The Evolution Myth

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha jhnbrbr,

I am not picking on or criticising sunwaiter. I might be vigorously contesting his methods but in no way am I attacking sunwaiter personally or otherwise. Please do not imply or infer that I am. FWIW, I have enjoyed seeing him produce all the info that will help to continue the discussion. I notice how he has benefitted from the intellectual exercise. Maybe he'll want to go back to School and get a Graduate degree in Genetics or in another suitable discipline.

Best regards,

CD

Ps: When he mentioned peer-reviewed, I did not take it as an insult. Rather, I took it in the context of open discussion and review of institutional and published works by researchers and affiliated groups and their organizations.

Pps: I see that Mr. Newman is also a receipient of critique - For what? Wanting to critique and debunk a prevailing orthodoxy that keeps people ignorant?

[Robert Newman]

Shame on you Corno! Please stop picking on Sunwaiter! He has attempted something quite rare - to impartially review the evidence on both sides of the argument before taking sides! He does not deserve to be criticised or patronised - and why should the expression "peer-reviewed" be taken as an insult anyway? Sunwaiter is willing to concede that there might be points in favour of both sides of the argument - Mr Robert Newman "knows" that he is right. So who is the wiser ...?

Jhnbrbr,

Sunwaiter has been impartially reviewing evidence from both sides of the argument before he takes sides ? All he needs now and all we need now is evidence from the side of the evolutionist, whose dogmas, after all, are given to students in schools and colleges worldwide and have been pumped out 'ad nauseum' for over a century. But, as things stand, the evolutionist is an endangered species. Let's transfer him and his textbooks to the dungeons of the Philosophy Department.

Would you buy a used car from these people ?

So, here to end, (by popular request) is 'evolution science' in action -

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g


Robert

[Andrew Roussak]

Hello guys,

I truly and sincerely hope no one of you feels himself personally insulted in this discussion. I don't, from my end; and, if you take a look on how the subject is being discussed on other forums, you will have to admit that MIMF is a very rare example of good manners.

After all, we sit all together in the same boat and deserve it, to know the truth, and that is actually my point ( the only one ).


I know that I have to answer one more question in this discussion, this one :

2. A mutation called a point mutation. This is where one or more nucleotides in a sequence accidentally get copied to a different nucleotide. (Like a typo.)

Now you could argue that neither 1, nor 2 produce "new genetic information" (depending on what your definition of "new genetic information" actually *means*).

But what is not arguable is that if 1 happens followed by 2, then you have a new gene. Where once you had one gene, now you have two genes, with different properties ... new genetic information.

1 and 2 don't have to occur in the same individual. 1 can occur, and then be followed even *generations later* in a descendant, by 2.

But if a gene is copied, and then later in some descendant, one of those copies gets altered, then you have a new gene ... new genetic information.

I find it interesting, to look at the scheme posted by Sunwaiter a little bit closer, and I hope - and promise - to do this on Friday or Saturday, as I now definitely have no time for the longer posts ( sorry )!

Wish you a creative week ( sorry for the pun!
CU
Andrew

[jhnbrbr]

Andrew, I would also be interested to know whether you agree with Robert that no species has ever become extinct, and how you reconcile this with evidence to the contrary, such as the passenger pigeon, or indeed the perilously small number of gorillas or giant pandas now left in the world? Is this a view widely held by other creationists? If you do agree, then can you (or Robert) explain the precise mechanism which prevents extinction? To me this seems a position which is very hard to defend, but I can see how believing in a fixed number of species would drive you towards it - otherwise you would have to concede that the number of species in the world was getting less all the time, and that would be a rather depressing thought.

Corno - I accept that you do not intend to sound patronising towards Sunwaiter, but that's how it sometimes comes across to me (even in your most recent post). At least we agree he has made a very valuable contribution to this debate, and I for one hope he comes back!

[Robert Newman]

Andrew, I would also be interested to know whether you agree with Robert that no species has ever become extinct, and how you reconcile this with evidence to the contrary, such as the passenger pigeon, or indeed the perilously small number of gorillas or giant pandas now left in the world? Is this a view widely held by other creationists? If you do agree, then can you (or Robert) explain the precise mechanism which prevents extinction? To me this seems a position which is very hard to defend, but I can see how believing in a fixed number of species would drive you towards it - otherwise you would have to concede that the number of species in the world was getting less all the time, and that would be a rather depressing thought.

Corno - I accept that you do not intend to sound patronising towards Sunwaiter, but that's how it sometimes comes across to me (even in your most recent post). At least we agree he has made a very valuable contribution to this debate, and I for one hope he comes back!

Jhnbrbr,

I appreciate you've asked Andrew to comment on the view that species are an immutable part of living nature, being the same in number today as when the first fossils were formed. Neither less nor more. And I cetainly don't want to anticipate his own reply. But you also ask if the mechanism of species survival can be explained - especially since (as you righly say) there are species today which exist only in small, even diminishing populations.

