"Macroevolution" (Keep Running Pastor Dave) - Example 543

Religions > Atheism > "Macroevolution" (Keep Running Pastor Dave) - Example 543

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Budikka666"
Date:	09 Oct 2005 08:53:15 AM
Object:	"Macroevolution" (Keep Running Pastor Dave) - Example 543

The chimpanzee and the human genome contain the same genetic mistakes:
http://tinyurl.com/bb9gf
Is this the work of an intelligent and perfect designer? That he
screwed up the chimpanzee genome and then made exactly the same mistake
in an (according to the creationists) completely unrelated organism?
Edward max MD, PHd wrties: "The shared galactosyltransferase
pseudogenes are fascinating for a reason that complicates their use in
arguing against creationists: evidence suggests that there may have
been a selective advantage to mutations that inactivated this gene. The
enzyme product of the gene catalyzes the production of a particular
carbohydrate molecule that is found on cell membranes of mammals who
possess the enzyme, but also on certain infectious bacteria.
Individuals infected with such bacteria would benefit from mounting an
immune attack on this carbohydrate molecule, but if the same
carbohydrate appeared on their own cells such an attack could damage
their own tissues. Therefore, individuals who carry mutations in the
enzyme--and thus would not make the carbohydrate on their own
cells--would be free to mount an immune attack focused on this
molecule, protecting them against many bacteria without danger of
damaging their own tissues. Therefore, selective pressure would have
led to spread of gene copies that had undergone crippling mutations.
Creationists could reasonably argue that such mutations could have
occurred independently in different species as examples of recent
microevolution after independent creation of the species. It is
possible that different mutations did inactivate the gene independently
in several primate ancestors. However, the human and chimpanzee
galactosyltransferase pseudogenes have identical crippling mutations;
therefore, it is most likely that the gene was inactivated in a common
human/chimp ancestor."
I'm prepared to discuss this scientifically. Are you, Pastor Dave?
Budikka
.

User: "Chuck Stamford"
Title: Re: "Macroevolution" (Keep Running Pastor Dave) - Example 543	09 Oct 2005 03:17:37 PM

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1128865995.952449.204170@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

The chimpanzee and the human genome contain the same genetic mistakes:
http://tinyurl.com/bb9gf
Is this the work of an intelligent and perfect designer? That he
screwed up the chimpanzee genome and then made exactly the same mistake
in an (according to the creationists) completely unrelated organism?

Edward max MD, PHd wrties: "The shared galactosyltransferase
pseudogenes are fascinating for a reason that complicates their use in
arguing against creationists: evidence suggests that there may have
been a selective advantage to mutations that inactivated this gene. The
enzyme product of the gene catalyzes the production of a particular
carbohydrate molecule that is found on cell membranes of mammals who
possess the enzyme, but also on certain infectious bacteria.
Individuals infected with such bacteria would benefit from mounting an
immune attack on this carbohydrate molecule, but if the same
carbohydrate appeared on their own cells such an attack could damage
their own tissues. Therefore, individuals who carry mutations in the
enzyme--and thus would not make the carbohydrate on their own
cells--would be free to mount an immune attack focused on this
molecule, protecting them against many bacteria without danger of
damaging their own tissues. Therefore, selective pressure would have
led to spread of gene copies that had undergone crippling mutations.
Creationists could reasonably argue that such mutations could have
occurred independently in different species as examples of recent
microevolution after independent creation of the species. It is
possible that different mutations did inactivate the gene independently
in several primate ancestors. However, the human and chimpanzee
galactosyltransferase pseudogenes have identical crippling mutations;
therefore, it is most likely that the gene was inactivated in a common
human/chimp ancestor."

I'm prepared to discuss this scientifically. Are you, Pastor Dave?

Budikka

I don't know about Dave, but I certainly am.
First of all, let's set some parameters for the relevance of the evidence
we're looking at. To do that we have to first define the various theories
there are for all life on earth. It is not enough to view Max's argument
simply taking "creationists" as an ungrammatical term describing the various
challenges a full blown Neo-Darwinian Theory (NDT) faces. It is
ridiculously simplistic to frame the real state of affairs here as NDT
competing against the "poof theory" of creation. Many creationists don't
hold to a six-day creation, nor do they hold to the idea that all the
species we see today have been on earth since life began.
Evolution, in *some* sense of the word, *is* a fact. It has been observed
in nature to *be* a fact simply by the observation that over time species
will adapt to a changing environment or become extinct if they do not. But
that's the *only* "evolution" that *is* a fact, and NDT, to be an adequate
theory for the *origin* of all life on earth (and make no mistake, *that* is
exactly what NDT proports to be!), must do considerably more than merely
explain what we all know (or should know) to be true on its face!
Therefore, *any* evidence (observation) that merely supports adaption, or
*may* merely support adaption, is not really evidence for NDT, and that is
exactly what's wrong with Max's use of the
Max points to the shared galactosyltransferase gene in both man and
chimpanzee being inactivated as his "evidence" for NDT. The question then
*shoud* be, is this evidence for NDT or simply adaption. Let's look at what
Max is talking about:
First of all, we should realize that the the gene Max is talking about
produces a catalytic enzyme necessary for the complex molecular pathway
responsible for the production, intramolecular transport and identification,
and placement within the cell's membrane of the "particular carbonate
molecule" that is missing in both chimpanzees and humans. Max simply
ignores the fact that in this pathway there are many complex chemical
reactions, all of them necessary to the success in putting this "particular
carbonate molecule" within the cell membrane. The "crippling" of this
pathway is then a relatively simple affair. Any *one* of these interrelated
chemical reactions being effectively removed from the pathway will "cripple"
the pathway. I am not familiar with the pathway that produces this
semi-anonymous "particular carbonate molecule", and places it in the cell's
membrane, but even the simplest of molecular pathways involves dozens of
steps and the production, transport, and identification of dozens of organic
molecules! It is a sound principle in science that the more comples a
system is, the easier it is to disable it. Easier here translates to
simple, and simple translates to "likely".
But Max bases his argument that this gene, that produces the enzyme
necessary for the very complex molecular pathway that produces, identifies,
transports, and this "particular carbonate molecule" within the membrane,
being inactivated in both human and chimp is adequate evidence for NDT
because of the unlikelihood of it occurring in any other fashion except a
shared ancestry. That's nothing more than speculation of the rankest sort,
and no more than a distraction to the real issues involved in molecular
biology! Had Max really wanted to confront those issues, he would be
telling us how this pathway evolved in mammals, not simply ascribing to the
inactivation of a gene a degree of improbability it in no way deserves, and
treating what *he* has done in doing that "evidence" for NDT.
Secondly, Max is pointing to the inactivation of a gene as evidence for NDT.
However, NDT is a theory that must explain the *addition* of information to
the biosphere, not its subtraction. A cell function that is no longer
functioning because the pathway that produced it has been disabled is hardly
an example of adding to the total informational content of the cell. It is
an example of a cell becoming simpler, not more complex, and as such, tends
to argue against NDT rather than for it. The idea that on the macro scale
of "evolutionary pressures" this lack of function may turn out to be of some
benefit to the larger organism is a whole separate issue than the reality of
the molecular pathway, or lack of it, that produces that lack of function.
Thirdly, and this is important because it is so rampant in any argument one
sees like this, Max starts in the middle with his argument...always a bad
idea when one goes evidence hunting! He begins with the *fact* that
mammalian cells have this pathway and have immune systems that act in such a
way that because of this pathway the immune system destroys not only
invading bacteria, but often the cellular membrane as well.
Well...shouldn't he be noting that this fact needs an explanation within the
context of NDT? The production of antibodies by the immune system is a
STAGGERINGLY complex set of molecular pathways, and the pathway that puts
that "particular carbonate molecule" in the membrane, resulting in the
malfunctioning of the immune system in not differentiating sufficiently
between bacteria and cell membrane, is no simple process either! Thus there
are two processes at the cellular level that interrelate in their functions
to do DAMAGE to the cell! According to NDT, these processes must have
evolved step by step over time by the action of natural selection, genetic
drift, etc. How likely is it that in THAT context, these two processes
would have ever evolved in the first place? THAT'S the question Max should
be addressing, not his simplistic assignation of "improbable" to the simple
short circuiting of one aspect of the interrelation between these two
complex processes it doesn't deserve, and using that fallacy to say that man
and chimpanzee share a ancestor, much less a "recent ancestor".
Fourthly, where do we find Max making the claim that the disabling of this
gene is ONLY found in chimpanzees and humans? I didn't see that. Unless
that happens to be the case (and how could anyone know that this shared
disabling of the function by the inactivation of the galactosyltransferase
producing gene is unique to chimps and humans, with the currently inchoate
information there is available on the entire spectrum of mammalian
biochemical pathways), his whole argument is irrelevant to his conclusion;
nothing but a verbose non sequitur!
Chuck Stamford
.

