SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION

[Lewis]

SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION:

(Karl Popper's definition of the scientific method )

1. OBSERVATION -steps of evolution have never been observed (Stebbins )

In the fossil recordwe view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.(Gould )

2. EXPERIMENTATION -The processes would exceed the lifetime of any

human experimenter (Dobzhansky )

3. REPRODUCTION impossible to reproduce in the laboratory. (Dobshansky )

4. FALSIFICATION -cannot be refuted thus outside empirical science. (Ehrlich )



RESEARCH PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION:

1. ORIGINS -the chance of life originating from inorganic chemical elements by natural means is beyond the realm of possibility (Hoyle )

2. DEVELOPMENT -to produce a new organism from an existing life-form requires alterations in the genetic material which are lethal to the organism (Maddox )

3. STASIS -enzymes in the cell nucleus repair errors in the DNA (Barton )

4. GEOLOGIC COLUMN -out-of-place artifacts have been found in earth's sedimentary layers which disrupt the supposed evolutionary order (Corliss )

5. DESIGN -irreducible complexity within the structure of the cell requires design (Denton, Behe ).



(DNA REPAIR: The genome is reproduced very faithfully and there are enzymes

which repair the DNA, where errors have been made or when the DNA is

damaged. - D.H.R. Barton, Professor of Chemistry, Texas A&M University,

Nobel Prize for Chemistry )



(CHANGE WITHIN GENETIC BOUNDARIES: Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution,

the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as

incipient species. Richard B. Goldschmidt )



(MUTATION ACCUMULATIONS RELENTLESSLY FATAL: Any random change

in a complex, specific, functioning system wrecks that system. And living things

are the most complex functioning systems in the universe.Science has now

quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an

animal's genome is relentlessly fatal.The genetic difference between human and

his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6% Calculated out that is a

gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random

changes. And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal.

Geneticist Barney Maddox, 1992 )

 

[jasoncran]

of course the darwinian faithful will counter these claims. :crazy

 

[John]

of course the darwinian faithful will counter these claims. :crazy

yep.

 

[logical bob]

That would be me then.

BTW Lewis, when you cut and paste somebody else's writing it's good practive to acknowledge it.

http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40

1. OBSERVATION -steps of evolution have never been observed (Stebbins )

Yes they have. We see them in action with the peppered moth, the evolution of the HIV virus and the emergence of "superbugs" like MRSA.

2. EXPERIMENTATION -The processes would exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter (Dobzhansky )

3. REPRODUCTION impossible to reproduce in the laboratory. (Dobshansky )

Well duh. Does that mean astronomy, oceanography and volcanology aren't science because they deal with things that take a long time can't be reproduced in the lab?

4. FALSIFICATION -cannot be refuted thus outside empirical science. (Ehrlich )

Of course it can be refuted. Evolution theory makes many predictions about fossil distribution and genetic similarities between species. If we ever find human remains in the same strata as dinosaurs, for instance, the theory will have a problem.

1. ORIGINS -the chance of life originating from inorganic chemical elements by natural means is beyond the realm of possibility (Hoyle )

Fred Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biologist. His “747 from a tornado†analogy has been frequently debunked.

2. DEVELOPMENT -to produce a new organism from an existing life-form requires alterations in the genetic material which are lethal to the organism (Maddox )

Evolution arises from DNA copying errors between parent and offspring. It doesn’t involve DNA changes in existing organisms.

3. STASIS -enzymes in the cell nucleus repair errors in the DNA (Barton )

Copying errors from parent to offspring are obviously possible or there would be no such thing as Downs or Prader-Willi Syndrome.

4. GEOLOGIC COLUMN -out-of-place artifacts have been found in earth's sedimentary layers which disrupt the supposed evolutionary order (Corliss )

Such as…?

5. DESIGN -irreducible complexity within the structure of the cell requires design (Denton, Behe ).

If you have an example of irreducible complexity, now would be a good time.

MUTATION ACCUMULATIONS RELENTLESSLY FATAL

This is supposed to be science? What is “relentlessly fatal†supposed to mean? I very much doubt it’s a term any scientist would use.

I’ll just add that this article drops names out of context in a very inappropriate way. Do you really think Karl Popper would have thought the theory of evolution didn’t meet his criteria? Can you reference him saying this? How do you think Stephen Jay Gould feels about being cited by CEM? Do you think D.H. Barton was a creationist?

