Creationists

[Hollie]

No because a function is lost.

It's just this simple,let's say the offspring loses an arm due to a mutation what could the offspring gain from the mutation that would benefit the offspring ?

Can a human benefit from the loss of any function ? and what function would be a benefit this person that lost a function ?

Actually, you are absolutely wrong about that. Mutations are ubiquitous. Every human being (you included) has between 100 and 200 unique new mutations. I guess the Charlatans at the Discovery Institute forgot to teach you that.

The sickle-cell anemia mutation occurs at the rate of about 10^-5 per generation. If that mutation occurs in a human living in a region where Malaria is prevalent, it will beneficially protect that person (and any descendents) from Malaria.

That said, this is only a minor, almost irrelevant example of the role of mutation in evolution. The primary role of mutations is to increase genetic variability.

All 200 or so of your personal mutations are point mutations on your DNA, i.e. a change to a single base pair in a single DNA codon. If they occur on a length of DNA that is actually a gene (as opposed to “junk DNA&#8221, they will (at most) change a single amino acid on a single protein. I say “at most” because the DNA code is redundant, and about a quarter of even these mutations are completely silent.

These variations in our proteins are the expression of our genetic variability as a species. They are the reason that we come in different shapes, sizes, colors and all the other differences in our bodies and abilities. And this variation is the raw material upon which natural selection acts. If it is beneficial to be taller, then natural selection will favor those variations that increase height and eliminate those that reduce it.

But the eliminated variations are constantly being replenished by each generation’s new mutations. This includes some mutations that will reduce height (and be eliminated quickly) and some mutations that will increase height, even beyond the original variation of the population. In this way, over time, organisms can evolve completely beyond the limitations of their original variation. This is how mutation creates genetic novelty.

Do a bit of research and you will find that over the last several decades, the average height of the Japanese youngster has increased dramatically. The children often tower over the parents.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No because a function is lost.

It's just this simple,let's say the offspring loses an arm due to a mutation what could the offspring gain from the mutation that would benefit the offspring ?

Can a human benefit from the loss of any function ? and what function would be a benefit this person that lost a function ?

Actually, you are absolutely wrong about that. Mutations are ubiquitous. Every human being (you included) has between 100 and 200 unique new mutations. I guess the Charlatans at the Discovery Institute forgot to teach you that.

The sickle-cell anemia mutation occurs at the rate of about 10^-5 per generation. If that mutation occurs in a human living in a region where Malaria is prevalent, it will beneficially protect that person (and any descendents) from Malaria.

That said, this is only a minor, almost irrelevant example of the role of mutation in evolution. The primary role of mutations is to increase genetic variability.

All 200 or so of your personal mutations are point mutations on your DNA, i.e. a change to a single base pair in a single DNA codon. If they occur on a length of DNA that is actually a gene (as opposed to “junk DNA”), they will (at most) change a single amino acid on a single protein. I say “at most” because the DNA code is redundant, and about a quarter of even these mutations are completely silent.

These variations in our proteins are the expression of our genetic variability as a species. They are the reason that we come in different shapes, sizes, colors and all the other differences in our bodies and abilities. And this variation is the raw material upon which natural selection acts. If it is beneficial to be taller, then natural selection will favor those variations that increase height and eliminate those that reduce it.

But the eliminated variations are constantly being replenished by each generation’s new mutations. This includes some mutations that will reduce height (and be eliminated quickly) and some mutations that will increase height, even beyond the original variation of the population. In this way, over time, organisms can evolve completely beyond the limitations of their original variation. This is how mutation creates genetic novelty.

Do a bit of research and you will find that over the last several decades, the average height of the Japanese youngster has increased dramatically. The children often tower over the parents.

This is funny I attended the University of Arizona. You gave the typical answer on a so called beneficial mutation The sickle-cell anemia mutation.

I also see you are not up to date on the human genome project because they declare there is no junk DNA.



mutations

Scientific data - High Rate of Deleterious Mutations

The Myth of Beneficial Mutations - CSI

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is simply more of your science-loathing aganda. I can understand that in the science-loathing world of Christian fundies, "Darwinism" is an oft-used term to denigrate science but do you think those childish tactics bolster your claims?

Secondly, provide details about what two "Darwinists" have done what you describe above?

How do you get a net gain of DNA information if the previous information is no longer ?

Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?

Fusion and transfection are two examples of how DNA can gain information. If you're the scientist you say you are, you should know that.

Also, if a gene mutates the information isn't gone. It still resides in the other copy of the chromosome. Something you also should know!!!

