R
Ray Martinez
Guest
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/tal ... e15?hl=en&
The above link will direct you to the on-going one-on-one debate between Darwinist Richard Clayton and myself - Evangelical Creationist Ray Martinez.
I urge everyone to read the debate and see how Darwinists evade evidence and misrepresent the data and arguments.
It is my turn to respond as I will post my reply here because the Talk Origins Usenet format is lame and primitive.
Quick Recap of my Thesis and Arguments:
"In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences produced a document summarizing the scientific status of evolution:
'Compelling lines of evidence demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt
that evolution occurrred as a historical process and continues today.
It is no longer possible to sustain scientifically the view that living
things did not evolve from earlier forms or that the human species was
not produced by the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply to the rest
of the living world.'
Couldn't have said it better myself" says Kenneth R. Miller (staunch
evolutionist).
Nobody denies microevolution, that is the evolution of species, what's
at issue is if a species naturally changes into another
(macroevolution) which is asserted by Darwinists to account for all
life on this planet including human beings originating from an ape.
The Academy/Miller quote above is kind of tricky but at the same time I find it objective in that the wording places alleged human evolution to be a fact based upon "the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply to the rest of the living world." In other words, hominid evolution is safely assumed based on the facts of microevolution. The quote clearly downgrades human evolution certainty to reside as assumed fact based upon other facts.
The most extraordinay claim of all time (human evolution) is dependant upon other claimed facts THEN assumed true.
But society is inundated with the assertion that human evolution is a fact based upon voluminous evidence. When an objective person scratches the surface and looks into the matter we find that evolutionary authorities admit hominid evolution is assumed. This means the amount of evidence actually supporting human evolution is grossly exaggerated.
If humans did indeed evolve from an ape ancestor then there would be (and should be) massive amounts of direct evidence. This extraordinary claim should not be dependant upon assumptions that "apply to the rest of the living world."
My point: The Academy/Miller quote, logically, does not support the claim of human evolution. Strip away the presuppositions and needs of the naturalist and atheist worldviews and the evidence and its paucity status has no clear objective value or meaning.
My opponent evades and misrepresents my argument:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/tal ... urce&hl=en
Richard Clayton continues:
"Evolution is dependent on other observed facts, of course; every
scientific theory is dependent on other observed facts. That does not
mean that it is "not well supported," but rather the opposite. With
which of evolution's supporting facts do you take issue?
If your argument is that speciation, also known as macroevolution, does
not take place, then I am afraid you are mistaken; not only does
speciation happen, it has been observed both in the laboratory and in
the wild. There's a really excellent source at this link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
The link discusses both speciation under controlled laboratory
conditions and in the wild. We can also see strong evidence in the
fossil record of species that change over time-- pakicetus resembles
ambulocetus, which in turn resembles rodhocetus, which resembles
basilosaurus. While each "snapshot" in the fossil record resembles the
one before it and the one after it, the end result is quite different
from the original." END QUOTE
Ray Martinez:
At issue is: alleged macroevolution, but my opponent references microevolution.
Everyone agrees microevolution WITHIN species is a fact. Clayton asserts microevolution proves macroevolution which is a gross misrepresentation.
Why do Darwinists assert this misrepresentation ?
I will let atheist Richard Milton answer the question:
"Macroevolution, a process that occurs over millions of years so it cannot be observed or made the subject of experiment.
Microevolution, on the other hand, is very much simpler. It is the
change in frequency of variant genes (called alleles) from generation
to generation, and something that can be observed. Darwin's finches are
an example of microevolution. By defining microevolution in such simple
terms, Darwinists are sure of silencing any critics, for no one can
disagree that variant genes do not change in frequency from generation
to generation, just as no one can disagree that a bird with a thick
beak is genetically different from a bird with a thin beak.
It is the next part of the argument (where the goalposts are moved)
that is the really clever part.
When you get enough microevolution, say Darwinists, you eventually get
macroevolution. This proposition cannot be tested empirically for
exactly the same reasons that the concept of macroevolution itself
cannot be tested experimentally. Once you have agreed with the first
part of this proposition, however, it appears difficult not to agree
with this final part.
This proposition is contradicted by every objection raised against
neo-Darwinism in the past fifty years: that what Mayr called genetic
homeostasis will prevent morphological change beyond a certain point;
that there is no evidence for gradual change leading to macroevolution
in the fossil record."