 

[John]

You guys are still hanging on to the peppered moth fraud? :o

 

[Lewis]

Bob wrote
BTW Lewis, when you cut and paste somebody else's writing it's good practive to acknowledge it.

I always do, but I forgot to do it for once, so don't make a big thing out of it.

 

[ProphetMark]

of course the darwinian faithful will counter these claims. :crazy

And if someone posted a similar message entitled "Scientific problems with the biblical account of creation", you wouldn't counter the claims it made?

 

[jasoncran]

of course the darwinian faithful will counter these claims. :crazy

And if someone posted a similar message entitled "Scientific problems with the biblical account of creation", you wouldn't counter the claims it made?

indeed.

http://www.trueorigin.org/geneticalgorithms1.asp

interesting problem.

genetic algorimiths arent a good model for showing how evolution works or the fact that mutations are able to add info on the scale that we see according to this page.

 

[logical bob]

I recognised several of the names quoted in the OP, but I'd never heard of Barney Maddox. As the article seemed to rely quite heavily on his ideas I looked him up. I found an article of his at ICR where I read the following.

Consider the fact that Darwin was completely ignorant of genetics, having died before this field was established as a science in 1900. In ignorance, Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics--that is, if an animal acquired a physical characteristic during its lifetime, it could pass that characteristic on to its progeny. Of course, it is an established fact that living things can only pass on the genetic information they inherit from their parents. Will a man who loses a leg in an accident have one-legged children? No, his children will have two legs, because although the man's body (or phenotype) changed, his genotype (or DNA) remains the same.

I had a real jaw-drop moment there. Is this guy for real? The whole point of Darwin's theory was that it denied that very idea. The main evolutionary theory before Darwin, that of Lamarcke, was indeed based on the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Darwin recognised this as false. He didn't know about genetics and he didn't know how information is passed from generation to generation, but he certainly knew that acquired characteristics aren't inherited.

Maddox is in the business of attacking Darwinism despite the fact that he wouldn't pass a high school assignment on it. He simply does not know what Darwin said. Years of criticising a man's ideas without actually bothering to find out what they were.

This is very poor. If someone came in here saying "The Bible is wrong because it says the Earth is flat" you'd rightly point out that it doesn't say that at all. Then you'd realise there wasn’t much point listening to what this guy had to say about the Bible.

Maddox is making exactly the same error. And nobody from ICR or the other creationist sites has enough knowledge to correct him. But the worrying thing is this: you guys seem to lap this stuff up.

There are loads of threads like this one where someone cuts and pastes or links an article from a creationist website without any additional comment. If someone like me, or the far more knowledgeable Barbarian, responds in detail pointing out some of these basic errors your replies are either one line long or they don’t come at all. Then someone posts another article.

Do you guys understand the material you’re posting? Are you able to discuss it or decide for yourselves about its strengths and weaknesses? You’re hanging on the words of people who blatantly don’t know the first thing about the ideas they’re criticising. This makes you look foolish and that’s a shame, because reading your posts on other subjects it’s clear that you’re intelligent people. Worse, it makes your beliefs look foolish and does your faith no favours at all. As an act of witness, it’s not good.

Please, if you want to debunk evolution then learn something about it. Read a book by an actual evolutionary scientist instead of believing what they tell you at ICR and the others. I don’t expect it to persuade you, but you should come out of it knowing what you disagree with and why. You owe it to yourself not to be taken for a ride by these charlatans.

 

[Lewis]

Darwin was one of the STUPIDEST and biggest FOOL'S in HISTORY, BAR NONE.

 

[Mike]

Anyone who has read my novice attempts to engage in deep science discussions, knows that I have sufficiently removed any doubt of my limited understanding. I haven't even requested access to the science forum, because I would get crushed.

That said, I have a question. I've heard many times that "irreducible complexity" is the black box of Darwinism. From a layperson's point of view, this resonated a lot with me.

Obviously, people with either side of the opinion can respond with as much detail as they desire. If you do get complex, I just as that you sum your reply up for my benefit (and maybe others too). If you get down to the point that a structure can not function if a part is taken away from it, how could it be that this structure would have evolved to that point?

