal with you, then you have my sympathies. I hope modern science can find a solution to your problem.

      Delete
    41. How can gays believe in Darwinism since, according to Darwinism, they are unfit for survival? I mean, if you can't or refuse to reproduce, your genes can't survive.

      Delete
    42. Being provoked by those types of people is what has me responding that way, willie. And with the infantile trope you post you aren't in any position to criticize anyone.

      Delete
    43. Joke: “Being provoked by those types of people is what has me responding that way, willie.“

      How very mature of you. Mullings must be so proud of you.

      Delete
    44. Mapou, you and Joe appear to have some strange obsession with homosexuality. Why is that?

      Delete
    45. Where I live in California, I am surrounded by homosexuals of both sexes. I interact with them everyday. I have gained a good understanding of their dysfunction. They are a deranged, frustrated and depressed bunch. I feel sorry for their plight.

      If you think women are being sexually harassed by men, you won't believe how often heterosexual males are being harassed by out-of-control gay men in certain cities and neighborhoods. If the same standards were applied in all cases, a good percentage of gay males would be incarcerated. This would not be the right thing to do because they cannot help acting the way they do. It's an illness.

      Delete
    46. So willie acts like an immature troll and it's my fault for responding in kind.

      What a total loser you are, willie.

      Delete
    47. willie seems to have some strange fixation with quote-mining, bluffing, lying and being a hypocrite. Why is that?

      Why is it OK for willie to be an immature jerk but when someone treats it in kind it throws a hissy-fit?

      Delete
    48. Louis, William is thankful for the info on CA situation. He's catching first plane to LA :D

      Delete
    49. willie-

      And with the infantile trope you post you aren't in any position to criticize anyone.

      The entire AtBC site is a bastion for infantile gossip and immature jerks. And you are one of the regulars. Hypocrite.

      Delete
    50. Joke: "The entire AtBC site is a bastion for infantile gossip and immature jerks."

      They even have a tread dedicated to one of these infantile immature jerks.

      Delete
    51. And that thread proves that you and yours are the immature jerks, hypocrite. Nice own goal.

      You attack people and then get all huffy & puffy when they hit back.

      Delete
    52. Joke: “And that thread proves that you and yours are the immature jerks, hypocrite.“

      I am comfortable with letting people judging my behaviour as compared to yours. Here is the link for any who are interested in Joe at his best.

      http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=5a87606b3264b2a1;act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=11220

      Delete
    53. Whatever willie. If you think anything in that thread shows that you and yours are something beyond immature jerks please link to it. If you can show that you had any mature responses in that thread please do it.

      But that is just a distraction. You don't have any evidence of genetic accidents, errors and mistakes actually building something. You were caught in a bluff and it was called. You couldn't answer so you threw up this distraction only to be exposed as a hypocrite.

      Delete
    54. Louis: “If you think women are being sexually harassed by men, you won't believe how often heterosexual males are being harassed by out-of-control gay men in certain cities and neighborhoods.”

      I have not heard of this before or read anything in any form of media about it. Do you have any sources to back this up? I live in California too and certainly where I live nothing like this happens despite a fairly large gay community.

      Delete
    55. I have not heard of this before or read anything in any form of media about it.

      Most men who get hit on or harassed by gays do not like to talk about it. They're ashamed of it. This is why you don't hear much about it. It happens all the time at the office, in bars and even on the streets in gay areas.

      Also there is the political correctness thing that keep people from expressing themselves for fear of being accused of being homophobic. Not all gay men hit on heterosexual males but a significant percentage of them cannot help it. It's an obsession with them.

      I have a gay friend (former coworker) who cannot help making personal sexual innuendos all the time even though I make it clear to him that I am not interested. I just laugh when he calls me "queer bait." I know he can't help it.

      Delete
    56. The word evolution is part of the problem. It means two way, way different things in biology. The first is just simply "change". Any "change" in a living thing like a bacteria is said that it evolved. A bacteria evolved antibiotic resistance. Ok, more simply put it changed to adapt to the antibiotics. But the other definition of evolution is implied every time the "change" definition is used which is: "one species changing into another."