[source: Richard Milton (atheist), "Shattering Myths of Darwinism", pages 152-3, 1997]
Ray Martinez:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/o ... os10_1.htm
Charles Darwin:
"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."
The quote above by Darwin admits the fossil record does not show any intermediate snapshots/macroevolution.
This was a fact in the 19th century.
The Milton quote produced over a hundred years later confirms what Darwin admitted is still a fact today.
Darwinists still assert macroevolution is a fact despite no evidence in the physical geological fossil record.
Why ?
Genesis is not an option.
This makes macroevolution/human evolution/Theory of Evolution a philosophy packaged as science. The need for Genesis to be wrong is in direct ratio to the degree macroevolution is asserted as fact despite there being no evidence.
http://www.christiancourier.com/archive ... gLinks.htm
"When the late Louis B. Leakey, an anthropologist of world renown, lectured at the University of the Pacific (in Stockton, California), in February of 1967, he was asked regarding “the missing link.†He responded: “There is no one link missing – there are hundreds of links missing.†"
Richard Milton confirms that in 1997 the situation had not changed:
"In fact, more than 100 years of intense collecting by well funded professional expeditions has not yet yielded any of the remains that Darwin envisaged, and Africa and the Middle East (the areas "most likely") have now been thoroughly searched. There are early apelike remains and there are early hominid remains. Indeed the store of primate fossils has been multiplied a thousand-fold since Darwin. But the only "missing link" so far discovered is the bogus Piltdown man, where a practical joker associated the jaw of an orangutan with the skull of a human." ["Shattering Myths of Darwinism, page 109, 1997]
Ray Martinez:
Now we see why the Academy/Miller quote carefully crafted human evolution to be assumed based on other claimed facts. Those other claimed facts are the undisputed facts of microevolution, which are then misrepresented to support macroevolution. As it turns out the other claimed facts are assumed also (macroevolution) which further relegates supposed human evolution to be assumed. But the point is that there is no credible evidence (for human evolution) or any volume of it commensurate to the extraordinary claim.
Richard Clayton:
"Here you launch into a "quote mine"
Ray Martinez:
Clayton's accusation of quote mine was in response to my use of the following quotes by evolutionist Henry Gee:
ALL the alleged fossil evidence, puportedly supporting human evolution
from "10 to 5 million years ago, several thousand generations of living creatures, can be fitted into a small box"(1)
Gee wrote as fact the quoted portion above.
I accept the information as fact.
Then I make my point:
For the interval stated, logically, the amount of alleged evidence does not support the claim of human evolution.
"Several different hominids appear in the fossil record between 3 and 2 million years ago."(2)
I accept the quote above as fact.
Then I make my point:
This fact says for a period of ONE MILLION YEARS "several" alleged
species are claimed to be known and identified. "Several" is not a
adjective associated with something well supported. The issue is human
evolution - not dust mites, but the most extraordinary claim of all
time is admitted, within the interval stated, to be supported by
"several" different hominid species.
Logically, the admitted amount of alleged evidence supposedly supporting human evolution does not support the claim.
"The failure of bother views of evolution rests, once again, on the failure to understand that Deep Time cannot sustain scenarios based on narrative. I return, once again, to the thought experiment that is
central to my argument: next time you see a fossil, ask yourself
whether it could have belonged to your direct ancestor. Of course, it
could by your ancestor, but you will never be able to know this for
certain. To hypothesize that it might be your ancestor, then, is
futile, because your hypothesis would be untestable. So, to take a line
of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage, is not a scientific
hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same
validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but
not scientific."(3)
I accept the quote as fact.
Then I make my point:
Logically, the quote above does not support the claim of human evolution.
My on-going point: The evidence for human evolution is highly and grossly exaggerated.
There is no quote mining as charged by Clayton because I accept what is written as fact but point out that the "facts" logically do not support human evolution theory much less prove it. The Gee quotes admit the evidence is scant for the most extraordinary claim of all time. Yet we are bombarded with the predictible assertions of evolutionists that hominid evolution is proven and voluminously supported.
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/scavenging.html
"Fossils, though few and rare, are by for the most important evidence we have of hominid evolution.