Well, here, in brief, are some thoughts on the subject. Perhaps you'd care to consider them ?

1. We have already seen evidence on this thread that those who teach evolution are confused about what they mean by species and always have been. In fact, (as we've seen from the writings of Darwin himself) the definition of what a species actually is was regarded by Darwin and his supporters as a mere 'matter of convenience' and was arbitrarily decided ! This massive and fundamental error comes from the very person who famously claimed to have found a mechanism for production of 'new' species ! We can't help noticing the circular argument of such a view. For, if defining what are species are highly subjective matters of mere opinion we can surely 'prove' whatever we like about species. (As Darwin repeatedly did from both fossils and from living nature). The equivalent of saying the number of natural elements in this world are not fixed or permanent but are decided by anyone who wants to guess at their number ! It's even worse, since there are in this world many more species than chemical elements. But, bearing in mind the stability of species shown by the Laws of Heredity, and confirmed by the modern science of genetics, it's easy to see how the teachings of evolutionists on species have been massively discredited by the unwelcome discoveries of science.

And - (may I suggest)

2. We may define a species as a living organism which can be shown to occupy a fixed, permanent and unique place within the set (or group) of which it is a member.

Which group/set, in reality, is the Genus.

THE GENUS

From the above we can see that species are correctly defined and understood only within the context of the Genus to which they inevitably belong. And so the Genus is a dynamic and not static structure of living nature whose component parts are species themselves. Whose members are able to interact (or not) with each other in respect of breeding - but the success or failure of which unions is predetermined by the respective positions within the genus which each member species occupies and has always occupied. And therefore the Genus is the true structure within which it is at last possible to provide an accurate and entirely verifiable definition of species, which are its vital component parts.

Consider (just for the sake of illustration) a species which belongs to a genus which contains (and has always contained) only 8 members.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Now, if such a genus consists of only 8 species we would, by close examination, be able to determine which precise place within such a table any given species occupies.

How ? Well, consider this -

Let us say Species No. 1 (above) is able to cross with all the other 7 species in the genus. And that it occupies Position Number 1 precisely because of this ability.

We see too (if we extend this model) that Species No. 2 of such a genus would be able to cross with Species 4, 6, and 8. But not with 3, 5 or 7. For, once again, the position a species occupies within the genus has in effect predetermined its ability/inability to successfully cross with other members of its genus.

Again, Species Number 3. We can predict from the above that it can successfully cross with Species No. 6. But not with those numbered 2, 4, 5, 7 or 8. (For 3 is arithmetically consonant with 6 but not with others of the above genus).

Again, Species 4. It may cross with Species 8.

But species 5 crosses with none other, except 1.

And so on.

Thus, the interactions of species with other species of the same genus. (A phenomenon known today as 'clines') may be due, may find its explanation in an orderly way, by the species occupying (and always having occupied) a fixed and permanent place according to the structure of the genus itself.

Again, the outcome of such crosses between different species of the same genus may have different outcomes depending on whether the particular species in question and that of its mate is male, or female. So that a cross between Species 1 and 7, for example, may produce a different result (hybrid or otherwise) from a cross between 7 and 1, this due to which specific species under examination is the male and which the female.

Such a system would be entirely consistent with the old idea of 'every seed bringing forth (i.e. according to - in consistency with) its own kind'. The 'kind' being, of course, the genus itself. Thus, the species is understood only by recognising the existence and the significance of its genus. A genus which is as permanent a feature of living nature as are the elements in chemistry. There can be little doubt that this ability of a given species to be able to cross with other species of its own kind is, in itself, helpful in preserving a given species from extinction.


//

[Corno Dolce]

Jhnbrbr,

Sunwaiter has been impartially reviewing evidence from both sides of the argument before he takes sides ? All he needs now and all we need now is evidence from the side of the evolutionist, whose dogmas, after all, are given to students in schools and colleges worldwide and have been pumped out 'ad nauseum' for over a century. But, as things stand, the evolutionist is an endangered species. Let's transfer him and his textbooks to the dungeons of the Philosophy Department.

Would you buy a used car from these people ?

So, here to end, (by popular request) is 'evolution science' in action -

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g


Robert

Aloha Mr. Newman,

What an excellent antidote to Dawkins conceit!!!

Thanx for sharing - The vid is now on a separate hard-drive and saved for future reference.

Best regards,

CD

[Robert Newman]

Hello C.D.,

Yes, I think it's called 'meltdown' !!!