Yes when a gene mutates the information is not lost in the other chromosome which is why it makes it all that much tougher for the mutated gene to become fixed in the gene pool. Good thing no ? or harmful mutations would pass on to us all.

What I'm saying is you can get new information but it has to be a net gain of information that does not come from mutations.

New genetic information can arise from simply crossing different lineages but you don't get new information that produces let's say humans that would produce non humans or or dogs producing non dogs and so on.

 

[konradv]

Yes when a gene mutates the information is not lost in the other chromosome which is why it makes it all that much tougher for the mutated gene to become fixed in the gene pool. Good thing no ? or harmful mutations would pass on to us all.

What I'm saying is you can get new information but it has to be a net gain of information that does not come from mutations.

New genetic information can arise from simply crossing different lineages but you don't get new information that produces let's say humans that would produce non humans or non dogs and so on.

You're still taking as a given that all mutations are bad. The bad ones would drop out as individuals died earlier, while the good ones would spread. Even at 1000:1, bad:good, this weeding out vs concentration is more than enough to explain evolution.

 

[Hollie]

This is funny I attended the University of Arizona. You gave the typical answer on a so called beneficial mutation The sickle-cell anemia mutation.

I also see you are not up to date on the human genome project because they declare there is no junk DNA.

It is funny, in a mordant sort of way, that when the arguments from creationist websites crash to the ground in flames you bail on any refutation seeking only to find shelter in a different creationist website.

It's actually telling that the arguments you link to, such as those from the Discovery Institute, are furthered by non-scientists. I would no sooner accept facts on evolutiony science from a Psychologist than I would facts on geology from a hamburger flipper at McDonalds.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes when a gene mutates the information is not lost in the other chromosome which is why it makes it all that much tougher for the mutated gene to become fixed in the gene pool. Good thing no ? or harmful mutations would pass on to us all.

What I'm saying is you can get new information but it has to be a net gain of information that does not come from mutations.

New genetic information can arise from simply crossing different lineages but you don't get new information that produces let's say humans that would produce non humans or non dogs and so on.

You're still taking as a given that all mutations are bad. The bad ones would drop out as individuals died earlier, while the good ones would spread. Even at 1000:1, bad:good, this weeding out vs concentration is more than enough to explain evolution.

No i'm not,I am saying most mutations that cause a change to a gene are usually harmful most mutations do nothing at all because of the mechanism that corrects these errors.

 

[Hollie]

Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?

I’m afraid you have chosen to abandon any bit of credibility with references to such Fundie Charlatan organizations as the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)

The main entity for championing creationism, the Institute for Creation Research, requires its scientists (sic) to sign a prequalifying document that insists that nothing they discover is permitted to go against biblical scripture. If this is not a complete violation of the tenets of science then nothing is. Here is the key to their contradictory stance towards science:

Foundational Principles

Principles of Scientific Creationism

• The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.

• The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.

• Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).

• The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.

• The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.

• Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates, but since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.

• The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order.

• Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.

• Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally, scientifically, and teleologically.
Principles of Biblical Creationism

• The Creator of the universe is a triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is only one eternal and transcendent God, the source of all being and meaning, and He exists in three Persons, each of whom participated in the work of creation.

• The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.

• All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false. All things that now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation.

• The first human beings, Adam and Eve, were specially created by God, and all other men and women are their descendants. In Adam, mankind was instructed to exercise "dominion" over all other created organisms, and over the earth itself (an implicit commission for true science, technology, commerce, fine art, and education), but the temptation by Satan and the entrance of sin brought God's curse on that dominion and on mankind, culminating in death and separation from God as the natural and proper consequence.

• The biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and Fall of man, the Curse on the Creation and its subjection to the bondage of decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the days of Noah, the post-diluvian renewal of man's commission to subdue the earth (now augmented by the institution of human government), and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel.

• The alienation of man from his Creator because of sin can only be remedied by the Creator Himself, who became man in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, through miraculous conception and virgin birth. In Christ were indissolubly united perfect sinless humanity and full deity, so that His substitutionary death is the only necessary and sufficient price of man's redemption. That the redemption was completely efficacious is assured by His bodily resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven; the resurrection of Christ is thus the focal point of history, assuring the consummation of God's purposes in creation.

•The final restoration of creation's perfection is yet future, but individuals can immediately be restored to fellowship with their Creator on the basis of His redemptive work on their behalf, receiving forgiveness and eternal life solely through personal trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, accepting Him not only as estranged Creator, but also as reconciling Redeemer and coming King. Those who reject Him, however, or who neglect to believe on Him, thereby continue in their state of rebellion and must ultimately be consigned to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

• The eventual accomplishment of God's eternal purposes in creation, with the removal of His curse and the restoration of all things to divine perfection, will take place at the personal bodily return to earth of Jesus Christ to judge and purge sin and to establish His eternal kingdom.