In addition to the scant evidence offered by fossils..."
The above site offers further confirmation of my point:
So much based on so little.
"few, rare, and scant" are not adjectives associated with anything mildly supported much less proven.
I accept the site terminology as fact, then point out that logically these admissions are not associated with a theory that is well supported much less proven.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1973
"In a conversation in 1996 with James Powell, president and director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, the renowned evolutionary paleoanthropologist Meave Leakey gave some insight into her frustrations in search for hominid or human fossils as she described her “nearly futile hunt for human bone in a new field area as four years of hard work producing only three nondescript scraps†(Powell, 1998, p. xv, emp. added).
Most recently, David Begun concluded an article in Science magazine titled “The Earliest Homininsâ€â€Is Less More?,†by saying: “[T]he level of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time renders irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution is in the mantra of all paleontologists: We need more fossils!†(2004, 303:1479-1480, emp. added). Although hominid and human fossils are the most sought-after fossils in the world, scientists readily admit that few human fossils have been found"
The link quote above by David Begun once again shows my use of the Academy/Miller quote to be accurate in that he confirms "the available direct evidence" is in complete harmony with every quote in this reply.
I accept all these quotes as facts and sum it all up:
The facts that they establish in no objective manner supports the assumption and claims of human evolution.
Darwinists have shot themselves in the foot. The brutal honesty of evolutionary authorities logically does not support their claims.
Richard Clayton parrots "quote mine !"
How Richard ?
I accept each quote as fact THEN I simply point out that the facts logically do not support the reputation of human evolution as proven. Quite the opposite.
"quote mine" tactic is the Darwinian way of invoking the 5th Amendment.
This is not a courtroom where lawyer rhetoric is allowed to twist all facts in accordance to the needs of the client.
Once again, the actual evidence supporting human evolution is scant and has no clear objective value apart from the massive biased assumptions of the Naturalist/Atheist worldview.
RICHARD CLAYTON: (from the OP):
Genetic evidence is even more compelling.
RAY MARTINEZ:
Whenever the physical evidence supposedly supporting human evolution is debated or offered, the Darwinist immediately goes into the alleged genetic evidence.
Why ?
Answer: Because, as I have documented above, the physical inventory is embarrassingly diminutive - thats why the Darwinist cites the genetic.
If the physical evidence made the case they wouldn't need to go into the microscopic universe to begin with.
From the widely known Creation Science Fact page:
http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/origins/faq ... umans%2097%%20chimp
What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are 'read' by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. Neither human nor chimp DNA has been anywhere near fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made (this would also require unprecedented processing time and power). Indeed it may be a long time before such a comparison can be made because it will probably be the year 2005 before we have the full sequence of human DNA –- and chimp DNA sequencing has a much lower priority.
Where did the "97% similarity" come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology). Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the 'melting' curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularized then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.
Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data 'on faith'. Sarich et al. obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist's generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error - averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.
What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all. The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA of every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.
I ask Richard to review the above content and respond.
In addition, I ask: lets assume as fact that chimp and human DNA is as claimed to be, anywhere from 96 to 99 percent similar. How do you explain the vast and obvious outward differences between chimps and modern humans and the vast difference in intelligence ?
4 to 1 percent difference yet the vast actual disimilarities are strikingly incongruent with similar DNA.
How does similarity constitute scientific evidence that humans evolved from a chimp ancestor over millions of years ?
Please explain, because as it sits now you are relying on rhetoric/misuse of logic to assert that this supports/proves claims involving millions of years.
Wells, "Icons of Evolution" (2000)
page 46:
"Comparing DNA sequences is very complex. An actual segment of DNA may contain thousands of subunits, lining them up to start a comparison is a tricky task and different alignments can give very different results."
But when a microbiologist qualifies his title with "evolutionary" this is a sign that all data and conclusions will support gradualism no matter what.
I say this because the evolutionary DNA scientist will do the same and I am not willing to trust them because of whats at stake. Evolutionary biochemists certainly knew ALL of the facts contained in "Darwin's Black Box" but fraudulently concealed Irreducible Complexity from the world until an objective scientist blew the whistle (Behe).
According to Jonathan Wells, phylogeny is the evolutionary history of a group of organisms, and modern molecular biology is based on DNA and protein comparisons.