I pulled this from Wikipedia:
"Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".[4] These examples are said to demonstrate that modern biological forms could not have evolved naturally. Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can in fact evolve,[5] and Behe's examples are considered to constitute an argument from ignorance.[6]"

 

[John]

Darwin was a fool no question, however i think the bigger fools are more modern. People like Dawkins, and the folks at the NCSE, etc :D

 

[logical bob]

Hi mjjcb. That wiki article is poorly worded. What I think it means is not that biologists say irreducibly complex systems can evolve, but that the systems Behe claims to be irreducibly complex actually aren't.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Lewis W wrote:1. OBSERVATION -steps of evolution have never been observed (Stebbins )

Yes they have. We see them in action with the peppered moth, the evolution of the HIV virus and the emergence of "superbugs" like MRSA.

I think we should be specific here; macro evolution has never been observed.
Quite often in these debates examples such as the peppered moth and viruses are presented as proof for Darwinian macro evolution when in fact these are great examples of micro evolution.

Today, there are a handful of cases in which a genetic mutation has helped a creature to survive better than those without it. These types of mutations are referred to as “beneficial mutations.†However what is actually happening is counter intuitive to Darwinian macro evolution. In order for Darwinian evolution to be factual, there must be an addition of new DNA; there must be an increase of DNA to get from single cell to human being.
These “beneficial mutations†do not improve the code in DNA, rather they destroy it.

In the case of the peppered moth, we only need understand what happened to know there was no improvement to DNA.
Prior to the industrial revolution in England, the peppered moth population consisted predominantly of light-colored moths with speckles. There was also a small population of dark colored moths. The imbalance was due to the fact that birds and other predators were able to spot the darker colored moths more easily against the light colored trees and rocks.

However, after the industrial revolution, pollution began to turn the trees and rocks a darker color, and the balance shifted because the lighter colored peppered moths became the easier target. Today the darker colored peppered moths represent about 95% of the peppered moth population.
Sadly, the peppered moth is still used as one of the most striking examples of evolution ever witnessed by mankind. It is one of the most commonly used examples of evolutionary change being used in many museums and educational institutes worldwide.

Another example of a beneficial mutation is the wingless beetles.
Darwin himself stated that a genetic mutation caused flying beetles on a small desert island to lose their wings...in other words the “wing-making†information in the DNA was lost or scrambled in some way. Due to this loss of information the beetles actually had a better chance of survival because they were less likely to be blown into the sea. But even these beneficial mutations do not improve the code in DNA: rather than adding any meaningful information, they destroy it. This is not a good thing for Darwinian evolution.

The problem with using beneficial mutations to support evolution is that they are exactly the opposite of what is required, that is, they involve a loss or corruption of existing information. For instance, losing the ability to fly has nothing to do with the origins of flight in the first place, which is what evolution is supposed to be about.
To produce a beetle from a simple cell, it is obvious that an increase of new genetic information is necessary to create the eyes, the wings, etc. In order to support evolution, the preceding beetle example would have to be reversed. The DNA code would have to be improved rather than damaged — new meaningful information (genes) would have to be produced.

Some of the most commonly used examples of so called “proof†of beneficial mutations are antibiotic resistance and bacteria.
But here again, these involve a loss of DNA information, or sometimes a transfer of existing information – not the result of new information.
In fact, one recent discovery proved that in many cases bacteria already had the genes for resistance to certain antibiotics, even before those antibiotics were invented! Reuters News Service reported that one of the ways in which bacteria become resistant to antibiotics is by swapping genes among species. The mechanism by which they do this has been thought by many to have “evolved†in response to antibiotics. However, researchers have looked at preserved samples of cholera bacteria dating back to 1888. They found that the same gene swapping mechanisms were already there well before antibiotics were discovered or used by people!

Of course it can be refuted. Evolution theory makes many predictions about fossil distribution and genetic similarities between species. If we ever find human remains in the same strata as dinosaurs, for instance, the theory will have a problem.

OK, there are examples of human footprints right inside of dinosaur prints but I'll pass on these for the time being...
What about an archaeological discovery say for example where thousands of clay figurines depicting many known species of dinosaur from civilizations say two or more thousand years ago?
Would that cause a serious problem for evolutionary theory?

Fred Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biologist. His “747 from a tornado†analogy has been frequently debunked

Debunked or debated?
I think it stands as an excellent analogy, as does the blind watch maker.