• Each believer should participate in the "ministry of reconciliation" by seeking both to bring individuals back to God in Christ (the "Great Commission") and to "subdue the earth" for God's glory (the Edenic-Noahic Commission). The three institutions established by the Creator for the implementation of His purposes in this world (home, government, church) should be honored and supported as such.



Apparently, to be a "good Christian" one must have no sense of personal or academic integrity.

It's laughable. And you want that to be the standard taught in schools? Fine. Do it in Christian Madrassah’s while the rest of us move along with progress and science. I have no desire to see a nation of kids being raised with thinking that dates only up to the 17th century. I already see enough of that in Islamic countries.

Pathetic!

 

[typicalusguy]

How do you get a net gain of DNA information if the previous information is no longer ?

Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?

Fusion and transfection are two examples of how DNA can gain information. If you're the scientist you say you are, you should know that.

Also, if a gene mutates the information isn't gone. It still resides in the other copy of the chromosome. Something you also should know!!!

Yes when a gene mutates the information is not lost in the other chromosome which is why it makes it all that much tougher for the mutated gene to become fixed in the gene pool. Good thing no ? or harmful mutations would pass on to us all.

What I'm saying is you can get new information but it has to be a net gain of information that does not come from mutations.

New genetic information can arise from simply crossing different lineages but you don't get new information that produces let's say humans that would produce non humans or or dogs producing non dogs and so on.

I find this answer by Richard Dawkins 'instructive' in regards to genomes and genetic mutations. Try and keep a straight face in the beginning of the clip.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX7Htg2HxkA&feature=related]Famous atheist is stumped - He avoids answering the question - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

It is funny, in a mordant sort of way, that when the arguments from creationist websites crash to the ground in flames you bail on any refutation seeking only to find shelter in a different creationist website.

It's actually telling that the arguments you link to, such as those from the Discovery Institute, are furthered by non-scientists. I would no sooner accept facts on evolutiony science from a Psychologist than I would facts on geology from a hamburger flipper at McDonalds.

My job for 11 years was studying mutations and cells. I never saw a permanent trait change from induced mutations. I did see many defects and flies dying prematurely. Over time any kind of changes did happen did not spread through the population and we eventually wound up with the flies we started with.

Stop with the rhetoric. Creationist that do the same research do hold degrees in the sciences and look at the same evidence just different conclusions. I once believed as you do but I saw the evidence first hand which caused me to believe as I do.

This is also what happened with darwins finches and pigeons.

Creationist do not continue to try and keep proving mutations do what evolutionist claim. They actually think logically. I believe creationist are more accurate with their conclusions and therefore their explanations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Fusion and transfection are two examples of how DNA can gain information. If you're the scientist you say you are, you should know that.

Also, if a gene mutates the information isn't gone. It still resides in the other copy of the chromosome. Something you also should know!!!

Yes when a gene mutates the information is not lost in the other chromosome which is why it makes it all that much tougher for the mutated gene to become fixed in the gene pool. Good thing no ? or harmful mutations would pass on to us all.

What I'm saying is you can get new information but it has to be a net gain of information that does not come from mutations.

New genetic information can arise from simply crossing different lineages but you don't get new information that produces let's say humans that would produce non humans or or dogs producing non dogs and so on.

I find this answer by Richard Dawkins 'instructive' in regards to genomes and genetic mutations. Try and keep a straight face in the beginning of the clip.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX7Htg2HxkA&feature=related]Famous atheist is stumped - He avoids answering the question - YouTube[/ame]

Sorry for some reason I can't view the video but when I return home I will watch it.

I consider dawkins and hawking as Ideologues.

Hollie speaks of fundies but ignores the ones on her side.

 

[Hollie]

My job for 11 years was studying mutations and cells. I never saw a permanent trait change from induced mutations. I did see many defects and flies dying prematurely. Over time any kind of changes did happen did not spread through the population and we eventually wound up with the flies we started with.

Stop with the rhetoric. Creationist that do the same research do hold degrees in the sciences and look at the same evidence just different conclusions. I once believed as you do but I saw the evidence first hand which caused me to believe as I do.

This is also what happened with darwins finches and pigeons.

Creationist do not continue to try and keep proving mutations do what evolutionist claim. They actually think logically. I believe creationist are more accurate with their conclusions and therefore their explanations.

There is no reason to believe that anyone with integrity would allow themselves to be duped by such charlatans that roam the halls of the Institute Creation Research.

