³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Will, creationists will distort and twist whatever they can get their grubby little paws on, so you can take that as a given. I doubt that the researchers would be interested in the Giant's Causeway for this project - much too recent (as you should know from doing Blueprint :-).

Of course, people like Mervyn "tell me the old old" Storey think it's only a few thousand years old, and he has unnamed "scientists" who "have worked on this" and who reach a "radically different interpretation of the same scientific evidence" etc etc etc and so on for 400 comments...

-H

Would that "museum of lost causes" be the one the creationists have built in the US where the dinosaurs are shown ambling past humans on their way to feed.

errrr, not all creationists believe in a young earth....

mmmm with all the great ethical minds here, do you think we might have a post or two about the sex slaves living next door to us in N Ireland, being abused by our neighbours, relatives and workmates????

living in fear, being raped a dozen times daily in our leafy suburbs, while their families at home live under death threat???

honestly this is so shallow...imo.

we have such great intellects, learning and resources available and the most we can think to do is persistanlty poke a finger in the eye of people on the ground of the age of the earth.

I mean by all means debate this issue, but where is the sense of perspective about REAL ethical issues?? come on Will.

Of course it is much more important to have people onto SS to discuss the finer points of the ethics of the latest movie we saw in our safe little middle class world.

reminds me of the parable of the good samaritan.

All the learned and respected religious experts passed by on the other side while someone was in peril of their life, no doubt on their way to debate the ethics of some classical play...

(rant off).

we could also talk about world poverty too, isnt that an ethical issue for our world today???

I am not saying stop discussing YECism etc not all all, but where is the sense of perspective???

There are so many real issues in NI today - elder abuse anyone???

Yes, and I'm horrified that you missed the story about the Pringles, Will. The central ethical and philosophical issue of our time has been decided. And do you care? Oh no, you want to talk about science and religion!
And where do the Americans get off calling a Pringle a Potato Chip anyway!!! It's a crisp!

GV

There is a story floating around the inter-web about English atheists and skeptics buying de-baptism certificates or something.

Can anyone verify this?

Hello OT,

When Will posts something about homosexuality, you complain he's on too much about that. When he posts something with a creationist angle, you complain. Previously (in particular under your old 'pb' identity), those were your favourite subjects. You posted extensively about your Young Earth Cretinist nonsense. You were all to happy to be the voice of rabid homophobia. Would be becasue you've had your ass kicked on both subjects (mostly by fellow christians as far as the homophobia is concerned) that you now prefer your formerly favourite subjects not to be mentioned anymore?

Hi Graham

De-baptisms. Yes it is true, here is the link.



You get a certificate an' all!

My thoughts at the time which I posted on the 'Religulous' thread were:


Here's an interesting piece from 'The National Secular Society' - "De-baptise yourself". I mean what does that entail, lots of towels? Sun dried atheists? Freeze dried secularists perhaps. Are they hydrophobic?


And an extract from a letter,

"I'm no longer a Catholic, and this is how I did it. I sent a letter to the Bishop of the diocese where I was baptised. I presented evidence of long-standing atheism, and I was insulting to the Catholic Church in particular, and theism in general, hoping to be excommunicated as a result."


I mean what does, "I was insulting to the Catholic Church in particular, and theism in general" mean, what is," evidence of long-standing atheism"?

Perhaps one has to submit evidence of posting on this blog, maybe one has to say Jesus was Horus, (no, Mithras, no, Dionysus, no, wait a minute, Baal, emm Krishna, yep that's it, Krishna, must be, sounds like Christ, yes Jesus was a homophone) who would know? Maybe you blow raspberries at the priest.

But here's the real weird thing, some 'freethinkers' seem to think they can only be declared apostate by a Bishop, now that's novel.

Graham

I have just noticed that you can buy the cer-tif-e-cates in bulk. Do you think that this would be in case of an anti-revival?

Come all ye who doubt,

De-baptise yourself over and over, just to be sure!

De-baptisms. Yes it is true, here is the link.

Graham, Peter: What on Earth has de Baptism certificates got to do with new radiometric dating techniques ????????????????

To get back on topic, I would expect AiG to feature this story in their "News to note" this coming Saturday and a rejection By Snelling to follow soon afrter(possibly in their ARJ).

Peter

You are correct, the de baptisms having nothing to do with this thread at all, I was just replying to Graham. You have to admit tho', it's sort of funny. I mean if I ever gave up my faith I wouldn't bother with this malarky. It's almost superstitious.

Apologies to one and all, but I actually think Graham is to blame, after all he started it!