If this man was a professional tennis player or a chat show host he could of course be excused for his ignorance. But he goes round the world, lectures to students everywhere and is best known as a professional apostle of Darwinism. He appears regularly on TV and radio preaching evolution as science all the time, is even paid to be a professor at New College, Oxford, and is the current chairman on the 'Public Understanding of Science', at the same Oxford University !! Here, being asked to provide an example (even one !) of evolutionary changes bringing more information into the genome of an organism than it had before (thus demonstrating 'evolution') he is completely out of his depth and simply cannot deliver.

And what are the fruits of such chicanery ? They include his book (2006) 'The God Delusion' which (according to Wikipedia) says -

A supernatural Creator almost certainly does not exist and belief in a personal God qualifies as a delusion, which he (Dawkins) defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's observation in 'Lila' that '"when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion'.

The delusion is of course that of 'evolution science' (so-called) itself.

It's laughable !

Best wishes


Robert

[jhnbrbr]

Dear Robert

Thank you for your answer to my question about extinction. I hope Andrew will also answer it, since I am still unsure whether this view is held by a majority of creationists, or is it minority view within creationism? I have to admit that I did not previously know what a "cline" was, so you have taught me something there, however I was aware that it is sometimes possible for members of different species to produce offspring, as in the case of the mule. Even so, I fail to see how this is a mechanism to prevent extinction of a particular species, unless the offspring were fully members of the original species, and also fertile, of course. Besides, a situation might arise in which a small struggling population of a species were geographically separated from other members of their genus, so what would save them then? Nothing you have said provides any natural reason why the extinction of a species should not happen from time to time, and all the uncertainties of life - climate change, food shortage, the delicate balance between predator and prey - provide compelling reaons why we might expect it to happen quite regularly. I still think this is the most indefensible part of your argument, and I even doubt whether you believe it yourself, deep down. For example, are you willing to say publicly and unequivocally ..

there is no such thing as an endangered species

because that is simply another way of saying the same thing.

Regards,
John

[Robert Newman]

Dear Robert

Thank you for your answer to my question about extinction. I hope Andrew will also answer it, since I am still unsure whether this view is held by a majority of creationists, or is it minority view within creationism? I have to admit that I did not previously know what a "cline" was, so you have taught me something there, however I was aware that it is sometimes possible for members of different species to produce offspring, as in the case of the mule. Even so, I fail to see how this is a mechanism to prevent extinction of a particular species, unless the offspring were fully members of the original species, and also fertile, of course. Besides, a situation might arise in which a small struggling population of a species were geographically separated from other members of their genus, so what would save them then? Nothing you have said provides any natural reason why the extinction of a species should not happen from time to time, and all the uncertainties of life - climate change, food shortage, the delicate balance between predator and prey - provide compelling reaons why we might expect it to happen quite regularly. I still think this is the most indefensible part of your argument, and I even doubt whether you believe it yourself, deep down. For example, are you willing to say publicly and unequivocally ..

there is no such thing as an endangered species

because that is simply another way of saying the same thing.

Regards,
John

Hi there John,

Creationists agree that evolution theory is wrong. They have countless good arguments. But there are many different views as to what is right from a scientific point of view. And this is a healthy situation. I also hope Andrew will give his own views on the issue as you suggest if he has time. For sure, there is good reason for people to say, 'Well, we see this theory is plain wrong, but what then shall we teach in its place'. And this good point takes time to answer. Perhaps, if time permits, we might all live long enough to see a completely different and verifiable understanding of species in our schools and colleges within the next years. I do hope so.

You ask if I can say categorically there are no such things as 'endangered species'.

In reply -

In my view the whole of nature may be threatened by a failure of mankind to learn from nature. But the forces of creation and creativity are stronger and are sovereign, even over the forces of destruction and of destructiveness. If man destroys this world he will do so by his own knowledge and because he has not learned wisdom.

Yes, of course I fully accept certain populations of living things may be put under threat of extinction. By man. Perhaps you also accept a species can exist in various populations and various forms, some of these widely separated from each other and others closer ? Species tend to move if threatened and there are lots of examples of this. But the idea that 'thousands of species are being made extinct' (as we sometimes read in newspapers etc) is in my view simply untrue. What may become extinct (as said) are local populations. Local varieties etc. But not species themselves.

At least, that's my considered view.

In the not too distant future it may be possible to say with some precision just how many species there actually are in nature. So that we can end this subjective labelling of species which is misleading and often plain wrong. For, as said, a single species can exist in many varieties and forms. We may even be able to know, in advance of its discovery, species which, till now, have hardly been recognised as such.


Regards

Robert

[jhnbrbr]

Dear Robert,

I'm afraid your answer to my question about endangered species was so equivocal that I couldn't really tell what you thought. May I remind you of the very simple question:

Is there, or is there not, such a thing as an endangered species?

Will you please give a clear, concise answer so that everyone who reads this thread will know what your opinion is.

Thank you,
John.