      There is no "evidence" for the second definition where you must not first assume that this definition is true.

      But we know that Darwinian Evolution is false because life has meaning and purpose.

      Delete
    57. Louis, you didn’t provide any sources, just a personal anecdote. I also have many gay friends too (both sexes) and have not observed what you do. You make it sound that is some widespread epidemic of gay men maurandering straight people, but you have provided no evidence for this. If that’s your experience fair enough, but it really was an issue I think it woud have some media attention.

      Sure, some younger gay men may be obssessed with sex, but isn’t that true of all young men?

      Delete
    58. Most men who get hit on or harassed by gays do not like to talk about it. They're ashamed of it.“

      Why would you be ashamed? That seems like a strange reaction. On the rare occasion where I have been hit on by a woman, I have been flattered.

      And if it weren’t for political correctness, how would you react to another man who hit on you?

      Delete
    59. CarolTim, you have not provided anything to support you claims.

      You make it sound that is some widespread epidemic of gay men maurandering straight people,

      Not even close. Read what he said:

      in certain cities and neighborhoods

      Delete
    60. And willie proves it cannot read. How is a straight man getting hit on by a woman anything like a straight man getting hot on by a gay man?

      Talk about cluelessness...

      Delete
    61. CT: “Sure, some younger gay men may be obssessed with sex, but isn’t that true of all young men?“

      Don’t underestimate the sexual obsession of us older guys either. :)

      Delete
    62. Joke: “And willie proves it cannot read. How is a straight man getting hit on by a woman anything like a straight man getting hot on by a gay man?“

      And now you know why some people are called homophobes.

      The fact that someone is attracted to me, I take as flattering, regardless of the sex. But, being married, I would simply decline the offer.

      Delete
    63. Being homosexual goes against nature. It is a mental disorder. I have no more fear of them than I do those with downs syndrome.

      Delete
    64. CaroleKim: Louis, you didn’t provide any sources, just a personal anecdote. I also have many gay friends too (both sexes) and have not observed what you do.

      Well, I do. And it's getting more common because gays no longer suffer from rampant persecution and thus feel more free to express themselves.

      By the way, it's not just gay males. In the places that I have worked, I have observed lesbians hit on heterosexual women on many occasions. This kind of thing happens all the time in the entertainment industry. Several famous gay actors have recently been publicly accused of sexual harassment. It's the tip of the iceberg, IMO.

      Delete
    65. Spear shaker: And now you know why some people are called homophobes.

      Those who accuse others of being homophobes are the ones who have a phobia. In your case, it's heterophobia. You show all the signs of being a closet homosexual. But I don't blame you for calling others homophobes because I understand why you do it. It's a defense mechanism.

      Delete
    66. Mapou: “Well, I do. And it's getting more common because gays no longer suffer from rampant persecution and thus feel more free to express themselves.“

      Don’t you just hate it when rampant persecution is stopped?

      Delete
    67. Dirt worshipper: Don’t you just hate it when rampant persecution is stopped?

      Being a closet gay male does not make you a righteous person or give you the right to impugn others with unrighteousness. Homosexuals are just as much aholes as the rest of humanity. Not everybody is intimidated by your virtue signaling, jackass.

      Delete
    68. Mapou: “Those who accuse others of being homophobes are the ones who have a phobia.“

      Not when it is a factual statement. What term would you use for people are are on record of repeatedly referring to others as ‘faggot ass-munchers’?

      Delete
    69. Louis: “Well, I do.”

      Still anecdotal, and have as many anecdotes as you to say the opposite. For example, many of the gay men and lesbians I know are not only well adjusted and happy people, but also very successful in their business lives.


      But yes probably the tip on sexual harrassment, but what are seeing in the media is still mostly heterosexual, as would be expected.