Actually, I think the debaptism certificates are pretty important. For centuries the church sent out papal bulls stating in the gravest possible way that the recipient was anathaema. Lost forever, abandoned to Satan with no hope of ever escaping.

That wee certificate says, I'm free from your threats, from your bullying, from your nonsensical thinking. You no longer have any hold on me what so ever, in fact, I have a certificate to prove it.

But we'd need to come up with a new name for such people as "non-Catholic" is already taken.

Peter J

Pardon me all over the place. My question in 6 followed on from my joke in 5 which was a tongue in cheek reply to 4.

Also I thought someone who posted here might have the answer.

But we've never had a thread go off topic before, so I wouldn't want to start a trend...

Forgot smiley after "pardon me all over the place"

Have two

(-: (-;

Or is a (: better?

What is the ettiquette?

And have smileys gone too far? We can now get them with sound effects.

Also - did anyone notice that Blunkett was attacked by a cow the same week a woman in the Isle of Man was attacked by a herd of cows?
Is PETA organising a coup?

A moo-coup?

Sorry - it's late, and I'm up with a sick child.

GV

But RJB,

No one needs a certificate.

As for a new name, would 'Protestant' work? (Tongue in cheek all over the place and with bells on!)

I might need more than a smiley after that one.

Don't confuse us with the facts. Our minds are made up.

Marcus

Your minds are made up.

What about, debaptism?

OT when wil you get the point of blogging ... it's not a news page, it's not the front page of The Times ... it's idiosyncratic, personal, driven by the whims of writers. Will can write about whatever takes his fancy.

Like smileys and bovine conspiracies.

Please

Hi (Will and all),
Don't know if Will is aware but "The Voyage That Shook The World" is a new documentary that will be screening in the Octagon Theatre, University of Ulster Coleraine on Thursday 18th June at 8pm.

It has been produced by Creation Ministries International and is an alternative to all the pro-Darwinism programmes on ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ. It is balanced and includes interviews with evolutionist experts, as well as with scientists from both creationist and Intelligent Design (ID) camps. University professors (relevant to the subject) interviewed include those from prestigious universities such as Harvard, Maryland, Alberta, Illinois, Bristol, QUB's Peter Bowler and the Head of Research at the Charles Darwin Research Station, Galápagos. You can't claim that it's unscientific.

The guy presenting and talking afterwards will be Philip Robinson, who questioned Will at the blueprint open day. I'm sure he would be pleased to see Will again for more discussion.

OK team, all up to Coleraine for what promises to be the most amusing comedy since "Life of Brian"!

Creation Ministries International, indeed.

I doubt the Giant's Causeway would be of much interest, given that it is thought to have formed during the Paleogene period (23-65 Mya).

Regarding this nonsense in Coleraine, if it's Philip Robinson from then I believe that this statement on their website will inform the blog readers as to the "balanced" nature of said documentary.

I had a look at the trailer for that nonsense on youtube. Couple of points: 1. Stuart Burgess. Stuart Burgess!! Please! 2. The very unconvincing sideburns on the young Darwin. I know creationists love to fake things, but that's taking it a bit far.

Incisive trailer reviewing from Helio...

"The very unconvincing sideburns on the young Darwin. I know creationists love to fake things, but that's taking it a bit far."

Exactly what part of a dramatic re-enactment is real??? Such a pity the resurrected Darwin wasn't available.

As for creationists loving to fake things, two things: Piltdown Man & Haeckels Embryos.

At least you wear your bias on your sleeve! :-)

"As for creationists loving to fake things, two things: Piltdown Man & Haeckels Embryos."

Is that the best you can come up with? A forged skull from 1912 and an embryo forgery perpetrated by a 19th century biologist (both uncovered by the self-cleansing efforts of the scientific community, therefore a testament to sciences' dedication to uncovering what is true). That is supposed to be a valid counterweight to what is by now several decades of continuous, systematic distortion in the form of 'creation science' and its science jargon dress-up, Intelligent Design?

I actually think the sideburns are important.

"an embryo forgery perpetrated by a 19th century biologist"

Yes, a forgery that is still present in today's high-school text books as 'proof' of evolution.

Several decades??? I would have thought more like several centuries... Scientists who are creationists/christians/believe in a plain understanding of the early chapters of Genesis, were around a lot earlier than Darwin and his various disciples. And funnily enough they are still around today. But never let the truth get in the way of a good story...

Besides this debate is not really about science. This is a debate about origins and world-view. About whether God is or isn't. Science is limited in it's contribution to that arena.

"Yes, a forgery that is still present in today's high-school text books as 'proof' of evolution."