You have consistently avoided taking any responsibility for the false claims and junk science that has been abandoned since the 17th century but is still forwarded by the ICR.

Scientific investigation might be described as a progressive enterprise built around the competition of ideas. Where are the theistic ones? What I find remarkable is how consistent the “god did it” arguments really are. They are not similar, they are identical. And since so many of them are identically false, it is almost inconceivable that anyone could take them seriously.

That is why it is laughable when you post link after link to various creationist webites. Without an understanding of the subject matter you dump onto various threads, it becomes an exercise in copying and pasting for scramble from one creationist website to the next, mining more material that is copied and pasted, often contradicting material copied and pasted earlier.

 

[Hollie]

I consider dawkins and hawking as Ideologues.

Hollie speaks of fundies but ignores the ones on her side.

This is another of the flaws that permeates the attitudes of fundies. It’s not an issue of “taking sides”, it’s an issue of facts, evidence and the integrity of the data.

Science is the process of discovery. Fundies will want to twist data to fit their preconceived ideas and simply scream the four word “The Gods Did It”, and proceed on as though you have answered the query when what you actually have done is to further your religious dogma by retreating from any further investigation. The Principles of Scientific Creationism furthered by the Institute for Creation Research demonstrate precisely that. It’s a complete and utter abandonment of any ethical or academic standard.

It is the fundies and charlatans who establish the “us vs. them” mentality because they are besieged on all sides by facts which dismantle their falsified and manufactured claims.
History shows us that religious institutions, (in particular the Christian Church), have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. I think people are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were say, 400 years ago. In large part that’s because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions.

Not too many weathermen being burned at the stake these days because they predict a solar eclipse or a drought.

 

[Montrovant]

My job for 11 years was studying mutations and cells. I never saw a permanent trait change from induced mutations. I did see many defects and flies dying prematurely. Over time any kind of changes did happen did not spread through the population and we eventually wound up with the flies we started with.

Stop with the rhetoric. Creationist that do the same research do hold degrees in the sciences and look at the same evidence just different conclusions. I once believed as you do but I saw the evidence first hand which caused me to believe as I do.

This is also what happened with darwins finches and pigeons.

Creationist do not continue to try and keep proving mutations do what evolutionist claim. They actually think logically. I believe creationist are more accurate with their conclusions and therefore their explanations.

I'm sorry YWC, but if creationists work like those from the site you linked, and specifically ignore any science which doesn't coincide with their interpretation of biblical teaching, that is far from thinking logically.

 

[UltimateReality]

When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?

This is simply more of your science-loathing aganda. I can understand that in the science-loathing world of Christian fundies, "Darwinism" is an oft-used term to denigrate science but do you think those childish tactics bolster your claims?

Secondly, provide details about what two "Darwinists" have done what you describe above?

Why do you think believers loathe science ?

Because she is a Darwinist cult member. For her, science started in 1856. She is conveniently denying 4500 years of scientific discovery made by believers of the Creator. Haven't you noticed this is totally common on here by members of her cult. How many times have Darwinists posted inferences on here that belief in God and good science are somehow mutually exclusive. The "god did it" quote has been used on here more times than I can count. You think these people could come up with some new material and actually have a thought process of their own.

 

[UltimateReality]

Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins.

Hollie, your whole post is the ad Hominem fallacy. Instead addressing Belinski's arguments, you attack his qualifications... A typical ploy by Darwinists. I guarantee the man is 10 times smarter than you.

As for your post above, you are correct when it comes to Creationism but not ID Theory. By continuing to make the statement you are either a liar or jus ignorant. Here is a video outlining an ID scientific theory. I am 99% sure you won't watch it, because your anger with Christians and God is hard to hide and your underlying agenda prevents you from having an open mind to other truths. There is a certain amount of arrogance that comes with denial of God, which is where the whole "fact of evolution" comes from with such a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I see through you.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]Check out this video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]

 

[UltimateReality]

I'm sorry YWC, but if creationists work like those from the site you linked, and specifically ignore any science which doesn't coincide with their interpretation of biblical teaching, that is far from thinking logically.

Your statement could be equally applied to the evolutionists camp.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There is no reason to believe that anyone with integrity would allow themselves to be duped by such charlatans that roam the halls of the Institute Creation Research.

You have consistently avoided taking any responsibility for the false claims and junk science that has been abandoned since the 17th century but is still forwarded by the ICR.

Scientific investigation might be described as a progressive enterprise built around the competition of ideas. Where are the theistic ones? What I find remarkable is how consistent the “god did it” arguments really are. They are not similar, they are identical. And since so many of them are identically false, it is almost inconceivable that anyone could take them seriously.