[Robert Newman]

Thank you John,

There really are such things as endangered species. Nobody disputes this. Whether there are such things as 'extinct' species is a different but related question. So far I've seen evidence of the first but not of the second.


Robert

[jhnbrbr]

Hi Robert

Thanks for agreeing that there is such a thing as an endangered species. Sorry to press you on this point, but I'm sure you can see exactly where I'm heading with this. If a number of species today face a real possibility of extinction, the same possibility must have existed in the past, so during the long history of life on earth it is virtually inevitable that a significant number of species have actually "gone under". Are you therefore ready to take one further step and admit that when you asserted no species ever became extinct you may well have been mistaken?

Regards,
John.

[Robert Newman]

Hi there John,

Yes, I'm very willing to admit I may be mistaken. So might you, yes ? Neither of us are dogmatic. I fully agree that species have been endangered at different times during the history of life on earth and that they continue to be endangered. (Mostly at the hand of man). But if we look for examples of 'species extinction' we find, again and again, we were most probably mistaken. There is surely a pattern in all of this. That pattern is clear. Populations of a given species may be and have been made extinct. Without a doubt. But I, so far, do not see persuasive evidence from anywhere that a particular species has, in total, being made extinct. In fact, we see the very opposite.

And, since, you mention it I must again point out that the confusion on what species actually are is mainly caused by evolutionists themselves, proofs of which have been posted here over and over on this thread.

So, once again, if you can give an example of an 'extinct species' that would help your case. The case of the Dodo, the Mammoth, the Dinosaurs, the Passenger Pigeon etc. are not really cases of species extinction at all. Nor are they evidence of species 'evolution'. Or so says the actual evidence, I believe.

Regards

Robert

[Andrew Roussak]

Hi Robert, hi John,

thank you for an invitation to give my opinion on the extiction of species.

First and foremost, I really don't see, frankly and honestly, how the extinction of species can be an argument favorable for the evolution theory ( further ET ). Let's just be logical and regard the subject a little bit closer.

Let's consider the very well known scheme of an "act" of evolution, as it is being taught in schools etc. Suppose we have a population of species A living in a certain area having constant environment. The species A are now stable. Let us consider the environment begins to change - no matter how - but the climat in this area is now beginning to get unfavorable for the given species. According to ET, the pressure on the population will rise and the number of accidential mutations will occur, the fittiest will survive, and over the span of many years the species A will morph to a new form - species B. Right?

But, my everyday experience tells me that exactly the opposite would normally happen. If the environment becomes unfavorable, the species A would very likely migrate. If the migration by any reason is impossible, the species will adapt, but this adaptation does always have its natural limits .
So, if the species are unable to adapt so far, they will extinct, AND NOT EVOLVE TO OTHER SPECIES.

There are app. 2 mln. KNOWN species exist on Earth now. How many species are still undiscovered? It seems, that the only question is - HOW MANY MILLIONS still undiscovered species are there? This number is estimated to be from 5 to 100 millions!!! Anyway, there are more newly discovered species are reported each year as the species endangered. It does not even actually matter whether the species have evolved or were created - so seen, the situation is not VERY dramatic.

Of course I agree that man can make the species extinct - some syberian fur animals, some whales were already on the knife edge. Man can very well make all species extinct - including himself - if man begins the WWIII using WMD. But, how will this prove that ET or creation science was right or wrong? If man makes the species extinct, it proves nothing but his own stupidity.

@ John - maybe I misunderstand your point on this, but I suppose you might have trying to say smth. like, the extinct species are being, so to speak, balanced by the newly evolved species, and so the certain dynamic equilibrium can be achieved - right?

If this is actually your point, then it can not be true. If the species A extinct, it does simply extinct , without any "new" species coming into its place. The creation science says so, and it seems that many evolutionists now agree on that too!!! The theory of Punktuated Equilibrium says, that evolution occurs in dramatic spurts interspersed with long periods of stasis. As the species find their niches, they become stable and don't evolve anymore - it is being asserted that we now - and that from the beginning of the human history - are living in a period of such stasis. There was obviously a strong need for such theory, because something had to explain the abscence of intermediates in the fossil record , as well as the abscence of the observable acts of
evolution in the present times. The theory of punktuated equilibrium covers, in fact , some gaps, but still does not add anything new to the mechanism of evolution etc., for me it does not look therefore more "believable". But it looks like the evolutionists HAD to admit herewith, that the fossil record does not support ET, and the "grand mechanism of producing new forms of life" is not being observed in the nature presently.

Hope to be back tomorrow once again -

regards
Andrew

[Robert Newman]

Thank you for this Andrew.

And, of course, a single species can exist in huge numbers of different varieties, forms, colours, sizes etc.

The more we examine this issue the clearer it becomes (to me anyway) that subjective and arbitrary definitions of species themselves is the root of the problem.

Regards

Robert