Yes, it took quite a while to uncover the forgery. And that is supposed to prove what, exactly? Do you know of many publishers who have included it in their text books after they had learned it was a forgery?

Oh I get it. There was no immediate nation-wide purge to destroy every copy of every text book that contained references to it. The fact that it took time to flush out the forgery is proof to you of the great atheist conspiracy that is being perpetuated on all of society by scientists. Duh.

"Several decades??? I would have thought more like several centuries... Scientists who are creationists/christians/believe in a plain understanding of the early chapters of Genesis, were around a lot earlier than Darwin and his various disciples."

This is almost too funny. Holding up the reading of Genesis to show people are 'creation scientists'. Scientists who thought creation was true have indeed been around for centuries as you say. But 'scientists' who set out to try to show the hand of god in nature through scientific experimentation etc (nutter clubs like the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis) is a more recent invention.

I'm always amused by the Haeckel story when it's misrepresented by creationists. The fact is that it is irrelevant - any buck-eejit with a microscope can look at embryos in all their glorious detail right now, and see the similarities for themselves. It is spectacular evidence in favour of evolution. And now we can do gene expression studies that reinforce not just the homology but the *orthology* of many structures.

Yeah, you can find "scientists" (most of those on the lists are not scientists at all) who claim to be creationists, but they are few and far between - coincidentally like the neurons in their brains.

And I am amused by evos/atheists/skeptics who think evolution is still about science! It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the 'meaning of life' (or 'non-meaning' as the case may be). Science (so-called) is the prop that holds up the evolutionary world-view... The atheists "intellectual fulfillment" (thanks Richard). Scientific Naturalism is a convenient way to dodge a metaphysical bullet. "Yay there is no God - I'm free!"

Now lest I be accused of being one-eyed(a mutant variety common to both genus evo and genus creo), the average creationist will happily affirm that the Bible is the main prop that supports their world-view. But they also can and will interpret scientific data to support their view. Just like those on the other side of the fence. (Please don't ask for an example - if you really, genuinely want to know, go somewhere like creation.com and browse around. No point in reinventing the wheel here.)

As for yet another simplistic attack on the credentials of scientists who also hold to a creationist interpretation of the origin of life (and who use that view to influence how they do science), why?

You seem actually threatened by the prospect that successful scientists (guys that invent gene guns, MRI machines, and create modified enzymes for use in industry ) can also be creationists. That can't be fun.

I know - let's all go home and allow natural selection to take it's course... May the best world-view win!

korotiotio, you really are a funny wee specimen - several of us on this forum actually work in the field, and KNOW the people to whom you refer, and KNOW the creationist lies *backwards*. The fact is that "creationism" and "intelligent design" are non-explanations, and there are very good reasons why they are *untrue*. One's worldview does not matter one whit - the science is perfectly clear - the universe is OLD, organisms EVOLVED (and continue to evolve), we are APES (very clever ones - at least some of us), and there you go. The genetic evidence is very very clear on the last two points; the physical evidence is very very clear on the former.

Creationism has been utterly refuted. Smell the coffee and move on. That is not in itself to say that there is no god - many evolutionary biologists are Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) - Ken Miller, Francis Collins would be among those with the highest profiles, and all the major church leaders in the world accept evolution - the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope among them.

So your silly comment about worldviews would appear not to apply to them. The world is as it is - as scientists we accept that, and approach the world at that level. It is rampant *heresy* to place a simple human book like the bible between us and the data.

Oh Ok, I'll take the bait...

I'm delighted that I can contribute to your sense of amusement, but abstract concepts like fun, sorrow, truth, justice seem to have a difficult fit in your "science explains all" framework. I'm sure you have a great story that will explain that. But then you excel at telling great stories - just as Darwin did! The fluidity and malleability of the evolutionary explanatory power is truly astounding.

But I digress. Just for fun, please tell us about the 3 gents that I was referring to in #33, Seeing as you "KNOW" them.

Yes the science is clear - depending on the interpretive glasses you're wearing. With the age of the earth the 'evidence' has to be interpreted just like clues at a crime scene. They don't speak for themselves. Sure the data can be construed to point to an old earth. That same data can also be construed as demonstrating young earth. But as no scientist was around to measure the time & date when "everything came into being" we cannot say categorically what the age of the earth is. You might believe you have the 'best-fit' for the available evidence, and I have no problem with that. But, would you bet your first-born child (or your house, or your health - whatever is precious to you) on a categorical claim about the age of the earth? Science has been known to change it's mind...