      But I suspect you just have an issue with homosexuality in general so any contradictory evidence to your own belief system is going to be ignored. Perhaps it’s true that some people do not wish to be gay (given society’s disdain who would actually choose to be), but on the other hand the track record of “curing” homosexuality is not only dismal but has proven to be harmful. And sadly the church has been often at the forefront of these efforts. My own take on this is that gay people are gay through no choice of their own and there does not appear to be a way to “fix it” so maybe we should accept them as they?

      Delete

    70. Joe: “in certain cities and neighborhoods”.

      Yes, I understand. I asked Louis to provide evidence or statistics of these issues. All he has provided is ancedotal evidence, nothing else. Anecdoetes, while intersestting do not equal facts.

      Delete
    71. Dirt worshipper: What term would you use for people are are on record of repeatedly referring to others as ‘faggot ass-munchers’?

      When people use epithets, it's usually because they are offended. For example, I call you a jackass because you offend me with your jackassery. It's not because I have a fear of jackasses. Jackophobia? Please.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    72. Not everyone equates "faggot" with "homosexual". I know that I don't.

      Delete
    73. Joke: “Not everyone equates "faggot" with "homosexual". I know that I don't.“

      And you accuse me of dishonesty?

      Your comments are available at AtBC and at your blog for everyone to read in context.

      Delete
    74. Wow, only a lowlife would tell someone else what they mean by what they say. And willie does that all of the time.

      Youir comments are available at AtBC too, willie. And you cannot point to anything that you have ever posted there that would pass for mature. Not only that you have been caught lying, bluffing, equivocating, quote-mining and being a loser.

      Not everyone equates "faggot" with "homosexual". I know that I don't.

      That is a fact that you will never be able to refute. But your childish whining is cute.

      Delete
    75. Joke: “Not everyone equates "faggot" with "homosexual". I know that I don't.“

      Try writing this in ALL CAPS next time. Maybe then someone will believe you.

      There are two definition for “faggot”. 1) a derogatory slang for a homosexual, and 2) a bundle of sticks used for fuel. When you call someone an “ass-munching faggot”, I will let readers here draw their own conclusion as to what definition you were using.

      You will have an easier time trying to convince people that wavelength=frequency than you will convincing people that you didn’t mean “faggot” as a homophobic slur.

      Delete
    76. Willie the clueless quote-miner strikes again. I don't care what you believe, willie. You are a proven liar, quote-miner, ignoramus, bluffer, equivocator and loser.

      Not everyone equates "faggot" with "homosexual". I know that I don't.

      That is a fact that you will never be able to refute. But your childish whining is cute.


      Thank you

      Delete
    77. Joke: “You are a proven liar, quote-miner, ignoramus, bluffer, equivocator and loser.“

      Then enlighten us, not that we are likely to believe you. What do you mean when you call someone an “ass-munching faggot”? This should be amusing.

      Delete
    78. Make up your mind. First you said:

      I guess calling people “faggots” and “ass munchers” is part of exposing weaknesses.

      Feb 15 3:50PM

      But now you have changed it to

      What do you mean when you call someone an “ass-munching faggot”?

      Which is it as they are not the same. And what is wrong with my explanation over on AtBC? Is it your willful ignorance again?

      Why is it that every time your science ignorance is exposed you always attempt non-topic distractions? Why don't you just leave, get an education in the relevant fields and then come back when you actually have something to say?

      Delete
    79. Joke: “And what is wrong with my explanation over on AtBC?“

      It was a quote mine. I thought that you were opposed to them.

      Delete
    80. It wasn't a quote-mine. Clearly you are also ignorant of what a quote-mine is.

      But thanks for proving my point.

      Delete
    81. Joke: “It wasn't a quote-mine.“

      Only quoting the part of a definition that supports your stupid argument that you didn’t use “ass-munching faggot” as a homophobic slur, is a quote mine. Everyone can see this for themselves. They don’t have to take my word for it.

      Delete
    82. I only need one of the definitions/ uses to fit my claim and I found it. It isn't my fault that you are ignorant of how the English language works.