That is why it is laughable when you post link after link to various creationist webites. Without an understanding of the subject matter you dump onto various threads, it becomes an exercise in copying and pasting for scramble from one creationist website to the next, mining more material that is copied and pasted, often contradicting material copied and pasted earlier.

From what I've seen in the lab agrees with famous evolutionist pierre grasse AND A FEW OTHERS.

Pierre-Paul Grassé also wrote the following:
“ Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.6

"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur .... There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it."

Grasse, Pierre-Paul

"The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation ... is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection .... the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles .... The finding of a suitable mate for the 'hopeless monster' and the establishment of reproductive isolation from the normal members of the parental population seem to me insurmountable difficulties."

Mayr, Ernst (1970)


"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutation that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation. ...

It is nevertheless to be inferred that all the superbly interadapted genes of any present-day organism arose through just this process of accidental natural mutation."

Muller, H. J.

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Lewontin, Richard

Comment: Despite the evidence that Muller cites in his first sentence, his philosophical naturalism forces him to infer that all genetic information has arisen by purely random mutations. As Pierre Paul Grasse has noted, "Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped (p. 107)

Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977)


Now you are gonna say we have learned a lot since then. I tell you I saw the same things and have not been duped as you say. Some heavy hitters disagree with you and point out what is going on in the biology community.

 

[Hollie]

Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins.

Hollie, your whole post is the ad Hominem fallacy. Instead addressing Belinski's arguments, you attack his qualifications... A typical ploy by Darwinists. I guarantee the man is 10 times smarter than you.

As for your post above, you are correct when it comes to Creationism but not ID Theory. By continuing to make the statement you are either a liar or jus ignorant. Here is a video outlining an ID scientific theory. I am 99% sure you won't watch it, because your anger with Christians and God is hard to hide and your underlying agenda prevents you from having an open mind to other truths. There is a certain amount of arrogance that comes with denial of God, which is where the whole "fact of evolution" comes from with such a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I see through you.

You're an angry guy. And yes, I "attack" the qualifications of Berlinski because in connection with the biological sciences, geology, etc., he has no qualifications. Your comment is thus a bit of an oxymoron.

But first, it's a bit difficult to refute a youtube video. It's not as though Berlinski is available to defend his comments. You and the other guy seem to believe that your only obligation in supporting your position is to copy and paste from creationist websites. Your position is predictable because you have predefined your conclusions in spite of the data dismantling it.

Secondly, why would I take Berlinski seriously when representing the ICR, he is explicitly pressing a religious agenda and explicitly ignoring what data will refute his position as a shill for the ICR?

I don't see any arrogance that comes from denial of god, (your particular god). I see arrogance in your insistence that I am required to accept your position and ignore the facts dismantling it. I find arrogance in you, using your religion like a bloody truncheon to make me believe or else. Or else what?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm sorry YWC, but if creationists work like those from the site you linked, and specifically ignore any science which doesn't coincide with their interpretation of biblical teaching, that is far from thinking logically.

When I worked in the field it was not with creationist or ID proponents but I have come to agree with their explanations over the agenda driven atheistic evolutionist.

 

[Hollie]

From what I've seen in the lab agrees with famous evolutionist pierre grasse AND A FEW OTHERS.

Pierre-Paul Grassé also wrote the following:
“ Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.6

"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur .... There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it."

Grasse, Pierre-Paul

"The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation ... is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection .... the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles .... The finding of a suitable mate for the 'hopeless monster' and the establishment of reproductive isolation from the normal members of the parental population seem to me insurmountable difficulties."

Mayr, Ernst (1970)


"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutation that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation. ...

It is nevertheless to be inferred that all the superbly interadapted genes of any present-day organism arose through just this process of accidental natural mutation."

Muller, H. J.

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Lewontin, Richard

Comment: Despite the evidence that Muller cites in his first sentence, his philosophical naturalism forces him to infer that all genetic information has arisen by purely random mutations. As Pierre Paul Grasse has noted, "Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped (p. 107)

Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977)


Now you are gonna say we have learned a lot since then. I tell you I saw the same things and have not been duped as you say. Some heavy hitters disagree with you and point out what is going on in the biology community.

I'm familiar with several of the "quotes" you mined. You might want to review some sources which you will stumble over as part of your "quote mining".

Be careful though, you fall into the creationist trap of selectively "quote mining" from creationist sources that will alter the "quotes" you are "quoting".

Yours is a common tactic of creationists hacks who, like your bretheren at the ICR will lie, cheat and steal to press your creationist agenda.

Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"