Evolution arises from DNA copying errors between parent and offspring. It doesn’t involve DNA changes in existing organisms.

OK.
From the following sentence (Cheese is tasty) please reshuffle or even multiply any letters in order to make up this sentence (baloney is delicious with mustard)

Out-of-place artefacts found in earth's sedimentary layers
http://www.forgottenagesresearch.com/ou ... etatio.htm

Take care my friends.

John Bronzesnake

 

[Lewis]

You really need to read this.

The Peppered Moth - An Update
(From Ken Miller's Evolution Page)
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

 

[Lewis]

Evolutionists and the Moth Myth
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

Download PDFDownload Evolutionists and the Moth Myth PDF

Most creationists and most evolutionists are well aware by now of the fall of the evolutionist's icon, the peppered moth, which for many years had adorned the pages of introductory biology textbooks as the prime example of "evolution in action." Its removal has also been accompanied by a sad exposure of the world of scientific academia as often a world of pettiness, inordinate rivalry, and tender egos, sometimes tempting to near-fraud in the "tweaking" of reported results.

The story has been told in a wonderfully researched book recently published by Judith Hooper entitled, Of Moths and Men (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 2002, 377 pp.), She notes in her prologue that "I am not a creationist" (p. xix). She evidently felt she had to provide this assurance because, as she said about the reaction to the developing moth scandal: "Behind the story, like a monster lurking under a five-year-old's bed, is the bogeyman of creationism."

Apparently, the creationist revival has been impacting the evolutionary establishment more than its leaders admit publicly. In fact, the major impetus behind the drive to document the evolution of the peppered moth in the first place may well have been due to the need to show that evolution by natural selection was actually happening now.

The prolific scientist writer Isaac Asimov once noted that: "One of the arguments of the creationists is that no one has ever seen the forces of evolution at work. That would seem the most nearly irrefutable of their arguments, and yet it, too, is wrong" (Asimov's New Guide to Science, Basic Books, 1984; as quoted by Hooper, op. cit., p. 309) .

Asimov then proceeded to recount the evidence of the peppered moth "evolving" into the carbonaria variety of the species Biston betularia by a process that had been called industrial melanism. This had indeed become the main popular "proof" of natural selection, convincing countless innocent students of the "fact" of evolution. The idea was that the "peppered" moth had evolved somehow into the "melanic moth" as a defense against bird predation during the industrial revolution in England and the resultant blackened tree trunks.

The two names most closely associated with the evolutionary myth of the peppered moth were two renowned Oxford university biologists, Dr. E. B. Ford and Dr. H. B. D. Kettlewell. Judith Hooper called Ford the "megalomaniac founder of the Oxford School of Ecological Genetics." Who "By his own lights . . . had almost single-handedly rescued natural selection from oblivion in the 1920s and 1930s . . ." (Hooper, op. cit., p. xvi). Bernard Kettlewell was a medical doctor and amateur entomologist who was recruited by Ford when he recognized Kettlewell's unusual abilities in the field as a student and collector of moths.

The black (melanic) moths had first turned up in England around 1858 and soon were multiplying, especially in the industrial areas. It was reasonable to attribute this rise in melanism to natural selection. But this was only speculative until it could actually be proved in the field.

Dr. Ford had become an ardent defender of natural selection in the Darwinian sense, as opposed to other evolutionary mechanisms being promoted at the time. Eventually, he became convinced that a relatively rapid natural selection had occurred in the peppered moth and could actually be demonstrated by systematic field studies.

For this fieldwork, Bernard Kettlewell was selected, and he did perform the well-known field studies which resulted in the to-be-much-publicized proof of "evolution in action." As Hooper notes: "By the close of the 1950s, the peppered moth would be the poster child for evolution" (Hooper, op. cit., p. 146, emphasis hers).

As the noted evolutionary historian William Provine told Judith Hooper in a personal interview: ". . . It's fun to look through all the textbooks and always this example—and I mean always—is hauled out" (Ibid., p. 149, emphasis his). As Hooper says: "The peppered moth was becoming evolution's number one icon just in time for the big Darwin centennial" (p. 165).