User: "Tim K."
Title: Re: "Macroevolution" (Keep Running Pastor Dave) - Example 543	09 Oct 2005 04:26:21 PM

"Chuck Stamford" <shell__stamford@cox.net> wrote in message
news:FVe2f.3302$gj1.3091@fed1read05...

But that's the *only* "evolution" that *is* a fact, and NDT, to be an
adequate theory for the *origin* of all life on earth (and make no
mistake, *that* is exactly what NDT proports to be!),

Wrong, but thanks for playing.
.

User: "Steven J."
Title: Re: "Macroevolution" (Keep Running Pastor Dave) - Example 543	09 Oct 2005 09:02:56 PM

Chuck Stamford wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1128865995.952449.204170@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

The chimpanzee and the human genome contain the same genetic mistakes:
http://tinyurl.com/bb9gf
Is this the work of an intelligent and perfect designer? That he
screwed up the chimpanzee genome and then made exactly the same mistake
in an (according to the creationists) completely unrelated organism?

Edward max MD, PHd wrties: "The shared galactosyltransferase
pseudogenes are fascinating for a reason that complicates their use in
arguing against creationists: evidence suggests that there may have
been a selective advantage to mutations that inactivated this gene. The
enzyme product of the gene catalyzes the production of a particular
carbohydrate molecule that is found on cell membranes of mammals who
possess the enzyme, but also on certain infectious bacteria.
Individuals infected with such bacteria would benefit from mounting an
immune attack on this carbohydrate molecule, but if the same
carbohydrate appeared on their own cells such an attack could damage
their own tissues. Therefore, individuals who carry mutations in the
enzyme--and thus would not make the carbohydrate on their own
cells--would be free to mount an immune attack focused on this
molecule, protecting them against many bacteria without danger of
damaging their own tissues. Therefore, selective pressure would have
led to spread of gene copies that had undergone crippling mutations.
Creationists could reasonably argue that such mutations could have
occurred independently in different species as examples of recent
microevolution after independent creation of the species. It is
possible that different mutations did inactivate the gene independently
in several primate ancestors. However, the human and chimpanzee
galactosyltransferase pseudogenes have identical crippling mutations;
therefore, it is most likely that the gene was inactivated in a common
human/chimp ancestor."

I'm prepared to discuss this scientifically. Are you, Pastor Dave?

Budikka

Budikka is offering an argument for common descent (the idea that
humans and other species share ancestors with each other). It is not,
in itself, an argument about the age of the Earth, and makes no
assumption that creationists reject an old Earth (though Pastor Dave
does). It does not assume that creationist reject common ancestry for,
e.g. Darwin's finches; it assumes they reject common ancestry for
humans and other primates, and argues that such common ancestry is a
fact. Why do you attack an argument he has not made, or raise points
irrelevant to the argument he does make?

Evolution, in *some* sense of the word, *is* a fact. It has been observed
in nature to *be* a fact simply by the observation that over time species
will adapt to a changing environment or become extinct if they do not. But
that's the *only* "evolution" that *is* a fact, and NDT, to be an adequate
theory for the *origin* of all life on earth (and make no mistake, *that* is
exactly what NDT proports to be!), must do considerably more than merely
explain what we all know (or should know) to be true on its face!
Therefore, *any* evidence (observation) that merely supports adaption, or
*may* merely support adaption, is not really evidence for NDT, and that is
exactly what's wrong with Max's use of the

The above is very confused.
First of all, direct observation is not the only sort of evidence that
can support an idea to the extent that the idea should be regarded as a
"fact," and there is a great deal of evidence for common descent.
Budikka gives one of many examples of shared pseudogenes between humans
and other primates. There is also the evidence of shared endogenous
retroviruses, or even shared sequences in functional DNA; the gene for
cytochrome-c is quite functional, but given the many variants of the
enzyme with identical functions, why should the human version of the
enzyme be identical to that of chimps?
The strongest argument in favor of common descent is the consistent
nested hierarchy of life: the fact that, e.g. all and only animals with
one bone in the lower jaw and three in the middle ear (mammals) also
have mammary glands. This is a feature of common descent with
modification: one has features which are modified versions of features
one's ancestors had, and the more recent the ancestor (generally) the
more similar the traits). One finds consistent nested hierarchies in
suites of objects accidentally modified in the course of common
descent: languages, copying errors in manuscripts, and living things.
One does not find them in suites of designed artifacts.
The fossil evidence (both faunal succession in the fossil record and
transitional fossils) also supports common descent, but it is not so
strong a source of support as the nested hierarchy. Still, the
presence of several fossils that straddle boundaries between "created
kinds" (as shown by the fact that some creationists call, e.g. ER1470 a
"fully formed man" and others a "fully formed ape") strongly support
shared ancestry for different groups.
Second, there is a distinction between "evolution" (whether
"microevolution or common descent) and the mechanisms that make
evolution occur; one can (indeed, originally Darwin did) infer the
former without having any good ideas about the latter. NDT is an
evolutionary mechanism theory, an idea about what makes common descent
happen, not the idea of common descent itself, any more than, e.g.
Bernoulli's principle is the same thing as an aircraft wing). Thus, a
set of facts may be strong evidence for common descent, without being
much evidence for any particular theory of common descent.
Third, neither common descent nor mechanisms that seek to account for
it purport to be an explanation for the origin of life. They are
explanations for how life changes once it exists, not how life got here
in the first place. You are criticizing Budikka's post for not
offering evidence for a point he was not trying (in this post, anyway)
to make. One might expect someone at pains to point out that
creationists accept limited evolution and speciation to appreciate
this: even divine creation of the original life is consistent with both
common descent and the modern synthetic theory of evolution (although
that hypothesis is not very fruitful as an avenue of research into
abiogenesis, nor is the fact that abiogenesis theory has a multitude of
unanswered questions show that the only answer to those questions is to
invoke miracles).

Max points to the shared galactosyltransferase gene in both man and
chimpanzee being inactivated as his "evidence" for NDT. The question then
*shoud* be, is this evidence for NDT or simply adaption. Let's look at what
Max is talking about:

Well, in one sense, it's evidence for natural selection, since this
gene is deactivated in organisms that don't need to make their own
vitamin C, since they get plenty of ascorbic acid in their
(fruit-heavy) diet. Cows don't have this feature, because they would
all die of scurvy if they did. But again, this shared feature
presumably spread after the initial mutation because the mutation
didn't hurt. This (and, of course, subsequent changes in the
pseudogene) would be examples of neutral drift, not natural selection,
in the course of common descent.

First of all, we should realize that the the gene Max is talking about
produces a catalytic enzyme necessary for the complex molecular pathway
responsible for the production, intramolecular transport and identification,
and placement within the cell's membrane of the "particular carbonate
molecule" that is missing in both chimpanzees and humans. Max simply
ignores the fact that in this pathway there are many complex chemical
reactions, all of them necessary to the success in putting this "particular
carbonate molecule" within the cell membrane. The "crippling" of this
pathway is then a relatively simple affair. Any *one* of these interrelated
chemical reactions being effectively removed from the pathway will "cripple"
the pathway. I am not familiar with the pathway that produces this
semi-anonymous "particular carbonate molecule", and places it in the cell's
membrane, but even the simplest of molecular pathways involves dozens of
steps and the production, transport, and identification of dozens of organic
molecules! It is a sound principle in science that the more comples a
system is, the easier it is to disable it. Easier here translates to
simple, and simple translates to "likely".

You have a point relevant to Buddika's argument here: there are many
ways to cripple a pathway. Indeed, there are many ways to cripple this
particular gene. Therefore, it is worth noting (and calls for an
explanation) if two or more species have the process crippled in
exactly the same way, by pseudogenes disabled in identical ways (yet,
oddly, not quite identical in sequence).
Guinea pigs also eat a lot of fruit, and also have a GULO pseudogene,
and it is disabled in a different fashion than is the human GULO
pseudogene. Since most rodents have functional GULO genes and can make
their own vitamin C, this pseudogene must have originated separately
from the primate version.
But chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and macaques (a type of Old World
monkey) all have GULO pseudogenes disabled identically to the human
version. There are small differences in the sequence of nucleotides in
the pseudogenes, with chimps being more similar to humans than gorillas
are, gorillas being more similar than orangutans are, and orangutans
being more similar to humans than monkeys are.
In other words, these pseudogenes fall into the same nested hierarchy
as other genetic and morphological traits, although there seems no
reason why they should have to. From a standpoint of separate origins,
there's no obvious reason why humans and chimps should both have a
crippled version of a gene that is functional in other species, and
even less reason why all primates examined should have a pseudogene
disabled in the same way as humans (rather than, e.g. in the same way
as guinea pigs, or in some completely different way).
But, of course, the pattern of similarities and differences is easily
explained by common descent with modification, and is quite what should
be expected if gradual common descent is correct.