Regarding the word evolve... If by saying that organisms evolve you mean that organisms change, of course they do. But the observations so far seem to show that change has limits. Even Darwin admitted as much after his experiments with breeding pigeons. His pigeons could only be modified so much. Unfortunately for his theory they still remained pigeons.

Another example. The Galapagos islands are supposedly millions of years old and the species on the islands have supposedly been there for millions of years, yet there is amazing diversity and difference between similar species on different islands just a few miles apart. Yet new observations on the Galapagos are seeing land iguanas hybridising with marine iguanas that can swim between islands. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that if marine iguanas have indeed been there for millions of years, they figured out how to swim between islands way before now. After all they made the journey from the mainland, some 600 miles away. Therefore, over millions of years it's not difficult to imagine a large degree of homogenisation between species. This would result in the species lines becoming blurred. Yet we don't see that on the Galapagos. The animals do not appear to have changed that much at all, despite their being an observed mechanism to support such change. This makes it entirely possible to imagine a scenario which suggests that the islands are much younger than they are - maybe a couple of thousand years, but not millions. Now, I'm not saying this is what actually happened, but it's a reasonable hypothesis given recent observations.

But let's face it, when you say EVOLVE you really mean a process of incremental change over long, long periods of time, that provides a process whereby a single simple entity called 'first-life' eventually became 'helio' and 'koro' debating METAPHYSICAL concepts and abstract ideas. Arriving at this scenario via pigeon-breeding (that has a dead end) is a massive leap of imagination. Some would say genius.

Of course, where 'first-life' came from still has the almighty science stumped. Complex and coherent coded genetic information, does not simply appear out of nowhere. There are plenty of GRAND theories, which amply demonstrate the human capacity for imaginative creative thought, but they don't actually prove anything. For the time being the origin of life is still a 'research problem'.

Apes... Well feel free to trace your ancestry back to the apes. But act like an ape and HUMAN society tends to take a dim view. Personally I prefer to think that the *real* difference between human and ape (arts, language, culture, law & order, justice & mercy etc) is of an order of magnitude that makes the evolution "just-so" story seem highly unlikely. The fact that humans DO act like apes on occasion, is not necessarily evidence that we were once apes. Though it could be if you want it to be.
But you will protest... You say "homology", I say "common designer". Two sides of the same coin. It comes down to which side of the coin you PEFER! It's interpretation of the same data... World-view in other words.

Creationism has been thoroughly refuted? I your mind maybe. That's your belief and you are entitled to it. But refuting creationism by definition means refuting a Creator God. In order to refute a Creator God one must KNOW without question that there is no God. But that would mean knowing all that there ever was and is, thus making you God. And a God who knows everything would surely have no problem with the creation bit. Ergo, the refutation shoots itself in the foot.

For me, all of creation, with it wonders (& flaws) makes a whole lot more sense when viewed in the light of a Creator God as revealed in the Bible. One who has personally involved himself in the affairs of human-kind and is knowable for those who want to know. He is "the one", and his name is Jesus. For this belief I will no doubt reap a mountain of mockery, ridicule and abuse. It's well worth it. For I'll definitely bet eternity on that.

But yeah, doesn't freshly ground coffee smell good? Ah, the simple pleasures of being human...

to Korotiotio

If man and ape don't share a common ancestor then how do you explain our extremely homologous genomes, Endogenous retrovirus, and pseudogene data? Surely these genetic markers indicate the relationships among the primates and our placement within?

Would the god of the bible, or indeed your "Intelligent Designer" intentionally place data that would lead us to this conclusion?

I would request that you attempt to explain without falling to the standard retort of gain and loss of information. It really is terribly old hat, and quite spurious.

Oh what lovely reasoning fallacies from korotiotio. Take the following gem for instance that shows that his thinking is not just limited to within the confines of christianity, but much more narrow still (smelling of fundie protestantism):

"But refuting creationism by definition means refuting a Creator God. In order to refute a Creator God one must KNOW without question that there is no God."

Listen to what e.g. a Catholic like Ken Miller has to say. He has been instrumental in exposing the creationists at the Dover trial as the liars they are. He utterly rejects creationism. But not a creator god. He takes the Catholic party line that evolution is how god works, that that is how he created things. And less nutty protestants take that line as well.
The argument that rejecting creationism requires the absolute proof that there is no god behind what we see around us is very flawed reasoning.

PK: "evolution is how god works, that that is how he created things."

I'm glad you agree there is a Creator God.

But the debate about HOW God created is very different from deciding whether or not He exists. Please don't confuse the two.