That event took place in Chicago in 1959, which Hooper called a "supercharged extravaganza, which encompassed five days of pageantry, televised debate, Darwin worship and theatrical spectacle" (p. 166). Julian Huxley, who had become an admirer of Ford and Kettlewell, was the keynote speaker, and he enthusiastically proclaimed the triumph of Darwinism and death of God. The then recent studies on the peppered moth were frequently cited by speakers there. Though Kettlewell was not present, Ford did present a paper on polymorphism.

Interestingly, Judith Hooper's comment on this great convocation is as follows: "Huxley's atheism and the general Darwinist pep rally were noted darkly by a small group of outraged evangelicals. A stream of anti-evolution literature followed, notably John C. Whitcomb and Henry Morris's The Genesis Flood, the forerunner of the `scientific creationism' movement. . ." (p. 167).

Furthermore, the whole neo-Darwinian paradigm was beginning to be questioned as well. Kettlewell was invited to the 1966 Wistar Institute symposium on "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution" in Philadelphia, where he heard a number of key mathematicians and biologists show that the standard theory could not possibly account for the world of living creatures in any finite time. In 1967, his friend and supporter, Julian Huxley, "was in a nursing home receiving electroshock treatments for one of his periodic depressions" (p. 186).

After laboring on it for many years, Kettlewell finally published his magnum opus, The Evolution of Melanism, in 1973, but the reviews were lukewarm. Furthermore, Stephen Jay Gould, who would soon become the chief antagonist of the British neo-Darwinists of the rising generation (most notably Maynard Smith and Richard Dawkins, as well as the followers of Dr. Ford), had just published his first influential paper in 1965. His Harvard colleague, Richard Lewontin (who was, like Gould, a Marxist), published a book in 1974 which would "portray the Oxford School crowd as silly toffs with butterfly nets" (Hooper, op. cit., p. 216). Even in England, younger scientists were finding they could not replicate Kettlewell's field results, and were raising questions as to why.

Kettlewell himself was having serious health problems. When he was denied election as a Fellow of the Royal Society for the third time in 1976, he became completely disheartened. He died in 1979, reputedly by suicide.

Since his death, many researchers have been raising doubts about various aspects of his research, and even those of his boss, E. B. Ford. One of the main questioners has been Ted Sargent, emeritus professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts, who insists that the famous photographs of moths on tree trunks published by Kettlewell were all fakes.

Sargent's first paper expressing these doubts was published in 1976, but few seemed to notice. Eventually, however, many others also began finding flaws in Kettlewell's work. In the process, some of these critics have been accused of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy, the creationists" (Hooper, p. 286). We cannot discuss all these criticisms here, but the conclusion was, as Hooper says: ". . . at its core lay flawed science, dubious methodology, and wishful thinking" (p. xx). Some went so far as to accuse Ford and Kettlewell of actual fraud, but most thought it was just poor science. Cambridge lepidopterist, Michael Majerus, in his book, Melanism: Evolution in Action "left no doubt that the classic story was wrong in almost every detail" (Hooper, p. 283). Yet, amazingly, he still believed the basic story of the shift in coloration of the peppered moth as caused by bird predation and natural selection.

And so does Judith Hooper, for that matter. In her last chapter, she says that the fact that the peppered moth story was all wrong "does not disprove the theory of evolution. . . . It is reasonable to assume that natural selection operates in the evolution of the peppered moth" (p. 312).

It may be surprising to her and other evolutionists that creationists have never had a problem with the traditional story, except with the claim that it was "evolution in action." It was really only "variation and conservation in action." It could hardly even be called microevolution, because the moth remained the same species throughout the process.

The words of this writer, in a book published almost 30 years ago, are still relevant. "The classic example of the peppered moth. . . . was not evolution in the true sense at all but only variation. Natural selection is a conservative force, operating to keep kinds from becoming extinct when the environment changes" (Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 51).

Most creationists, believe it or not, have never questioned the basic story of the peppered moth. After all, a leading British zoologist, L. Harrison Matthews, in his Introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species had already said: "The peppered moth experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for . . . all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia."

No creationist today questions the phenomena of variation and natural selection; most would not even question speciation. But, there is still no evidence whatever for macroevolution or the introduction of new information into the genetic system of any basic kind of organism, including the famous moth. Evolution has always been nothing but a pagan myth.
http://www.icr.org/article/evolutionists-moth-myth/

 

[Bronzesnake]

You really need to read this.