But Max bases his argument that this gene, that produces the enzyme
necessary for the very complex molecular pathway that produces, identifies,
transports, and this "particular carbonate molecule" within the membrane,
being inactivated in both human and chimp is adequate evidence for NDT
because of the unlikelihood of it occurring in any other fashion except a
shared ancestry. That's nothing more than speculation of the rankest sort,
and no more than a distraction to the real issues involved in molecular
biology! Had Max really wanted to confront those issues, he would be
telling us how this pathway evolved in mammals, not simply ascribing to the
inactivation of a gene a degree of improbability it in no way deserves, and
treating what *he* has done in doing that "evidence" for NDT.

The improbability, of course, is not the deactivation of the gene or
the disabling of the pathway, but in it being done exactly the same way
in every primate species examined (and yet in a different way in
nonprimates with the same pathway disabled). Again, this is not a
argument for any particular mechanism for modifying populations in the
course of common descent, and holds regardless of how many gaps remain
for creationists to try to stuff a god into.

-- [snip of further points already answered]

Chuck Stamford

-- Steven J.
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: "Macroevolution" (Keep Running Pastor Dave) - Example 543	10 Oct 2005 07:42:30 PM

"Steven J." wrote:

Chuck Stamford wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1128865995.952449.204170@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

The chimpanzee and the human genome contain the same genetic mistakes:
http://tinyurl.com/bb9gf
Is this the work of an intelligent and perfect designer? That he
screwed up the chimpanzee genome and then made exactly the same mistake
in an (according to the creationists) completely unrelated organism?

Edward max MD, PHd wrties: "The shared galactosyltransferase
pseudogenes are fascinating for a reason that complicates their use in
arguing against creationists: evidence suggests that there may have
been a selective advantage to mutations that inactivated this gene. The
enzyme product of the gene catalyzes the production of a particular
carbohydrate molecule that is found on cell membranes of mammals who
possess the enzyme, but also on certain infectious bacteria.
Individuals infected with such bacteria would benefit from mounting an
immune attack on this carbohydrate molecule, but if the same
carbohydrate appeared on their own cells such an attack could damage
their own tissues. Therefore, individuals who carry mutations in the
enzyme--and thus would not make the carbohydrate on their own
cells--would be free to mount an immune attack focused on this
molecule, protecting them against many bacteria without danger of
damaging their own tissues. Therefore, selective pressure would have
led to spread of gene copies that had undergone crippling mutations.
Creationists could reasonably argue that such mutations could have
occurred independently in different species as examples of recent
microevolution after independent creation of the species. It is
possible that different mutations did inactivate the gene independently
in several primate ancestors. However, the human and chimpanzee
galactosyltransferase pseudogenes have identical crippling mutations;
therefore, it is most likely that the gene was inactivated in a common
human/chimp ancestor."

I'm prepared to discuss this scientifically. Are you, Pastor Dave?

Budikka

===>Because that is Chuckie's last defense:
lie and sneakily change the subject. -- L.
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: "Macroevolution" (Keep Running Pastor Dave) - Example 543	10 Oct 2005 12:56:43 AM

On 9 Oct 2005 19:02:56 -0700, "Steven J."
<steven_j@altavista.com> spake thusly:

First of all, let's set some parameters for the relevance of the evidence
we're looking at. To do that we have to first define the various theories
there are for all life on earth. It is not enough to view Max's argument
simply taking "creationists" as an ungrammatical term describing the various
challenges a full blown Neo-Darwinian Theory (NDT) faces. It is
ridiculously simplistic to frame the real state of affairs here as NDT
competing against the "poof theory" of creation. Many creationists don't
hold to a six-day creation, nor do they hold to the idea that all the
species we see today have been on earth since life began.

Cut the crap! No one who believes that common
ancestors, such as ape to man, is saying "young
Earth". Please! (:
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
"If you will not believe,
Surely you will not be established."
- Isaiah 7:9b
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: "Macroevolution" (Keep Running Pastor Dave) - Example 543	10 Oct 2005 07:23:57 PM

Chuck Stamford wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1128865995.952449.204170@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

The chimpanzee and the human genome contain the same genetic mistakes:
http://tinyurl.com/bb9gf
Is this the work of an intelligent and perfect designer? That he
screwed up the chimpanzee genome and then made exactly the same mistake
in an (according to the creationists) completely unrelated organism?

Edward max MD, PHd wrties: "The shared galactosyltransferase
pseudogenes are fascinating for a reason that complicates their use in
arguing against creationists: evidence suggests that there may have
been a selective advantage to mutations that inactivated this gene. The
enzyme product of the gene catalyzes the production of a particular
carbohydrate molecule that is found on cell membranes of mammals who
possess the enzyme, but also on certain infectious bacteria.
Individuals infected with such bacteria would benefit from mounting an
immune attack on this carbohydrate molecule, but if the same
carbohydrate appeared on their own cells such an attack could damage
their own tissues. Therefore, individuals who carry mutations in the
enzyme--and thus would not make the carbohydrate on their own
cells--would be free to mount an immune attack focused on this
molecule, protecting them against many bacteria without danger of
damaging their own tissues. Therefore, selective pressure would have
led to spread of gene copies that had undergone crippling mutations.
Creationists could reasonably argue that such mutations could have
occurred independently in different species as examples of recent
microevolution after independent creation of the species. It is
possible that different mutations did inactivate the gene independently
in several primate ancestors. However, the human and chimpanzee
galactosyltransferase pseudogenes have identical crippling mutations;
therefore, it is most likely that the gene was inactivated in a common
human/chimp ancestor."

I'm prepared to discuss this scientifically. Are you, Pastor Dave?

Budikka

===>WHAT A LIAR!
This is where your "argument" turns into blatant LYING.
Unlike your creation fables, NO "Darwinian theory" claims to be
a 'theory for the *origin* of all life on earth', as you so deceptively
insists ('make no mistake, *that* is exactly what NDT proports to be!)
Chuckie, Chuckie!
Why do you keep on using lies to buttress your phony, childish
arguments? -- L.
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: "Macroevolution" (Keep Running Pastor Dave) - Example 543	09 Oct 2005 04:49:11 PM

Chuck Stamford wrote:

First of all, let's set some parameters for the relevance of the evidence
we're looking at.

The parameter was already set by Disaster Dave (after a fashion). He
flatly stated that evolutionists are liars and he arrogantly demanded
evidence of macroevolution. However, when he was asked either to
define macroevolution, or to define what he would accept as evidence,
he ran away.
I eventually defined it for him taking macroevolution to be evidence of
speciation or above, as opposed to genetic change within a single
species. Speciation has been demonstrated. Ergo, Disaster Dave is a
liar *and* a coward, and also a hypocrite since he demands evidence
from others where he demonstrably cannot produce a shred of it himself
to support his own PoV.

To do that we have to first define the various theories

No, all we have to do is take Disaster Dave's PoV, since this is what
this series is about. This is admittedly a tough one since he will not
let himself be caught defining anything (another reason why he's a
coward and a hypocrite), but he seems to be a young-earth creationist
from what he states.

there are for all life on earth. It is not enough to view Max's argument
simply taking "creationists" as an ungrammatical term describing the various
challenges a full blown Neo-Darwinian Theory (NDT) faces.

"NDT" as you call it does not face any scientific challenges from any
of the creationist camps. In order for it to be in that position, it
would have to have scientific arguments against it (or positive
evidence for an alternate theory) published in refereed science
journals. Creationists cannot do this as their track record shows.

It is
ridiculously simplistic to frame the real state of affairs here as NDT
competing against the "poof theory" of creation. Many creationists don't
hold to a six-day creation, nor do they hold to the idea that all the
species we see today have been on earth since life began.

That, in a nutshell, is their problem. It is not the fault of
evolutionists that the creationists cannot agree among themselves.
That is their fight. What they need to do to challenge "NDT" is to
publish their scientific evidence in the science journals, either to
establish a competing "theory of creation", or to refute the evidence
for "NDT". This they evidently cannot do.

Evolution, in *some* sense of the word, *is* a fact.