Page 51:
"A 1996 study using 88 proteins sequence grouped rabbitts with primates instead of rodents"(4)
"A 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins among chordates."(5)
"Another 1998 analysis based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales than to horses."(6)
As was noted above genetics is very complex.
The facts above are monkey wrenches in the evolutionary scheme of things. But the alleged similarity of chimp DNA with human somehow proves we evolved from a chimp ancestor over millions of years ?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 071409.htm
Martha Molnar. "Priestly Gene Shared By Widely Dispersed Jews." Press Release. 10 July 1998.
Edward Rothstein. "DNA Teaches History a Few Lessons of Its Own." The New York Times "Week in Review" (May 24, 1998). Excerpts:
"Last year, for example, Michael Hammer, a geneticist at the University of Arizona, showed that a genetic analysis of the Y chromosomes of Jewish men who ritualistically identified themselves as descendants of the Biblical High Priest Aaron and are known as Cohanim showed a high transmission of markers that were less prevalent among Jews who did not identify as Cohanim. This was evidence, Hammer said, of the accuracy of the oral tradition."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Citation
David Keys. Catastrophe: An Investigation Into the Origins of the Modern World. New York: Ballantine Books, 2000. Keys summarizes M. G. Thomas, Karl L. Skorecki, H. Ben-Ami, Tudor Parfitt, Neil Bradman, D. B. Goldstein, "Origins of Old Testament Priests." Nature 394 (July 9, 1998): 138-140. Excerpts from Keys' book:
"DNA tests on Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews have revealed the possibility that at least one key section of the latter community may have genetic evidence of a potentially large-scale or even mass conversion which must have taken place sometime after around A.D. 700.... the only known mass conversion within that time frame and in that geographical area was that of the Khazars in the eighth century. Significantly, the section of the Ashkenazi community whose DNA may suggest a partially convert origin is that section which up till now had traditionally been said to be wholly descended from the Assistant Priests of ancient Israel.... By analyzing Y chromosomes from a sample of both Levite and non-Levite populations in both Sephardic and Ashkenazi communities, geneticists have discovered that an astounding 30 percent of Ashkenazi non-Cohenic Levites have a particular || combination of DNA material on part of their Y-chromosome that is not shared to any extent by either non-Levite Ashkenazi Jews or the Sephardic community as a whole. This genetic marker does not even show up among the Cohens (descendants of the ancient Israelite Chief Priests) - but only among the descendants of Assistant Priests, and then only within Ashkenazi (northern European) Jewry.
Whether an oral tradition or its primary source of the Old Testament - these studies have corroborated the Aaronic Priesthood which only exists in the context of its originator: the Deity of the Old Testament.
God called Aaron to be priest.
This evidence also supports the existence of the Deity. The larger context of the only source we have about this Deity says He created man in His image.
The objective weight of this DNA evidence confirms the written and oral claims of the issue at hand: the Aaronic Priesthood.
Here we have science confirming a major Biblical claim.
Chimp DNA being similar to human has zero objective value apart from the Naturalist worldview - a worldview that has no objective source to justify its existence except to oppose the Supernatural worldview which has the ancient objective source of the Bible.
The genetic evidence corroborates this Biblical claim AND decimates any theory which asserts late Torah non-Mosaic authorship, because late pseudonymic authorship could not produce a fact like the Aaronic Priesthood, but logically, it is a report written by Aaron's brother Moses who recorded what God told him to write. In other words, forgers don't produce holy facts, but eventually get exposed. Just the opposite has occurred: early Mosaic authorship is supported as is the larger claim: the existence of the Deity who instituted the Aaronic Priesthood.
The next leap of the Genesis claim that God created man suddenly is infinitesimal in gap compared to the massive gaps in the fossil record which Darwinists wink at and at no point consider the massive gaps evidence of falsification.
Ray Martinez
1) Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New
History of Life", page 199 [1999]
2) Ibid. page 203
3) Ibid. page 114
4) Wells citing: Graur, Laurent, Duret, Gouy, "Nature" 379 (1996).
5) Wells citing: Naylor, Brown, "Systematic Biology" 47 (1998).
6) Wells citing: Cao, Janke, Waddell, Westerman, Takenaka, Murata, Okada, Paabo, Hasegawa, "Journal of Molecular Evolution" 47 (1998).