The Peppered Moth - An Update
(From Ken Miller's Evolution Page)
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

Hey Lewis thanks for the updated info.
So what they are saying is they would like more study, they are not stating the conclusions are false, and that's fine.
The main point is that the peppered moth has been used as a classic example of Darwinian evolution when the facts prove otherwise.
The peppered moth did not become a bird or some other lifeform.
This is clearly an example of micro evolution no matter how we slice it.

The reason evolutionists use these types of examples is because there are no "real" examples of any speciation going on anywhere in the history of the world. If Darwinian evolution were real the the graduated transitional fossils would ahve to make up the huge majority of fossils and yet as Steven J Gould and Eldridge state they are completly lacking. They went on to claim this lack of fossil evidence was the trade secret of evolution and these were two of evolution's great scientific minds!
Why would so many outright fakes have been presented as the genuine article if Darwinian evolution was factual as so many evolutionists claim?

Also, for the Christians here, why would God have felt the need to point out He created life after their own kind thousands of years before evolution was ever imagined?
Did God see into the future and know this would be a hot topic? The answer of course is yes.

It would have been so easy to leave that distinction out (after their own kind) of the description of His creation if let's say men had concocted the entire body of scripture without any Heavenly inspiration or direction from God as atheists and theistic Christians would have us believe.

Take care my friend.
Bronzesnake

 

[Bronzesnake]

OK I just read your last post.
Excellent!

JB

 

[logical bob]

Morning gentlemen. I will respond to your posts but I'm pushed for time over the next day or two. I wouldn't want you to think I was running away.

You need to appreciate that it's hard for me to keep up with you. It only takes a moment for you to cut and paste an article from another site and it takes me some time to respond to it.

Lewis, I may get to read your peppered moth article but I must say this would be a more productive discussion if you could comment on some of my responses rather than just cut and pasting another article. If nothing else it would confirm that you actually do understand the material we're discussing.

Bronzesnake, you've done a little more work on your post, but it is essentially a copy and paste job from Foolish Faith by Judah Ettinger.

http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_mutations.asp

Now it may be that you are Judah Ettinger, but if you aren't then this violates point 9 of the Terms of Service. At least Lewis tends to acknowledge his sources.

As I said, I'll respond when I have time.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Morning gentlemen. I will respond to your posts but I'm pushed for time over the next day or two. I wouldn't want you to think I was running away.

You need to appreciate that it's hard for me to keep up with you. It only takes a moment for you to cut and paste an article from another site and it takes me some time to respond to it.

Lewis, I may get to read your peppered moth article but I must say this would be a more productive discussion if you could comment on some of my responses rather than just cut and pasting another article. If nothing else it would confirm that you actually do understand the material we're discussing.

Bronzesnake, you've done a little more work on your post, but it is essentially a copy and paste job from Foolish Faith by Judah Ettinger.

http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_mutations.asp

Now it may be that you are Judah Ettinger, but if you aren't then this violates point 9 of the Terms of Service. At least Lewis tends to acknowledge his sources.

As I said, I'll respond when I have time.

Hello Bob.
The fact is I do have a good knowledge of the subject, and at times the source material states an argument exactly as I would have, so yes I have used a small portion of the exact wording, but it’s extremely hyperbolic for you to state “it is essentially a copy and paste jobâ€
I do actually have complete permission to use any material from Judah’s book in any fashion I wish to and the author does not require me to provide any source link. If I had have in fact done “essentially a copy and paste job†I would certainly have given the source.

All knowledge and information posted on these forums comes from some source.I have read extensively on this subject and other biblical subjects and I do draw upon several sources just as everyone else does. At times small portions of any given source materials are inevitably going to be presented in any memorised and posted account.

The great majority of all my posts are in my own words. The fact is I do have a good knowledge of the subject, and at times the source material states an argument exactly as I would have, so yes I have used a small portion of the exact wording.
So I think it’s a bit of a red herring for you to use this argument as some kind of an inferred victory.

The important issue here is whether the material is factual or not. In this instance the information provided is factual and add a great deal of corroborating evidence for creation as opposed to evolution. The facts really do speak for themselves, and it would really go to further the debate if you would have spent your efforts responding to the facts.
In the time it took for you to reply in this fashion you could have made several rebuttal arguments on topic my friend. I look forward to your reply.

Take care my friend.
John Bronzesnake