Evolution is nothing more than a change in allele frequency in a
population. It really is that simple. Therefore evolution is a fact.
The Theory of Evolution explains this fact scientifically. It has 150
years of accumulated evidence supporting it and it has been tested
repeatedly and never proven wrong.
The hilarious thing about creationists is that they're now literally
forced to accept evolution because the evidence is overwhelming, but
they are also forced to wheedle and equivocate over what it is because
of their own dogmatic addiction to religion. They are in the idiotic
position of stating, "Yes, evolution occurs, but only a little bit" to
paraphrase Lenny Flank, and then they find themselves in the impossible
position of being unable to define "kind" and unable to define a
mechanism which prevents one of these "kinds" changing into another
"kind" and the vice they are in is tightening with every genome that
gets mapped.

It has been observed
in nature to *be* a fact simply by the observation that over time species
will adapt to a changing environment or become extinct if they do not. But
that's the *only* "evolution" that *is* a fact, and NDT, to be an adequate
theory for the *origin* of all life on earth (and make no mistake, *that* is
exactly what NDT proports to be!),

The Theory of Evolution is designed (and was from the beginning) to
explain the diversity and distribution of life, not the origin of it.
That is the science of abiogenesis, which is also adequately supported
by available evidence.

must do considerably more than merely
explain what we all know (or should know) to be true on its face!

If you accept so-called microevolution you're accepting so-called
"macroevolution". It really is that simple, since the two are one and
the same, the only difference between them being the time period over
which they are measured.

Therefore, *any* evidence (observation) that merely supports adaption, or
*may* merely support adaption, is not really evidence for NDT, and that is
exactly what's wrong with Max's use of the

Max's use of the... what?
There is evidence for every aspect of evolution, which the creationists
try to separate out, but which really is a continuum. Disaster Dave,
for example, states that there are "six kinds of evolution", not one of
which he will define.
This is entirely unsurprising since he cannot define "kind" as used in
the story of Noah, either, nor can he articulate a mechanism which
prevents genetic change from accumulating to a point where a new
species arises. Yet he has the arrogance to declare that there is a
mechanism which prevents this, and the hypocrisy, while never defining
this mechanism, to insist that evolutionsits literally prove every step
of evolution from the first cell to humankind.

The issue *here* in this thread is whether is is more evidential of
evolution or of creation, and it is clearly more evidential of
evolution unless the creationists which to specify a stupid or
incompetent creator, which does indeed appear to be their position (not
that they dare define their position, nor do they have time to set up a
pretence at a science. They're much to busy filing lawsuits and
whining about evolution).

First of all, we should realize that the the gene Max is talking about

It's actually described as a pseudogene, itself evidence of evolution,
not of creation.

produces a catalytic enzyme necessary for the complex molecular pathway
responsible for the production, intramolecular transport and identification,
and placement within the cell's membrane of the "particular carbonate
molecule" that is missing in both chimpanzees and humans. Max simply
ignores the fact that in this pathway there are many complex chemical
reactions, all of them necessary to the success in putting this "particular
carbonate molecule" within the cell membrane. The "crippling" of this
pathway is then a relatively simple affair.

Which is why evolution could easily have done it. The problem for
creationists is explaining why it was that a designer, designing each
species from scratch, made the same mistake in each species. None of
them seem able to face this challenge.

Any *one* of these interrelated
chemical reactions being effectively removed from the pathway will "cripple"
the pathway. I am not familiar with the pathway that produces this
semi-anonymous "particular carbonate molecule", and places it in the cell's
membrane, but even the simplest of molecular pathways involves dozens of
steps and the production, transport, and identification of dozens of organic
molecules! It is a sound principle in science that the more comples a
system is, the easier it is to disable it. Easier here translates to
simple, and simple translates to "likely".

This doesn't detract from evolution. On the other side, it again
questions the competence of the designer.

You seem to be missing Max's point. He specifically addresses the
issue that you raised, and the answer gets us directly into the same
terrain that creationists try to employ against evolution - what are
the odds? Are the odds more likely that this exact mutation in the
exact same place is the result of random mutation or of shared ancestry
whereby this was preserved in both descendent lines because it was
actually beneficial?
And this mutation is not by itself. It is one of many from what I have
read. The odds against it being random degeneration after a special
creation increase dramatically with each such matching error that's
found.
Disaster Dave of course, will run from this like he has run from
everything else posted on this topic. But if he had any guts, he would
try to refute this as you have tried, by claiming such random mutations
can occur. However, if he does this, he defeats his own position that
random mutations cannot create new species. On the other hand, if he
fails to refute this, then he admits there is macroevolution. Either
way, he loses! That's the beauty of this particular example.

Secondly, Max is pointing to the inactivation of a gene as evidence for NDT.
However, NDT is a theory that must explain the *addition* of information to
the biosphere, not its subtraction.

That's been done. (Did you actually *read* Max's article?)

A cell function that is no longer
functioning because the pathway that produced it has been disabled is hardly
an example of adding to the total informational content of the cell.

This example is not designed to demonstrate that, so it is foolish of
you to chide it for failing to do something it was never intended to do
in the first place. That's like someone who accidentally hits the
accelerator pedal instead of the brake and crashes their car, chiding
the accelerator for not stopping the vehicle.

It is
an example of a cell becoming simpler, not more complex, and as such, tends
to argue against NDT rather than for it.

Wrong! The Theory of Evolution does not demand increased complexity
for every mutation. In afct, it doesn't demand increased complexity at
all, as far as I can see. Again, evolution is merely a change in
allele frequency. It is the accumulation of such changes over time
that leads to the diversity and distribution of life. At least, that's
what all the evidence demonstrates.

The idea that on the macro scale
of "evolutionary pressures" this lack of function may turn out to be of some
benefit to the larger organism is a whole separate issue than the reality of
the molecular pathway, or lack of it, that produces that lack of function.

The example wasn't designed to show anything other than what is
claimed. The larger picture of evolution is a larger picture, not this
microcosm.

Thirdly, and this is important because it is so rampant in any argument one
sees like this, Max starts in the middle with his argument...always a bad
idea when one goes evidence hunting! He begins with the *fact* that
mammalian cells have this pathway and have immune systems that act in such a
way that because of this pathway the immune system destroys not only
invading bacteria, but often the cellular membrane as well.

You didn't read the entire article, did you? You read only the side
box that I quoted, didn't you?

Well...shouldn't he be noting that this fact needs an explanation within the
context of NDT? The production of antibodies by the immune system is a
STAGGERINGLY complex set of molecular pathways, and the pathway that puts
that "particular carbonate molecule" in the membrane, resulting in the
malfunctioning of the immune system in not differentiating sufficiently
between bacteria and cell membrane, is no simple process either!

The side box was not intended to be a proof of the entire Theory of
Evolution, it was intended only to show what I've used it for. That's
a huge weakness of the creationists - they try to take one single thing
out of context and totally trash it and claim this disproves evolution.
Then they move elsewhere and take another little thing out of context
and try to trash that. They do not look at the whole picture. The
Theory of Evolution *does*. This exmaple and the side box from Max's
article do not.

Thus there
are two processes at the cellular level that interrelate in their functions
to do DAMAGE to the cell! According to NDT, these processes must have
evolved step by step over time by the action of natural selection, genetic
drift, etc. How likely is it that in THAT context, these two processes
would have ever evolved in the first place?

Well, there they are! The point is not how, when or where this whole
subset of functionality evolved, but the likelihood of two separately
created "kinds" devloping a set of mutations in the same places on the
genome. Clearly the odds favor these two "kinds" having a common
ancestor, not that two separately created, perfectly created, perfectly
designed "kinds" then inexplicably degenerated in exactly the same
fashion.

THAT'S the question Max should be addressing,

Perhaps you should write him and tell him what he was thinking. My
guess is that he was thinking of genetic refutations of creationism,
*not* of explicating evolution of the entire genome.

not his simplistic assignation of "improbable" to the simple
short circuiting of one aspect of the interrelation between these two
complex processes it doesn't deserve, and using that fallacy to say that man
and chimpanzee share a ancestor, much less a "recent ancestor".

Ask him and see what he says. His email is available with one click on
his name at the URL I supplied.

Fourthly, where do we find Max making the claim that the disabling of this
gene is ONLY found in chimpanzees and humans?

If you had read the *article*, you would have read "In addition, the
galactosyltransferase pseudogene present in the human genome is shared
with apes and Old World monkeys".

I didn't see that.

You didn't look at the article, did you?

Unless
that happens to be the case (and how could anyone know that this shared
disabling of the function by the inactivation of the galactosyltransferase
producing gene is unique to chimps and humans, with the currently inchoate
information there is available on the entire spectrum of mammalian
biochemical pathways), his whole argument is irrelevant to his conclusion;
nothing but a verbose non sequitur!

The non-sequitur is the diatribe posted by someone who hasn't even read
the article, and further exacerbates that situation by misunderstanding
the small piece of the article I reproduced in this thread.
Budikka
.