The above link will direct you to the on-going one-on-one debate between Darwinist Richard Clayton and myself - Evangelical Creationist Ray Martinez.
I urge everyone to read the debate and see how Darwinists evade evidence and misrepresent the data and arguments.
It is my turn to respond as I will post my reply here because the Talk Origins Usenet format is lame and primitive.
Quick Recap of my Thesis and Arguments:
"In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences produced a document summarizing the scientific status of evolution:
'Compelling lines of evidence demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt
that evolution occurrred as a historical process and continues today.
It is no longer possible to sustain scientifically the view that living
things did not evolve from earlier forms or that the human species was
not produced by the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply to the rest
of the living world.'
Couldn't have said it better myself" says Kenneth R. Miller (staunch
evolutionist).
Nobody denies microevolution, that is the evolution of species, what's
at issue is if a species naturally changes into another
(macroevolution) which is asserted by Darwinists to account for all
life on this planet including human beings originating from an ape.
The Academy/Miller quote above is kind of tricky but at the same time I find it objective in that the wording places alleged human evolution to be a fact based upon "the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply to the rest of the living world." In other words, hominid evolution is safely assumed based on the facts of microevolution. The quote clearly downgrades human evolution certainty to reside as assumed fact based upon other facts.
The most extraordinay claim of all time (human evolution) is dependant upon other claimed facts THEN assumed true.
But society is inundated with the assertion that human evolution is a fact based upon voluminous evidence. When an objective person scratches the surface and looks into the matter we find that evolutionary authorities admit hominid evolution is assumed. This means the amount of evidence actually supporting human evolution is grossly exaggerated.
If humans did indeed evolve from an ape ancestor then there would be (and should be) massive amounts of direct evidence. This extraordinary claim should not be dependant upon assumptions that "apply to the rest of the living world."
My point: The Academy/Miller quote, logically, does not support the claim of human evolution. Strip away the presuppositions and needs of the naturalist and atheist worldviews and the evidence and its paucity status has no clear objective value or meaning.
My opponent evades and misrepresents my argument:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/tal ... urce&hl=en
Richard Clayton said:
Richard Clayton continues:
"Evolution is dependent on other observed facts, of course; every
scientific theory is dependent on other observed facts. That does not
mean that it is "not well supported," but rather the opposite. With
which of evolution's supporting facts do you take issue?
If your argument is that speciation, also known as macroevolution, does
not take place, then I am afraid you are mistaken; not only does
speciation happen, it has been observed both in the laboratory and in
the wild. There's a really excellent source at this link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
The link discusses both speciation under controlled laboratory
conditions and in the wild. We can also see strong evidence in the
fossil record of species that change over time-- pakicetus resembles
ambulocetus, which in turn resembles rodhocetus, which resembles
basilosaurus. While each "snapshot" in the fossil record resembles the
one before it and the one after it, the end result is quite different
from the original." END QUOTE
Ray Martinez:
At issue is: alleged macroevolution, but my opponent references microevolution.
Everyone agrees microevolution WITHIN species is a fact. Clayton asserts microevolution proves macroevolution which is a gross misrepresentation.
Why do Darwinists assert this misrepresentation ?
I will let atheist Richard Milton answer the question:
"Macroevolution, a process that occurs over millions of years so it cannot be observed or made the subject of experiment.
Microevolution, on the other hand, is very much simpler. It is the
change in frequency of variant genes (called alleles) from generation
to generation, and something that can be observed. Darwin's finches are
an example of microevolution. By defining microevolution in such simple
terms, Darwinists are sure of silencing any critics, for no one can
disagree that variant genes do not change in frequency from generation
to generation, just as no one can disagree that a bird with a thick
beak is genetically different from a bird with a thin beak.
It is the next part of the argument (where the goalposts are moved)
that is the really clever part.
When you get enough microevolution, say Darwinists, you eventually get
macroevolution. This proposition cannot be tested empirically for
exactly the same reasons that the concept of macroevolution itself
cannot be tested experimentally. Once you have agreed with the first
part of this proposition, however, it appears difficult not to agree
with this final part.
This proposition is contradicted by every objection raised against
neo-Darwinism in the past fifty years: that what Mayr called genetic
homeostasis will prevent morphological change beyond a certain point;
that there is no evidence for gradual change leading to macroevolution
in the fossil record."