      Delete
  8. I'm coming to the conclusion that phenotype changes almost always come first. Followed, perhaps, by mutations. Epigenetics is the interface to the environment and it seems no matter where you turn, whether it be cancer, antibiotic resistance or a myriad of other things, the epigenetic changes happen first. Dr Michael Skinner claims that he knows of no kind of mutation that could not be potentially influenced by epigenetics. "Evolutionary" change then is top-down, holistic, teleological, and inherently intelligent. sometime I'd like to present my case here, crazy as it sounds, that even tumors are an environmentally-triggered epigenetic response that, in certain circumstances, can serve a beneficial purpose. The somatic mutational theory of cancer has all but collapsed, giving way for a whole new interpretation that cancer is a metabolic disease, that tumors sequester toxins (pesticides, pollutants, metals, parabens, etc), keeping them out of the bloodstream and other tissues, and that ultimate cancer is easily reversible (as virtually all epigenetic traits are). The cancer industry has pulled a giant scam on society almost as big as the evolution scam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting. AS far as the cancer scam there is significant suffering from cancer. If there was a coverup I'd think that there would be a number of people who would know it and reveal it. Some would get the right cure and be cured. This would not stay silent.

      Delete
    2. you would think. You would also think that the nonsense of Neo Darwinism would go away too...but the silence there is deafening.

      "significant" levels of pesticides found in tumors...https://www.omicsonline.org/organochlorine-pesticides-in-the-females-suffering-from-breast-cancer-and-its-relation-to-estrogen-receptor-status-2157-7609.1000156.php?aid=19443

      metals strongly accumulate in tumors: http://www.maedica.ro/articles/2007/2007_Vol2(5)_No1/2007_Vol2(5)_No1_pg5-9.pdf

      I could give many more references...

      But here's my basic premise: Cancer is caused by toxic overload...once the cells are no longer able to metabolize efficiently, there becomes a waste backup in the system. When there is a waste backup, inflammation rises, oxygen levels drop, Ph drops, all of which signal the immune system to no longer treat the tumor as an enemy, but rather a friend....as seen here:

      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1044579X17300366

      The reason the tumor should be treated as a "friend" in some circumstances, is because the body can no longer dispose of waste or take care of incoming toxicity. The tumor is created in lie of allowing toxic waste to contaminate the blood system and organs. Very low Ph would quickly decimate the cells tissues and organs, causing quick death. The tumors are basically another of the body's defense mechanisms...they are there to prolong life, not cut it short.

      This is why smokers get tumors in the lungs...tobacco chewers get tumors in the mouth and throat....cell phone induce brain tumors...sunburn induces melanoma...burned meats induce colon cancer....alcohol causes liver tumors....on and on -- toxic overload /abuse induces tumor formation when the body/immune system can no longer keep up with its housekeeping duties.

      Ultimately the alternative community is right -- cancer is very reversible in many cases. Fasting/juicing is the quickest and most effective way to do this.

      Delete
    3. Tommy Hall,

      "Cancer is caused by toxic overload..."

      There is no single cause of cancer just as there is no single form of cancer. Cancer is not one disease but many diseases with many variants and many causes. It is incredibly simplistic to attempt to point to any single cause of cancer. To do so only displays a gross misunderstanding of the actual nature of the subject.