User: "Tim K."
Title: Re: "Macroevolution" (Keep Running Pastor Dave) - Example 543	09 Oct 2005 05:12:48 PM

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1128894551.399801.129560@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

The Theory of Evolution is designed (and was from the beginning) to
explain the diversity and distribution of life, not the origin of it.

There's another one that I can't understand why so many people have a hard
time with it. How many times do we have to repeat that evolution is not
concerned with the origin of life...

A matter of difference in degree, not kind.
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: "Macroevolution" (Keep Running Pastor Dave) - Example 543	10 Oct 2005 07:33:22 PM

"Tim K." wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1128894551.399801.129560@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

The Theory of Evolution is designed (and was from the beginning) to
explain the diversity and distribution of life, not the origin of it.

There's another one that I can't understand why so many people have a hard
time with it. How many times do we have to repeat that evolution is not
concerned with the origin of life...

===>But the poor babies must go back to THAT
part of biological history, because
they KNOW the inadequacy of their creation fables and silly arguments
based on those fables. Since they are aware
there is not yet any "adequate theory" for the "origin of life",
i.e. for the evolution of living organisms out of pre-biological substances,
they simply LIE and insist THAT is what Darwinian Theory is about.
They are simply defenseless against the vast evidence of SPECIATION
via EVOLUTION. -- L.
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: "Macroevolution" (Keep Running Pastor Dave) - Example 543	10 Oct 2005 12:55:18 AM

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 13:17:37 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> spake thusly:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1128865995.952449.204170@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

The chimpanzee and the human genome contain the same genetic mistakes:
http://tinyurl.com/bb9gf
Is this the work of an intelligent and perfect designer? That he
screwed up the chimpanzee genome and then made exactly the same mistake
in an (according to the creationists) completely unrelated organism?

Edward max MD, PHd wrties: "The shared galactosyltransferase
pseudogenes are fascinating for a reason that complicates their use in
arguing against creationists: evidence suggests that there may have
been a selective advantage to mutations that inactivated this gene. The
enzyme product of the gene catalyzes the production of a particular
carbohydrate molecule that is found on cell membranes of mammals who
possess the enzyme, but also on certain infectious bacteria.
Individuals infected with such bacteria would benefit from mounting an
immune attack on this carbohydrate molecule, but if the same
carbohydrate appeared on their own cells such an attack could damage
their own tissues. Therefore, individuals who carry mutations in the
enzyme--and thus would not make the carbohydrate on their own
cells--would be free to mount an immune attack focused on this
molecule, protecting them against many bacteria without danger of
damaging their own tissues. Therefore, selective pressure would have
led to spread of gene copies that had undergone crippling mutations.
Creationists could reasonably argue that such mutations could have
occurred independently in different species as examples of recent
microevolution after independent creation of the species. It is
possible that different mutations did inactivate the gene independently
in several primate ancestors. However, the human and chimpanzee
galactosyltransferase pseudogenes have identical crippling mutations;
therefore, it is most likely that the gene was inactivated in a common
human/chimp ancestor."

I'm prepared to discuss this scientifically. Are you, Pastor Dave?

Budikka

I don't know about Dave, but I certainly am.

These are claims they make, that's all. Every single
one of them now is claiming that they stand ready
and I am running away.
The reality is, they could not offer any proof.
The biggest pieces of evidence they had,
was (some of them paraphrased)...
"Prove that it could not happen."
"What mechanism would stop it from happening"
"Prove God"
"Here, look at this bunch of web pages"
"Dawkins said this could have happened...
Now prove that he was wrong"
"Science doesn't prove anything"
Etc., etc..
The last one, they claim, after ridiculing you because
you don't believe it, which means that whether they
admit it or not, they consider it an absolute truth and
absolute truths require absolute proof.
After a while, I kill filed them. And I mean, after a
while. I gave them plenty of opportunity. I got tired
after a while, of their posts that tried to ridicule
me, ridicule my faith, send me to their standard
web links, etc., etc.. None of those things are proof.
You see, they're upset with me, because I won't allow
them to keep dragging me into their circular arguments
and to keep dragging me around the big loop and they're
upset, because I can tell them exactly where they're
going to go and exactly what they're going to say,
beforehand. :)
The only genetics evidence that they offered, which was
that chimps are 98% identical in code to humans. I
showed them that while they try to pretend that it's
almost exact, it's really 96% and that the 4% means
thousands upon thousands of differences, some of which
are obvious to anyone. It also doesn't mean anything
more than a common designer.
It amazes me that these evolutionists claim that it
couldn't be God, because there is so much similarity in
various parts of various creatures. Yet they wouldn't
have expected the first pickup truck to use anything
other than wheels, just because cars had wheels. :)
So why do they expect that God would have to invent
something other than a leg, to design something that
walks, just because something else has legs? That
doesn't make sense.
They also complain that Intelligent Design doesn't
offer a theory. Sure it does. They just won't admit
it. Not only this, but they claim that creationists
spend their time attacking evolution, instead of
offering a theory. So what do they do? Spend their
time attacking Intelligent Design and when they are
challenged to offer this so called "mountain of
evidence" for what they believe, their first reaction
is to demand that you prove it wrong! <chuckle>
They claim that evolution had the evidence first and
that their predictions were based on that evidence.
Not true. Darwin had no fossils to back up his claims
and he admitted it and hoped that one day they would
be found. Guess what? Evolutionists still do not have
one single chain of fossils that show, for example,
that canidae came from non-canidae. Their "theory"
is not based on evidence. It is based on bad ideas,
that still have nothing to support them.
These evolutionists don't even know that there are
six kinds of evolution (with a seventh being
formulated). They claim that I have no education and
try to talk down to everyone, claiming that others,
"just don't understand science". I'm not the one who
doesn't know that there are six kinds of evolution and
that only one has any evidence (microevolution) and
when they claim I'm lying and I prove it is true, they
insult me and run away.
They see the title "Pastor" and assume that I am
ignorant and that their little ploys will work. The
fact is, I have studied the subject (including the
various involved sciences) for years and I have reading
material on evolution, by evolutionists (not just
creationists) stacked up in my personal library as well
and the fact is, they can't make a case. "Could have",
"might have" and "this must have", are not evidence
and that is the language we constantly see in these
writings. (:.
Over the years, they have tried to separate the various
parts of evolution from each other. They won't admit
that abiogenesis (a disproved idea) is part of this
theory. That's because they're embarrassed by its
failure. The fact is, their ideas leads straight back
to abiogenesis. They claim that evolution doesn't
address the issue of God. If that is true, then why do
they spend so much time trying to ridicule Him? And
why do these evolutionists get so uptight when you
bring God into the conversation? They have an
"a priori" assumption that denies God and the greatest
names in evolution admit it.
"...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 a set of
concepts that produce material explanations, no matter
how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the
uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an
absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the
door." - Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions
of Demons, The New York Review of Books,
January 9, 1997, p. 31
They ask why creationist theory isn't printed. It is.
They demand to see it in "peer reviewed" journals,
etc.. What they mean, is that they demand that those
who reject the idea, who (no one can deny) control
what is and isn't printed, print the idea in these
"journals". Of course, we all know that isn't going to
happen. But assuming it did one day happen, they
would simply say that this scientist is a fool and the
fact that the other (according to them) 99% of the
scientists don't believe it, shows it to be foolish.
You see, now majority opinion equals truth to them.
If that's true, how come the atheists don't admit that
God exists, considering that the majority of people on
the planet believe in God? You see, they are self
contradictory. These oppose themselves and with
that kind of help from them, we need not say a word
about that foolish idea. :)
They demand to see scientists saying what we believe.
When you show them scientists who do indeed do that,
they claim "they aren't real scientists". So in
reality, there is nothing that you're going to show
them, that will satisfy them. They try to stack the
deck from god.
Let's take a look at the latest answer from the guy who
keeps chasing me around, claiming that he has answered
my call for proof of macroevolution and that I'm
running away, even though before I kill filed him
because he got so insulting, he was given ample
opportunity to try to prove it, but like all of them,
his arguments consisted of trying to turn the tables
and pretend that their claim equals proof and that I
have to disprove it (all the while, complaining that ID
only attacks evolution <laugh>).
This is the man you responded to (Budikka666).
Note the imagined scenarios and "could have"'
claims and the demand for me to prove that it
could not have happened and the demand for me to spend
my time coming up with definitions. This is classic
evolutionists table turning and classic "ideas that
maybe happened are proof and you're stupid if you don't
believe it" technique <laugh> ...
************************************************************************
According to Richard Dawkins in his recently published
"The Ancestor's Tale" humans and apes parted company
some 6,000,000 years ago. Evolution doesn't work in
this orderly, simplified linear fashion, but for the
sake of argument, let's distribute the 60,000,000
base pairs over the 6,000,000 years, giving us a
requirement of 10 base pairs per year to macro-evolve
from a common ancestor into either a chimpanzee or
a human in 6 million years. What is there to prevent
that? Why could that not have happened?
In order to respond to this question you will need
to define "kind" and define the mechanism which
you claim prevents one "kind" from changing into
another "kind". But of course, every time I ask you
to do that **YOU RUN AWAY**.
Since a gene contains some 100,000 base pairs on
average, changing out just one or two genes during
that time period could have accomplished it (although
that's not what happened. It was a few more genes
than that).
There's your macroevolution. Care to discuss it?
************************************************************************
Yes, the above is what he calls the proof that I'm
supposedly running away from. <chuckle> :)
Here's the link to it...
http://tinyurl.com/8fg2l
Also, it seems to me, that if they're going to prove
their claim, it should involve any typing on my part
at all. :)
Think about it. If they have the proof, then why does
it involve me proving that a "maybe" could not have
happened? Hmmmm... I mean, if I said that I have
proof that the world was created in six days, wouldn't
they demand that I display it here for all to see?
Would they accept, "Here's a maybe from this guy.
Now prove it could not have happened."?
No, of course not, yet that's what they're offering as
proof of macroevolution and then claim that it must
be true, because I'm running away from "the proof".
<chuckle>
As I said, they had ample opportunity in a thread I
started, that was a call for proof. It has nothing to
do with my beliefs, nor my comments. It was a thread
for them to provide the proof and they failed
miserably. Here is the first message in the thread, in
which I told them exactly what their answers would
consists of (and I was right)...
http://tinyurl.com/beynd
You can read the rest of the thread from there. :)
The greatest scientific philosopher of all time,
Dr. Karl Popper, said that evolution is not a law,
nor a theory and that it doesn't even rise to the
level of an hypothesis. He said it is nothing more
than a metaphysical research program.
These people are fools who deny God because
He interferes with their desire to be their own gods.
This is a negative and rebellious reaction to God.
It is a spirit of fighting God, in order to play God.
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
"If you will not believe,
Surely you will not be established."
- Isaiah 7:9b
.