[source: Richard Milton (atheist), "Shattering Myths of Darwinism", pages 152-3, 1997]
Ray Martinez:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/o ... os10_1.htm
Charles Darwin:
"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."
The quote above by Darwin admits the fossil record does not show any intermediate snapshots/macroevolution.
This was a fact in the 19th century.
The Milton quote produced over a hundred years later confirms what Darwin admitted is still a fact today.
Darwinists still assert macroevolution is a fact despite no evidence in the physical geological fossil record.
Why ?
Genesis is not an option.
This makes macroevolution/human evolution/Theory of Evolution a philosophy packaged as science. The need for Genesis to be wrong is in direct ratio to the degree macroevolution is asserted as fact despite there being no evidence.
http://www.christiancourier.com/archive ... gLinks.htm
"When the late Louis B. Leakey, an anthropologist of world renown, lectured at the University of the Pacific (in Stockton, California), in February of 1967, he was asked regarding “the missing link.†He responded: “There is no one link missing – there are hundreds of links missing.†"
Richard Milton confirms that in 1997 the situation had not changed:
"In fact, more than 100 years of intense collecting by well funded professional expeditions has not yet yielded any of the remains that Darwin envisaged, and Africa and the Middle East (the areas "most likely") have now been thoroughly searched. There are early apelike remains and there are early hominid remains. Indeed the store of primate fossils has been multiplied a thousand-fold since Darwin. But the only "missing link" so far discovered is the bogus Piltdown man, where a practical joker associated the jaw of an orangutan with the skull of a human." ["Shattering Myths of Darwinism, page 109, 1997]
Ray Martinez:
Now we see why the Academy/Miller quote carefully crafted human evolution to be assumed based on other claimed facts. Those other claimed facts are the undisputed facts of microevolution, which are then misrepresented to support macroevolution. As it turns out the other claimed facts are assumed also (macroevolution) which further relegates supposed human evolution to be assumed. But the point is that there is no credible evidence (for human evolution) or any volume of it commensurate to the extraordinary claim.
Richard Clayton:
"Here you launch into a "quote mine"
Ray Martinez:
Clayton's accusation of quote mine was in response to my use of the following quotes by evolutionist Henry Gee:
ALL the alleged fossil evidence, puportedly supporting human evolution
from "10 to 5 million years ago, several thousand generations of living creatures, can be fitted into a small box"(1)
Gee wrote as fact the quoted portion above.
I accept the information as fact.
Then I make my point:
For the interval stated, logically, the amount of alleged evidence does not support the claim of human evolution.
"Several different hominids appear in the fossil record between 3 and 2 million years ago."(2)
I accept the quote above as fact.
Then I make my point:
This fact says for a period of ONE MILLION YEARS "several" alleged
species are claimed to be known and identified. "Several" is not a
adjective associated with something well supported. The issue is human
evolution - not dust mites, but the most extraordinary claim of all
time is admitted, within the interval stated, to be supported by
"several" different hominid species.
Logically, the admitted amount of alleged evidence supposedly supporting human evolution does not support the claim.
"The failure of bother views of evolution rests, once again, on the failure to understand that Deep Time cannot sustain scenarios based on narrative. I return, once again, to the thought experiment that is
central to my argument: next time you see a fossil, ask yourself
whether it could have belonged to your direct ancestor. Of course, it
could by your ancestor, but you will never be able to know this for
certain. To hypothesize that it might be your ancestor, then, is
futile, because your hypothesis would be untestable. So, to take a line
of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage, is not a scientific
hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same
validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but
not scientific."(3)
I accept the quote as fact.
Then I make my point:
Logically, the quote above does not support the claim of human evolution.
My on-going point: The evidence for human evolution is highly and grossly exaggerated.
There is no quote mining as charged by Clayton because I accept what is written as fact but point out that the "facts" logically do not support human evolution theory much less prove it. The Gee quotes admit the evidence is scant for the most extraordinary claim of all time. Yet we are bombarded with the predictible assertions of evolutionists that hominid evolution is proven and voluminously supported.
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/scavenging.html
"Fossils, though few and rare, are by for the most important evidence we have of hominid evolution.
In addition to the scant evidence offered by fossils..."