      Delete
    4. First of all, based on all the millions of deaths that still occur from cancer, Big Science is the one who still has the "gross misunderstanding" of cancer........not that I have all the answers, and I would certainly not claim that "all" cancers are created alike and/or all have the same cause...but specifically, the solid tumors generally result from failed cellular metabolism. Factors such sugar intake, toxicity-induced inflammation, acidity, and low oxygen cause cells to become fatty and sluggish, which triggers a switch from metabolizing oxygen to metabolizing glucose (sugars)...glucose is ultimately a very dirty burning fuel, producing ROS, additional acidity and ultimately lays the groundwork for tumor formation and growth. As I linked above, Ph levels specifically signal the immune system to either attack or allow tumors. The immune system is a powerful and effective cancer-eliminator, but if Ph levels are too low then the immune system turns around and allows the cancer to grow....And tumors are functional; they aid in metabolism, picking up the slack when cells are unable to keep up...they also sequester POPs and toxic contents that fats are no longer able to store. Tumors are voracious metabolizers and can metabolize fats as well as liver tissue can...and this is why you will often find tumors embedded in dense areas of fat within the body, especially within the abdominal region. Ultimately then it's our sugar intake and toxic lifestyles that build up our adipose tissue, and once this tissue is no longer able to do it's job, tumors start arising. There's lots of fascinating papers regarding the link between adipose tissue and cancer. Cancer is not so much a "disease," but the result of mind-bending complexity, signals and crosstalk between surrounding fats, the tumor microenvironment, the immune system, and the tumor itself. If you're interested in investigating further, check this video out...Dr. Seyfried interview regarding cancer and Keto diet...watch 10 minutes..you'll be hooked. Life changing stuff.

      Delete
    5. Tommy Hall,

      "based on all the millions of deaths that still occur from cancer, Big Science is the one who still has the "gross misunderstanding" of cancer..."

      Further evidence you do not understand the nature of cancer. Of course people continue to die from cancer in large numbers, partly due to the ageing of the population and partly due to the basic nature of the disease. Cancer is at its root a series of diseases based on mutation. As the mutation load of the population increases so will the incidence of cancer.

      "glucose is ultimately a very dirty burning fuel, producing ROS,..."

      Palpable nonsense! Where did you come up with idiotic tid bit of knowledge? Glucose is the basic source of cellular energy. Your body converts the foods you consume into sugar. This is grade 5 science. What were you doing when you should have been paying attention?

      Cancer is also a very individual disease, two people can have the same form of cancer but respond in vastly different ways to treatment. That is why there will never be a silver bullet when it comes to the treatment of cancer.

      You really need to read some sound material on this subject and forget the internet drivel.

      Delete
    6. What were you doing when you should have been paying attention?“

      Reading up on crack-pot conspiracy theories, obviously. The farce is strong with this one.

      Delete
    7. Joe,

      Read my response to Tommy. It would appear you're drinking the same Kool-aid.

      Delete
    8. William,

      "Reading up on crack-pot conspiracy theories, obviously. The farce is strong with this one."

      So it would seem. There seems to be a never ending supply of crackpots pushing this 'sugar causes cancer' stupidity and a never ending supply of people who fall for it.

      Delete
    9. Nic, peer-review supports the claim wrt sugar and cancer. Read the science and find the mistake.

      Delete
    10. Also they may be one treatment for all cancers if the cancer researchers are right. Cancer cells use fermentation to get the energy from the sugars. Find a way to stop the fermentation process and the cancer cells will die.

      Delete
    11. Joe,

      "Find a way to stop the fermentation process and the cancer cells will die."

      What part of 'our cells need sugar to survive' do you not understand?

      As for one treatment for cancer, it will never happen as cancer is not one disease, it is many.

      Delete
    12. Only the cancerous cells use the inefficient fermentation process to create energy. That is why they need an abundance of sugar to keep themselves going.

      Delete
    13. Joe,

      "Nic, peer-review supports the claim wrt sugar and cancer. Read the science and find the mistake."

      You're funny, Joe. Peer review supports the theory of evolution as well. Remember the theory of evolution, Joe? The theory you say does not exist. :)

      Delete
    14. You're funny Nic. There isn't any peer-reviewed articles that support evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Nothing that shows natural selection can do anything beyond changing allele frequency. And there isn't any scientific theory of evolution.

      Delete
    15. Joe,

      "There isn't any peer-reviewed articles that support evolution by means of blind and mindless processes."

      That is simply an idiotic statement of monumental proportions. There are 10s of thousands of peer reviewed articles claiming to support evolution. I think you're confusing the concept of peer review with the concept of proof.