User: "Tim K."
Title: Re: "Macroevolution" (Keep Running Pastor Dave) - Example 543	10 Oct 2005 04:30:32 PM

"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dc0kk1t0a2mg968mqqurkt9rnjv7jb5g86@4ax.com...

These are claims they make, that's all. Every single
one of them now is claiming that they stand ready
and I am running away.

heh, yeah, imagine that.
Why don't you answer us?
*****
.

User: "Ben Dolan"
Title: Re: "Macroevolution" (Keep Running Pastor Dave) - Example 543	10 Oct 2005 11:18:58 AM

Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:

They also complain that Intelligent Design doesn't
offer a theory. Sure it does.

What is this so called theory? What experiments have been conducted to
prove or disprove it?

They have an "a priori" assumption that denies God

You've got it exactly backwards. The creationist crowd makes an a priori
assumption *for* the existence of god, and their entire argument flows
from that. This is, of course, why proving the existence of the god
comes up in any discussion of creationism.
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: "Macroevolution" (Keep Running Pastor Dave) - Example 543	10 Oct 2005 07:54:41 PM

Ben Dolan wrote:

Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:

They also complain that Intelligent Design doesn't
offer a theory. Sure it does.

What is this so called theory? What experiments have been conducted to
prove or disprove it?

===>Since it is obviously not science, THEIR understanding of the
word "theory" is just a "guess" or "assumption".
In scientific terms, it is not only no "theory", it is not even
a hypothesis, since it cannot be tested.

They have an "a priori" assumption that denies God

===>Obviously there's no need to "deny God" to accept the REAL
THEORY of Darwin. The mature RC Church has been able to officially
declare that. Only the immature Protestant sects and cults are unable
to divorce themselves from the childish fairy tales of Genesis. -- L.
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: "Macroevolution" (Keep Running Pastor Dave) - Example 543	10 Oct 2005 11:54:54 AM

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:18:58 -0700,
ben_dolan_III@reet.com (Ben Dolan) spake thusly:

Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:

They also complain that Intelligent Design doesn't
offer a theory. Sure it does.

What is this so called theory? What experiments have been conducted to
prove or disprove it?

Now go ahead and ask this, when we both know
whatever I offer you, you will reject and claim they're
not "real scientists", blah, blah, blah, just as you
all do.
See below.

They have an "a priori" assumption that denies God

No, you have it backwards, both side make certain
assumptions and when you say this and try to claim
that you don't make an assumption, especially after
snipping an evolutionist verifying it, you prove to me
that you have no sincere interest in knowing what
the theory is and what it involves.
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
"If you will not believe,
Surely you will not be established."
- Isaiah 7:9b
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: "Macroevolution" (Keep Running Pastor Dave) - Example 543	10 Oct 2005 08:29:16 PM

Pastor Dave wrote:

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:18:58 -0700,
ben_dolan_III@reet.com (Ben Dolan) spake thusly:

Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:

They also complain that Intelligent Design doesn't
offer a theory. Sure it does.

What is this so called theory? What experiments have been conducted to
prove or disprove it?

Now go ahead and ask this, when we both know
whatever I offer you, you will reject and claim they're
not "real scientists", blah, blah, blah, just as you
all do.

Disaster Dave runs away again - another limp Peter at the Passion. No
surprises there. He's actually now a serious contender for taking over
the mantle of Internet's Biggest Coward from Earl Weber.
Budikka
.

User: "Murf"
Title: Re: "Macroevolution" (Keep Running Pastor Dave) - Example 543	10 Oct 2005 07:16:48 AM

Pastor Dave sez

And why do these evolutionists get so uptight when you
bring God into the conversation? They have an
"a priori" assumption that denies God and the greatest
names in evolution admit it.

I get uptight and irratated when people try to argue by recourse to
purile mumbo jumbo.
If, when I am working on sand & gravel resource mapping (and yes, I
know its not the most exciting job :-(... )
If I say in a meeting "here are the deposits laid down in iceages x, y
and z, somebody was to say "rubbish", "Giant Tapirs put the material
there, the world is only 10,000 years old" I would get wound up.
II find the concept of "god" and the rest of silly superstitions an
irratation.
But that does not mean that my plans of sand & gravel deposits are
wrong.......
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: "Macroevolution" (Keep Running Pastor Dave) - Example 543	10 Oct 2005 08:27:21 PM

Pastor Dave wrote:

These are claims they make, that's all. Every single
one of them now is claiming that they stand ready
and I am running away.

That's exactly what you *are* doing. In this very thread which
presents scientific evidence - not a web page, not a URL, not a
citation, but the text of an argument right here in the message, you
have run away from addressing the argument THREE TIMES now. And you've
done the same thing in every other thread where I've posted evidence.

The reality is, they could not offer any proof.

Right here in this thread is EXAMPLE FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY THREE, you
pathetic liar.
And how pathetic that I specifically asked you in my very first
response on September 11th in your own macroevolution thread what you
would accept as proof so I could provide it, and **YOU EVEN RAN AWAY
FROM THAT QUESTION**.
I asked you to define macroevolution so I would know what "kind" of
evidence to provide, and **YOU EVEN RAN AWAY FROM THAT QUESTION**!

The biggest pieces of evidence they had,

Is 150 years of peer-reviewed evidence in refereed science journals,
published by people from all over the world, OF ALL RELIGIOUS FAITHS.
Address *that* you coward, becuase every time I mention that to you,
**YOU RUN AWAY**.

"Prove that it could not happen."

That comment has never been made by me. However, **AFTER I HAVE
PRESENTED THE SCIENCE OR THE MATH** 543 times, I've asked you to enter
into in the dicussion you promised, invited you to explain why I am
wrong, **AND EVERY SINGLE TIME - 543 TIMES TO BE EXACT - YOU HAVE RUN
AWAY**!

"What mechanism would stop it from happening"

This was asked by me to invite you into the discussion you promised on
August 31st, but have run away from ever since. The discussion was:
since you insist that there are distinct "kinds" (which you have
repeatedly run away from scientifically defining - as has every other
creationist) which cannot change from one to another, then there must
be a mechanism which prevents it. What is that mechanism?
You swore you could discuss the science in your original macroevolution
challenge on August 31st. I'm still waiting, 543 times later, on you
discussing even one example I've presented, on you defining this "kind"
that youc laim cannot change into another "kind" and on you defining,
scientifically, the mechanism which prevents this "kind" of evolution.
You are a hypocrite to stand there and claim we cannot produce evidence
when we have repeatedly presented it and repeatedly challenged you to
refute it only to see you run away and then claim we haven't presented
evidence. What "kind" of a Christian behaves that way?