The above site offers further confirmation of my point:
So much based on so little.
"few, rare, and scant" are not adjectives associated with anything mildly supported much less proven.
I accept the site terminology as fact, then point out that logically these admissions are not associated with a theory that is well supported much less proven.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1973
"In a conversation in 1996 with James Powell, president and director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, the renowned evolutionary paleoanthropologist Meave Leakey gave some insight into her frustrations in search for hominid or human fossils as she described her “nearly futile hunt for human bone in a new field area as four years of hard work producing only three nondescript scraps†(Powell, 1998, p. xv, emp. added).
Most recently, David Begun concluded an article in Science magazine titled “The Earliest Homininsâ€â€Is Less More?,†by saying: “[T]he level of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time renders irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution is in the mantra of all paleontologists: We need more fossils!†(2004, 303:1479-1480, emp. added). Although hominid and human fossils are the most sought-after fossils in the world, scientists readily admit that few human fossils have been found"
The link quote above by David Begun once again shows my use of the Academy/Miller quote to be accurate in that he confirms "the available direct evidence" is in complete harmony with every quote in this reply.
I accept all these quotes as facts and sum it all up:
The facts that they establish in no objective manner supports the assumption and claims of human evolution.
Darwinists have shot themselves in the foot. The brutal honesty of evolutionary authorities logically does not support their claims.
Richard Clayton parrots "quote mine !"
How Richard ?
I accept each quote as fact THEN I simply point out that the facts logically do not support the reputation of human evolution as proven. Quite the opposite.
"quote mine" tactic is the Darwinian way of invoking the 5th Amendment.
This is not a courtroom where lawyer rhetoric is allowed to twist all facts in accordance to the needs of the client.
Once again, the actual evidence supporting human evolution is scant and has no clear objective value apart from the massive biased assumptions of the Naturalist/Atheist worldview.
RICHARD CLAYTON: (from the OP):
Genetic evidence is even more compelling.
RAY MARTINEZ:
Whenever the physical evidence supposedly supporting human evolution is debated or offered, the Darwinist immediately goes into the alleged genetic evidence.
Why ?
Answer: Because, as I have documented above, the physical inventory is embarrassingly diminutive - thats why the Darwinist cites the genetic.
If the physical evidence made the case they wouldn't need to go into the microscopic universe to begin with.
From the widely known Creation Science Fact page:
http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/origins/faq ... umans%2097%%20chimp
What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are 'read' by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. Neither human nor chimp DNA has been anywhere near fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made (this would also require unprecedented processing time and power). Indeed it may be a long time before such a comparison can be made because it will probably be the year 2005 before we have the full sequence of human DNA –- and chimp DNA sequencing has a much lower priority.
Where did the "97% similarity" come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology). Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the 'melting' curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularized then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.
Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data 'on faith'. Sarich et al. obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist's generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error - averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.
What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all. The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA of every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.
I ask Richard to review the above content and respond.
In addition, I ask: lets assume as fact that chimp and human DNA is as claimed to be, anywhere from 96 to 99 percent similar. How do you explain the vast and obvious outward differences between chimps and modern humans and the vast difference in intelligence ?
4 to 1 percent difference yet the vast actual disimilarities are strikingly incongruent with similar DNA.
How does similarity constitute scientific evidence that humans evolved from a chimp ancestor over millions of years ?
Please explain, because as it sits now you are relying on rhetoric/misuse of logic to assert that this supports/proves claims involving millions of years.
Wells, "Icons of Evolution" (2000)
page 46:
"Comparing DNA sequences is very complex. An actual segment of DNA may contain thousands of subunits, lining them up to start a comparison is a tricky task and different alignments can give very different results."
But when a microbiologist qualifies his title with "evolutionary" this is a sign that all data and conclusions will support gradualism no matter what.
I say this because the evolutionary DNA scientist will do the same and I am not willing to trust them because of whats at stake. Evolutionary biochemists certainly knew ALL of the facts contained in "Darwin's Black Box" but fraudulently concealed Irreducible Complexity from the world until an objective scientist blew the whistle (Behe).
According to Jonathan Wells, phylogeny is the evolutionary history of a group of organisms, and modern molecular biology is based on DNA and protein comparisons.