      Delete
    16. Joe,

      "they need an abundance of sugar to keep themselves going."

      Again I am forced to ask, what part of 'our cells need sugar to survive' do you not understand?

      Delete
    17. There are 10s of thousands of peer reviewed articles claiming to support evolution.

      Talk about idiotic statements. ID is not anti-evolution. And again not one paper supports evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Do you even understand what is being debated? Clearly you do not.

      Delete
    18. Nic, Yes our cells need sugar. Our normal cells do not require an abundance of it because they do NOT use the inefficient process of fermentation to get energy.

      Do you even read what you respond to?

      Delete
    19. There are 10s of thousands of peer reviewed articles claiming to support evolution.

      So what? The entire argument pertains to what evolution by means of blind and mindless processes can do.

      I think you're confusing the concept of peer review with the concept of proof.

      No, but you are equating "evolution" with "blind watchmaker evolution".

      Delete
    20. Only the cancerous cells use the inefficient fermentation process to create energy. That is why they need an abundance of sugar to keep themselves going.

      Our normal cells use the sugar more efficiently and therefore do not require an abundance of it.

      Please stop quote-mining me and then respond to that quote-mine.

      Delete
    21. Joe,

      "Do you even understand what is being debated? "

      You really don't understand the nature of your own arguments, do you. Your claim was the connection between the consumption of sugar and cancer was supported by peer reviewed literature and therefore correct. I simply pointed out the claims of evolutionists are also supported by peer reviewed literature and, following your logic, must also be accepted as correct. Is it starting to sink in yet? It would appear it is you who does not understand the question at hand.

      Nic: "There are 10s of thousands of peer reviewed articles claiming to support evolution."

      Joe: "There isn't any peer-reviewed articles that support evolution by means of blind and mindless processes."

      Nic: "There are 10s of thousands of peer reviewed articles claiming to support evolution."

      Joe: "So what?"

      So you have gone from 'there are no peer reviewed articles' to 'so what if there are peer reviewed articles?" Do you have any clue what you're talking about at all?

      Delete
    22. Except the claims of evolutionists are not supported by peer-review. Supporting "evolution" is not the same as supporting "evolution by means of blind and mindless processes". Read "Darwin's Black Box".

      And again you are quote-mining me.

      Delete
    23. Joe,

      "Please stop quote-mining me and then respond to that quote-mine."

      First, I did not 'quote mine' you and second, only whiny little children cry about being quote mined. I have never heard of such a childish excuse in my life. "That's not fair, you quote mined me." Please, grow up or go cry somewhere else.

      Delete
    24. Yes, you did quote-mine me and only losers quote-mine people. It isn't an excuse. It is that the part you leave out answers your subsequent criticisms.

      That is poor form, even for you.

      Delete
    25. Your claim was the connection between the consumption of sugar and cancer was supported by peer reviewed literature and therefore correct.

      No, just that it can't just be hand-waved away.

      I simply pointed out the claims of evolutionists are also supported by peer reviewed literature

      Except they are not. That is Dr Behe's entire point. That is also why the evolutionists had to lie and bluff their way through the Dover trial.

      Delete
    26. Joe,

      "No, just that it can't just be hand-waved away."

      That's rich coming form the king of hand wavers; 'There is no such thing as the theory of evolution.'

      Delete
    27. Wow, more unsupported trope. There isn't any scientific theory of evolution, Nic. If you think that I am wrong then go try to find one.

      Delete
    28. Nic: “That's rich coming form the king of hand wavers; 'There is no such thing as the theory of evolution.'“

      He does seem to expend an enormous amount of effort railing against a non-existent theory. I’m sure there is a pathology that explains this type of behaviour

      Delete
    29. Except that I don't rail against any non-existent theory. I rail against the anti-scientific evolutionism, aka blind watchmaker evolution.

      Clearly you two have honesty issues

      Delete
    30. William,

      "I’m sure there is a pathology that explains this type of behaviour."