"Prove God"

Thanks for admitting you cannot, but we already knew this and you've
already admitted it repeatedly. Don't strain yourself.
Yes, this was me again, but the truth is that you're the one claiming
absolute certitude that there is a god, and **LYING** that it is the
scientists claiming the same thing about evolution.
I took **YOUR EXACT MACROEVOLUTION CHALLENGE**, changed the word
"macroevolution" for "god" and threw **YOUR CHALLENGE** back at you -
and look at how you whine about it! If it's a ridiculous challenge,
then so was yours on macroevolution.
But let's look deeper at this, shall we? In response to *your*
challenge, I gave you 543 examples. it doesn;t matter if they are good
ones or not at this point, but there were 543 with many mroe to come.
SSo I took uop your challenge and repsodned to it giving you rpecisely
what youa sked for. **YOU** were the one who ran from it.
Now let's look at *my* challenge, shall we? Did you offer even **ONE**
example in reSPnse? No! **YOU RAN AWAY**!
So we have two pritine examples of challenges here, and how each of us
responds. In both cases, i stood and was prepared to enter into a
serious discussion with you. In both cases, YOU RAN AWAY! Don't whine
about it now, you coward.

"Here, look at this bunch of web pages"

What do you recommend, Pastor Dave? The unchristian act of wasting
bandwidth by reproducing something that's already produced? URLs are
what the WWW is all about you moron. Are you advocating that people
breach copyright by reproducing the exact text that's already out
there? Isn't that a little unchristian?
I personally already refered you to the actual science papers,
including specifically listing a whole bunch of them. Did you respond
to that? Nope. Once again, **YOU RAN AWAY**.

"Dawkins said this could have happened...
Now prove that he was wrong"

Never said that. And it's pretty hypocritcal that you decry the
posting of URLs. You also decry the referencing of books. You also
won't countenance the original science papers published in
peer-reviewed magazines. And as this thread procves. you won;t address
direct argument.
JUST HOW DO YOU WANT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, PASTOR DAVE - IN MIME?

"Science doesn't prove anything"

You're lying. What was actually said was that science doesn't claim
absolute, eternal, irrefutable certitude. That's what religion claims.

The last one, they claim, after ridiculing you because
you don't believe it, which means that whether they
admit it or not, they consider it an absolute truth and
absolute truths require absolute proof.

This from the coward who couldn't even produce **ONE ARGUMENT** in
response to my parallel change that (while we're producing evidence of
macroevolution **FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY THREE TIMES**, Pastor Dave
couldn't even make one argument for his god. If absolute truths
require absolute proof, Pastor Dave has just proven there is no god!

After a while, I kill filed them. And I mean, after a
while. I gave them plenty of opportunity.

You never gave me even one opportunity. I first responded to you on
September 11th, and since that time in that original thread of yours
and in the subsequent FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY THREE EXAMPLES** you have
88NEVER ONCE** entered into the discussion you promised. You're a
liar, a coward, and a hypocrite, yet here I am still holding out my
hand to you for a discussion of the evidence.
Now who is the most christian, Pastor Dave, you, the Christian, or me,
the atheist?

I got tired
after a while,

I guarantee you that the atheists are more tired of your cowardice,
lies, and hypocrisy than you could ever become of atheists.

of their posts that tried to ridicule
me, ridicule my faith, send me to their standard
web links, etc., etc.. None of those things are proof.

The ridicule came after you promised a discussion - a scientific
discussion of the evidence, and then insulted everyone who presented
it, or simply ran away from it. If you had refuted it, or tried to, if
you had even discussed the science or made some sort of pretence that
you even understood it, which you clearly do not, then you would have
got what you requested. But cowardice and lies deserves precisely what
you got.

You see, they're upset with me, because I won't allow
them to keep dragging me into their circular arguments

The circular argument that you demand proof, and then when you get the
evidence, you ignore it or insist it isn't proof without a shred of
refutation or science to support your claim, and then claim no one
offered proof?
Or is it the circular argument that you demand proof, and then dismiss
wihtout any support, the posting of URLs, the referencing of books, the
referencing of original science papers published in peer-reviewed
magazines, and direct argument?
You;re a patheitc little hypocrite and your lies have finally nailed
your ***** to the wall, you coward.

and to keep dragging me around the big loop and they're
upset, because I can tell them exactly where they're
going to go and exactly what they're going to say,
beforehand. :)

The only genetics evidence that they offered, which was
that chimps are 98% identical in code to humans. I
showed them that while they try to pretend that it's
almost exact, it's really 96%I specified in my example #1 (http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc) that it was 96%

overall and >98% in terms of the genes which specify proteins. Clearly
if you do not understand this distinction, you do not understand the
science which makes it, and your ignorance in this case is your
downfall.
This means that when we take into account junk DNA, most of which codes
for nothing and is just the detritus of evolution, there is *more*
difference than when we look only at genes that code for the proteins
which build and maintain our bodies.

and that the 4% means
thousands upon thousands of differences,

4% of the genome in this case is only 120,000,000 base pairs, and as I
just pointed out, this is irrelevant because it is junk. The
difference in working genes is only 1% or 2%. Since we have ~25,000
genes, this is at most 500 genes out of 25,000. That means chimpanzees
have ~250 genes we do not have and we have ~250 they do not. We
diverged from chimpanzees some 5 - 7 millon years ago, which means in,
say, 5 million years, we had to acquire or change 250 genes. This
works out to be one new gene every 20,000 years - a gene that was
duplicated and then changed, or simply changed.
What is there to prevent that? Please give your scientific answer and
let's discuss it. Science has already shown it can happen and that it
does happen, therefore it is up to you to show why it did not. Science
doesn't know of anything that could prevent it.
Scientists have found genes that have changed in many genomes. There
are many mechanisms which can do this and which do do this (humans and
chimpanzees exhibit this, for example, in our blood grouping). Anyone
who cares to scientifically demonstrate such a mechanism would become
more famous than Darwin and fabulously wealthy. Any takers?

some of which
are obvious to anyone. It also doesn't mean anything
more than a common designer.

It amazes me that these evolutionists claim that it
couldn't be God, because there is so much similarity in
various parts of various creatures.

You need to demonstrate this god's existence before you can claim it is
a god who did this. I foresaw you making this claim and specifically
started a thread to short-circuit it:
http://tinyurl.com/bcc7k
You could have taken up that challenge but once again, **YOU RAN
AWAY**. Now here you are asserting that a mechanism created species
and you cannot support your claim. I asked you for proof and **YOU RAN
AWAY**. In other words, you are a colossal hypocrite because you decry
evolution claiming it offers no evidence, whereas it actually has 150
years of accumulated evidence, and then assert your own explanation,
which literally has no scientific evidence, and run away from a
discussion you were offered on this very topic.
Never once did you address my request. I have addressed yours
repeatedly. Never once did you respond to my messages. I've responed
to yours repeatedly and given you exactly what you asked for. So who
is the bigger sinner here, Pastor dave? Who is making the most effort
to communicate and discuss? Who is offering the evidence and who
isn't? Who is going the extra mile, giving you his shirt, turnign the
other cheek and trying yet again? Which of us is doing this, Pastor
Dave? Which of us is the most christian here, the atheist or the
believer?

So why do they expect that God would have to invent
something other than a leg, to design something that
walks, just because something else has legs? That
doesn't make sense.

Where can you show me an exmaple of a designer creating an aircraft
wing to dig trenches? Do humans do this, or do they specifically
create a unque design for the job which has nothing whatsoever to do
with aircraft?
Why, then, did your designer make a mole's forelimbs out of precisely
the same materials and very nearly precisely the same design as a
bird's wing? A bat's wing? A whale flipper? A horse's hoof? A human
hand?
This is not design. It's evolution using one system, largely
unchanged, for something entirely different. Designers do not do that.
Designers create from scratch and design for the specific job at hand.
They do not take an aircraft wing and insist it was designed to
excavate earth with.

They also complain that Intelligent Design doesn't
offer a theory. Sure it does.

Please provide a reference to the standard refereed science journal
where this theory is published and supported. This is what you demand
(and get) from evolutionists. It would be hypocritical for you to fail
to offer it in return, now, wouldn't it?

They just won't admit it.

You can't admit to what doesn't exist. Unless you're a creationist
liar, that is.

Not only this, but they claim that creationists
spend their time attacking evolution, instead of
offering a theory.

That's precisely what they do. If this is wrong, then prove me wrong
by citing science papers published in peer-reviewed science journals,
which offer **POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR CREATION**.