Page 51:
"A 1996 study using 88 proteins sequence grouped rabbitts with primates instead of rodents"(4)
"A 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins among chordates."(5)
"Another 1998 analysis based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales than to horses."(6)
As was noted above genetics is very complex.
The facts above are monkey wrenches in the evolutionary scheme of things. But the alleged similarity of chimp DNA with human somehow proves we evolved from a chimp ancestor over millions of years ?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 071409.htm
Martha Molnar. "Priestly Gene Shared By Widely Dispersed Jews." Press Release. 10 July 1998.
Edward Rothstein. "DNA Teaches History a Few Lessons of Its Own." The New York Times "Week in Review" (May 24, 1998). Excerpts:
"Last year, for example, Michael Hammer, a geneticist at the University of Arizona, showed that a genetic analysis of the Y chromosomes of Jewish men who ritualistically identified themselves as descendants of the Biblical High Priest Aaron and are known as Cohanim showed a high transmission of markers that were less prevalent among Jews who did not identify as Cohanim. This was evidence, Hammer said, of the accuracy of the oral tradition."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Citation
David Keys. Catastrophe: An Investigation Into the Origins of the Modern World. New York: Ballantine Books, 2000. Keys summarizes M. G. Thomas, Karl L. Skorecki, H. Ben-Ami, Tudor Parfitt, Neil Bradman, D. B. Goldstein, "Origins of Old Testament Priests." Nature 394 (July 9, 1998): 138-140. Excerpts from Keys' book:
"DNA tests on Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews have revealed the possibility that at least one key section of the latter community may have genetic evidence of a potentially large-scale or even mass conversion which must have taken place sometime after around A.D. 700.... the only known mass conversion within that time frame and in that geographical area was that of the Khazars in the eighth century. Significantly, the section of the Ashkenazi community whose DNA may suggest a partially convert origin is that section which up till now had traditionally been said to be wholly descended from the Assistant Priests of ancient Israel.... By analyzing Y chromosomes from a sample of both Levite and non-Levite populations in both Sephardic and Ashkenazi communities, geneticists have discovered that an astounding 30 percent of Ashkenazi non-Cohenic Levites have a particular || combination of DNA material on part of their Y-chromosome that is not shared to any extent by either non-Levite Ashkenazi Jews or the Sephardic community as a whole. This genetic marker does not even show up among the Cohens (descendants of the ancient Israelite Chief Priests) - but only among the descendants of Assistant Priests, and then only within Ashkenazi (northern European) Jewry.
Whether an oral tradition or its primary source of the Old Testament - these studies have corroborated the Aaronic Priesthood which only exists in the context of its originator: the Deity of the Old Testament.
God called Aaron to be priest.
This evidence also supports the existence of the Deity. The larger context of the only source we have about this Deity says He created man in His image.
The objective weight of this DNA evidence confirms the written and oral claims of the issue at hand: the Aaronic Priesthood.
Here we have science confirming a major Biblical claim.
Chimp DNA being similar to human has zero objective value apart from the Naturalist worldview - a worldview that has no objective source to justify its existence except to oppose the Supernatural worldview which has the ancient objective source of the Bible.
The genetic evidence corroborates this Biblical claim AND decimates any theory which asserts late Torah non-Mosaic authorship, because late pseudonymic authorship could not produce a fact like the Aaronic Priesthood, but logically, it is a report written by Aaron's brother Moses who recorded what God told him to write. In other words, forgers don't produce holy facts, but eventually get exposed. Just the opposite has occurred: early Mosaic authorship is supported as is the larger claim: the existence of the Deity who instituted the Aaronic Priesthood.
The next leap of the Genesis claim that God created man suddenly is infinitesimal in gap compared to the massive gaps in the fossil record which Darwinists wink at and at no point consider the massive gaps evidence of falsification.
Ray Martinez
1) Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New
History of Life", page 199 [1999]
2) Ibid. page 203
3) Ibid. page 114
4) Wells citing: Graur, Laurent, Duret, Gouy, "Nature" 379 (1996).
5) Wells citing: Naylor, Brown, "Systematic Biology" 47 (1998).
6) Wells citing: Cao, Janke, Waddell, Westerman, Takenaka, Murata, Okada, Paabo, Hasegawa, "Journal of Molecular Evolution" 47 (1998).