      It would seem to border on being an obsessive compulsive disorder. You will notice he repeats the claim again
      in his response to me. It would seem he cannot help himself.

      Delete
    31. Joe,

      "Clearly you two have honesty issues."

      We have honesty issues? That's really funny come from the guy who lies to himself by repeatedly saying there is no such thing as the 'theory of evolution.' I agree with you in that we both think the theory is nonsense and hardly qualifies as science. However, I don't lie to myself and others by trying to claim the theory does not even exist. Dishonesty to oneself in the face of an obvious truth is the highest form of dishonesty, Joe.

      Delete
    32. Clearly you have honesty issues, Nic. I noticed that you FAILed to link to or reference the scientific theory of evolution.

      Geneticist and former editor of a peer-reviewed journal once wrote that there isn't a scientific theory of evolution ("Why is a Fly Not A Horse?" 2004) - and guess what? No one has ever refuted his claim. And that you can't find it proves my point, Nic.

      So yes, you are being very dishonest.

      Delete
    33. "There never really has been a scientific "theory" of evolution"- Giuseppe Sermonti, "Why is a Fly Not a Horse?", 2004, p 11 (geneticist and former editor of a peer-reviewed journal)

      And guess what? Not one person has ever refuted that claim even though they did take aim at some of his other claims.

      Delete
    34. Joe,

      I would suggest you take up your argument with such institutions as the world's major universities and such publications as Encyclopedia Britannica. I am done trying to address your childish attitude.

      You would better represent your case against evolution if you took a mature stance and addressed the fact that there is indeed a set of beliefs which constitute a theory of evolution and present your arguments counter to that set of beliefs. Your continual denial of the obvious truth only makes you look like a petulant child.

      Delete
    35. LoL! Little Nic cannot find any scientific theory of evolution and throws a childish tantrum.

      I would suggest that you grow up, Nic. You would better represent your case if you could actually link to or reference the scientific theory of evolution. And it is very telling that you cannot. Talk about looking like a petulant child.

      My claim is supported, Nic. Yours is not. And that means you are the loser here.

      Delete
    36. Joey,

      Sure, Joey, whatever you say. Our only goal is to keep little Joey happy. There is no such thing as the theory of evolution.

      Now run along and clean up the toys in your sandbox, you made such a mess kicking them around in frustration.

      On a side note, I typed 'the scientific theory of evolution' into Google and got 556,000,000 hits. I guess I will have to admit you're right. My claim is without any support whatsoever.

      Delete
    37. Well Nic, then you should be able to link to it if it exists. That you cannot says it all.

      I typed "bigfoot" into Google and got over 29 million hits.

      UFO gets 139 million hits

      Unicorn gets 228 million hits

      Loch Ness monster gets 984, 000 hits

      But I digress. There isn't a scientific theory of evolution to be found on the first page that google presents. Why is that, Nic?

      Who was the author? When was it published? What journal published it? You can't say, Nic.

      Delete
    38. Joey,

      I've got better things to do. I have already admitted you are right, there is no theory of evolution. Everyone one in the world who believes there is is wrong and little Joey is right. How foolish of me to ever think little Joey could be wrong about anything. If only little Joey was in charge the world would be a better place.

      You know Joey, you should write a scientific paper demonstrating how there is no theory of evolution. Do you have any idea how much money that would bring you? A Nobel Prize for sure, at the very least.

      I look forward to reading it. In fact, it would help my position immeasurably. Please, Joey, prove to the world there is no theory of evolution.

      Delete
    39. Umm, there is a difference between a theory and a scientific theory. And I am not the only one who says it. Dr Sermonti wrote it in his book. And other PhDs have also sated the same thing.

      But thank you for proving that you are the petulant child, Nic.

      Delete
    40. Little Joey,

      "Umm, there is a difference between a theory and a scientific theory."

      Yep, there are economic theories, historical theories, all kinds of theories. A totally obvious fact which helps your case not at all.