So what do they do? Spend their
time attacking Intelligent Design and when they are
challenged to offer this so called "mountain of
evidence" for what they believe, their first reaction
is to demand that you prove it wrong! <chuckle>

The mountain of evidence, as you have been tediously and repeatedly
told, is in the published science journals the world over, where
peer-reviewed papers are published by people of all religions and all
nationalities. Here are some of them, courtesy of Kathleen Hunt, whose
name (with these references) has been passed on to you many times:
Ahlberg, P.E. 1991. Tetrapod or near-tetrapod fossils from the Upper
Devonian of Scotland. Nature 354:298-301.
Berta, A. 1994. What is a whale? Science 263:180-181.
Bolt, J.R., R.M. McKay, B.J. Witzke, & M.P. Adams. 1988. A new Lower
Carboniferous tetrapod locality in Iowa. Nature 333:768-770
Chaline, J. 1983. Modalites, Rythmes, Mecanismes de L'Evolution
Biologique: Gradualisme phyletique ou equilibres ponctues? Editions du
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.
Chaline, J., and B. Laurin. 1986. Phyletic gradualism in a European
Plio-Pleistocene Mimomys lineage (Arvicolidae, Rodentia). Paleobiology
12:203-216.
Chevret, P., C. Denys, J.J. Jaeger, J. Michaux, and F. Catzeflis. 1993.
Molecular and paleontological aspects of the tempo and mode of
evolution in Otomys (Otomyinae: Muridae: Mammalia). Biochem. Syst.
Ecol. 21(1):123-131.
Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack. 1991. Fish-like gills and breathing in the
earliest known tetrapod. Nature 352:234-236.
Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack. 1990. Polydactyly in the earliest known
tetrapod limbs. Nature 347:66-69.
Colbert, E.H. & M. Morales. 1991. Evolution Of The Vertebrates: A
History Of The Backboned Animals Through Time. Wiley-Liss, New York.
Daeschler, E.B., N.H. Shubin, K.S. Thomson, W.W. Amaral. 1994. A
Devonian tetrapod from North America. Science 265:639-642.
Edwards, J.L. 1989. Two perspectives on the evolution of the tetrapod
limb. Am. Zool. 29:235-254.
Fahlbusch, V. 1983. Makroevolution. Punktualismus. Ein
Diskussionsbeitrag am Beispiel miozaner Eomyiden (Mammalia, Rodentia).
Palaont. Z. 57:213-230.
Fischman, J. 1993. Paleontologists examine old bones and new
interpretations. Science 262: 845-846.
Gingerich, P.D. 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution
at the species level in early Tertiary mammals. Am. J. Sci. 276:1-28.
Gingerich, P.D. 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals.
Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 8:407-424.
Gingerich, P.D. 1982. Time resolution in mammalian evolution: Sampling,
lineages, and faunal turnover. Third North Am. Paleont. Conv., Proc.,
1:205-210.
Gingerich, P.D. 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil
record. J. Geological Education 31:140-144.
Gingerich, P.D. 1985. Species in the fossil record: concepts, trends,
and transitions. Paleobiology 11(1):27-41.
Gingerich, P.D., B.H. Smith, & E.L. Simons. 1990. Hind limb of Eocene
Basilosaurus: evidence of feet in whales. Science 249:154-156.
Harris, J., & White, T.D. 1979. Evolution of Plio-Pleistocene African
Suidae. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. 69:1-128.
Hopson, J.A. 1991. Convergence in mammals, tritheledonts, and
tridylodonts. J. Vert. Paleont. 11(suppl. to 3):36A [abstract]
Horner, J.R., D.J. Varrichio, and M.B. Goodwin. 1992. Marine
transgressions and the evolution of Cretaceous dinosaurs. Nature
358:59-61.
Hurzeler, J. 1962. Kann die biologische Evolution, wie sie sich in der
Vergangengeit abgespielt hat, exakt erfasst werden? Stud. Kath. Akad.
Bayern. 16:15-36.
Krishtalka, L., and Stucky, R.K. 1985. Revision of the Wind River
Faunas. Early Eocene of Central Wyoming. Part 7. Revision of Diacodexis
(Mammalia, Artiodactyla). Am. Carnegie Mus. 54:413-486.
Kurten, B. 1964. The evolution of the polar bear, Ursus maritimus
(Phipps). Acta Zoologica Fennica 108:1-26.
Laurin, M. 1991. The osteology of a Lower Permian eosuchian from Texas
and a review of diapsid phylogeny. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 101:59-95.
Lee, M.S.Y. 1993. The origin of the turtle bodyplan: bridging a famous
morphological gap. Science 261:1716-1720.
Lucas, S.G., and Z. Lou. 1993. Adelobasileus from the upper Triassic of
west Texas: the oldest mammal. J. Vert. Paleont. 13(3):309-334.
Lundelius, E.L., T. Downs, E.H. Lindsay, H.A. Semken., R.J. Zakrzewski,
C.S. Churcher, C.R. Harington, G.E. Schultz, and S.D. Webb. 1987. The
North American Quaternary sequence. In: Cenozoic Mammals of North
America - Geochronology and Biostratigraphy (ed. M.O. Woodburne).
University of California Press, Berkeley.
MacFadden, B.J. 1985. Patterns of phylogeny and rates of evolution in
fossil horses: Hipparions from the Miocene and Pliocene of North
America. Paleobiology 11:245-257.
MacFadden, B.J. 1988. Horses, the fossil record, and evolution: a
current perspective. Evol. Biol. 22:131-158.
MacFadden, B.J., & R.C. Hubbert. 1988. Explosive speciation at the base
of the adaptive radiation of Miocene grazing horses. Nature
336:466-468. (An interesting summary of the merychippine radiation. Has
a nice horse tree, too. MacFadden's horse tree is used by almost
everyone these days.)
MacFadden, B.J., J.D. Bryant, and P.A. Mueller. 1991. Sr-isotopic,
paleomagnetic, and biostratigraphic evidence of horse evolution:
evidence from the Miocene of Florida. Geology 19:242-245. [This is an
interesting example of the variety of dating methods paleontologists
use to date their finds. MacFadden et al. dated the Parahippus -->
Merychippus transition at a Florida site with paleomagnetic data and
Sr/Sr dates, and also by cross-correlation to other sites dated with
Sr/Sr, K/Ar, Ar/Ar, zircon fission-track, and paleomagnetic dating
methods. All the dates were consistent at roughly 16 Ma.]
Maglio, V.J. 1973. Origin and evolution of the Elephantidae. Trans. Am.
Phil. Soc., New Ser. 63:1-149.
Milner, A.R., and S.E. Evans. 1991. The Upper Jurassic diapsid
Lisboasaurus estesi -- a maniraptoran theropod. Paleontology
34:503-513.
Prothero, D.R., & R.M. Schoch, eds. 1989. The Evolution of
Perissodactyls. Clarendon Press, New York.
Rayner, M.J. 1989. Vertebrate flight and the origins of flying
vertebrates. Pp. 188-217 in: Evolution and the Fossil Record, eds. K.
Allen & D. Briggs. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Reisz, R., & Laurin, M. 1991. Owenetta and the origin of the turtles.
Nature 349: 324-326.
Reisz, R., & Laurin, M. 1993. The origin of turtles. J. Vert. Paleont.
13 (suppl. 3):46 [abstract]
Rensberger, J.M. 1981. Evolution in a late Oligocene-early Miocene
succession of meniscomyine rodents in the Deep River Formation,
Montana. J. Vert. Paleont. 1(2): 185-209.
Rose, K.D., and Bown, T.M. 1984. Gradual phyletic evolution at the
generic level in early Eocene omomyid primates. Nature 309:250-252.
Rowe, T. 1988. Definition, diagnosis, and origin of Mammalia. J. Vert.
Paleont. 8(3): 241-264.
Rougier, G.W., J.R. Wible, and J.A. Hopson. 1992. Reconstruction of the
cranial vessels in the early Cretaceous mammal Vincelestes
neuquenianus: implications for the evolution of the mammalian cranial
vascular system. J. Vert. Paleont. 12(2):188-216.
Sanz, J.L., Bonaparte, J.F., and A. Lacassa. 1988. Unusual Early
Cretaceous birds from Spain. Nature 331:433-435.
Sanz, J.L and Bonaparte, J.F. 1992. A new order of birds (Class Aves)
from the lower Cretaceous of Spain. in K.E.Campbell (ed.) Papers in
Avian Paleontology. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County,
Science Series No.36
Sereno, P.C. and Rao, C. 1992. Early evolution of avian flight and
perching: new evidence from the lower Cretaceous of China. Science
vol.255, pp.845-848.
Shubin, N.H., A.W. Crompton, H.-D. Sues, P.E. Olsen. 1991. New fossil
evidence on the sister-group of mammals and ear