      "But thank you for proving that you are the petulant child, Nic."

      You're welcome.

      Delete
    41. Thank you for continuing to prove that you are a petulant child. My case is helped by the fact no one can link to any scientific theory of evolution. No one can find one. And the fact that scientists support me also helps.

      What does Nicky have besides tantrums?

      Delete
    42. Joke: "What does Nicky have besides tantrums?"

      The ability to act like a mature adult.

      Delete
    43. Joke: “How would you know?“

      By comparing his behaviour to yours and Mapou’s.

      Delete
    44. Look in the mirror, hypocrite. And I don't see Nic acting any better than anyone. You are the last person who should be talking about maturity.

      Buy a vowel, willie

      Delete
    45. Joke: “And I don't see Nic acting any better than anyone.“

      He sure as hell acts better than you. But, then again, so does my cat. And my cat spends most of his time licking his butt.

      Delete
    46. Look willie, you and ghostrider are the most immature and ignorant posters here. You have no place to talk about others, loser.

      And Nic latest tantrum proves how he really is.

      Delete
  9. Dr. Hunter, you have waxed particularly eloquent with this post. As I dialog with evolutionists, I repeatedly see the responses you have outlined:
    1 - Evolution is a fact, who cares about the details,
    2 - Nothing happened fast, there's lots of time.
    or
    3 - Multiverse, infinity, hey in some universe it had to have happened this magical way.

    The data doesn't fit the theory, but the theory is right! After all, the only other option is anathema. Oh, we may be nothing more than a simulation in some high school kid's science project in another dimension. That is possible, just not, um, that guy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. they'll think or believe anything that will allow them to mentally escape the notion of being created. And they've diverted peoples' attention from what created everything to Natural Selection.

      As quoted in the brilliant book, "Biological Emergences" by Robert G.B. Reid (everyone should own this book), Camilla Berry asked: "If natural selection is the filter, what's making the coffee?" Evolutionists still don't have an answer.

      Delete
  10. Very good point:
    "So according to evolution random mutations created correction mechanisms to suppress random mutations. And that paradox is only the beginning. "

    Here's one for you in exchange: I just learned that matter was viewed as continuous until late 1800s. That's how Darwin got his "gradualism". But now we know better so what's their excuse? http://nonlin.org/gradualism/

    "Gregor Mendel observed the discrete nature of biology as early as 1865 in the inheritance of dominant and recessive alleles. Darwin might have learned that from Mendel’s papers sent to him, had he read and correctly interpreted the results. To be fair, Darwin’s gradualism was in line with the incorrect view of his times that considered matter a continuum. Only in the late 1800s the true discrete nature of matter started to become common knowledge. However, more than a hundred years later everyone knows, yet the gradualism hypothesis remains central to evolution despite being utterly baseless."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very interesting. However, I'm almost positive that Newton believed that matter was corpuscular. He even hypothesized that light consisted of particles.

      The ancient Greeks, many centuries earlier, had already theorized about the existence of atoms. If Darwin was not aware of these things, he was a much more mediocre thinker than I thought. He was just a small mind in the great scheme of things. Modern Darwinists are worse: they are stupid and gutless.

      Delete
  11. "Mutations are rare and good ones are even more rare." Mutations aren't rare. Each of us is born with ~100 new mutations. There are nearly 4 million million births in the USA giving 400 million mutations annually; and about 135 million birth in the world giving 13.5 billion mutations. So if 1 in a million is beneficial (good) then there could be ~13,500 beneficial mutations per year.

    However these 13,500 mutations are spread over a population of about 7.6 billion people. Many of these with a low selection coefficient will be lost and others will be rivals for selection. However even if these beneficial mutations are complementary it can take an exceedingly long time before they combine in an individual, then into a sub group, and eventually reach fixity. In the meantime the beneficial mutations are probably going to be swamped by harmful ones since they are occurring about 100 times faster than selection can remove them. Genetic Entropy results.

    ReplyDelete