The point is that the concept of a Creator God is CRUCIAL and foundational to creationism. If you cannot rule out the possibility of a God who creates, you cannot rule out the possibility that God created as understood by creationists.

In the same way, I cannot categorically rule out the possibility that evolutionary theory (as the explanation for ALL of life) may be true, no matter how unlikely I believe that to be. (Although John Sanford, in his book "Genetic Entropy", eviscerates the evolutionary mechanism of beneficial mutations - and gets very close to demonstrating its complete implausibility)

Both Evolution and Creation are ultimately "faith-based" propositions that are 'unprovable' in a scientific sense. And I contend that when properly understood they are mutually exclusive.

Darwin knew full-well the implications of his proposal and in letter to Asa Grey could not see how his theory was in any way compatible with the orthodox view of Genesis. Darwinian Evolution - both as a philosophical framework and a creative mechanism - is essentially anti-supernatural and thus anti-God. Therefore any Christian who embraces evolution as God's method of creation, is effectively shooting their faith in the foot.

Hello korotiotio,

I see you're not just none too smart, but a little disingenuous too. The usual mix for creationists. Straight off the bat in post 38, you start distorting what I said by quoting half a sentence of mine, and giving it another meaning from what I clearly said:

"I'm glad you agree there is a Creator God."

I don't agree with that at all, you dishonest little cretinist. I said that that is what people like Ken Miller (a minority within the community of top scientists) think.

And then we get some really bad mis-reasoning:

"If you cannot rule out the possibility of a God who creates, you cannot rule out the possibility that God created as understood by creationists."

Of course that is incorrect. The Catholic party line on creation (although there is nothing tangible that speaks in favour of it) can not be easily refuted, as it basically says that things happened the way science said it did, with some hypothesized events added to it like the non-observable infusion of a human soul etc. The creationist account of 'This species first, then those, then that' is clearly refuted. So your statement that I just quoted there is just hogwash. Of course certain creation accounts are plainly disproven, while e.g. the Catholic party line on creation leaves room for a hypothetical god that has no tangible effect whatsoever.

"Although John Sanford, in his book "Genetic Entropy""

Ah yes, always books from crackpots, never anything that has managed to withstand peer-review, like an article in a respectable science journal. You haven't got much of a clue of how science works, do you? Yep, we've got a caricature creationist among us here, people. Which is further confirmed by a breathtakingly wrong statement like

"Both Evolution and Creation are ultimately "faith-based" propositions that are 'unprovable' in a scientific sense."

The one thing I think you got right is when you said

"And I contend that when properly understood they are mutually exclusive."

and

"Therefore any Christian who embraces evolution as God's method of creation, is effectively shooting their faith in the foot."

That's how I see things too. Now, if you just learn to make the correct choice after that (ditch the fairy tale faith that is such a burden on your thinking), then you'll be on your way to seeing things a bit brighter.

Sanford is a loon, unfortunately, and his concept of "Genetic entropy" is very very poorly informed, and his understanding of evolutionary theory woeful. Which is quite strange, given that he at least on paper has the background to know where his errors lie. We do sometimes find this with these punters.

K, if you're going to drag these twits into the discussion, you need to be prepared to discuss their *arguments*, not simply toss their names around. Can you please post a brief, yet technical, introduction to the key concepts of genetic entropy, how it is measured, and the predicted effects such a concept would have on extant and extinct populations?

Thankyou.

Geneboy, you may want to listen in on this one! Comments welcome.

Any time you're ready, K.

Thank you PK & Helio. I did wonder but now I'm sure. You really are sounding a little like religious fanatics desperately propping up their faltering world-view.

I'll let other readers judge the merits of your tiresome name-calling and muddled rebuttals. It really is very unattractive. The primary inventor of the gene gun is now a crackpot, loon and twit? Wow. Simply amazing. I'll remind Newton et all to stay away...

Welcome to the faith club boys.

Ah, the classic religious response: when completely out of arguments to present, complain about the tone. Duh.

Oh PK, re the Ken Millar quote: Sorry, I misunderstood you. It sounded to me like you agreed with him. There was no dishonest intention to distort.

K, I don't think you understand - it is perfectly possible to be quite competent in some areas, but a complete loon/crackpot/twit in others. Although the "gene gun" is really no big deal, clever though it is, this is not the issue we are discussing, and Sanford's expertise as part of the team that developed this technology is of little relevance.

So if you are prepared to discuss the issue, that's fine. If you just want to gawp open-mouthed at someone's CV, that is not going to get you very far. YOU are the one saying that there is an argument against evolution coming from biology. YOU have to make that argument. Go for it.

Helio:"YOU have to make that argument. Go for it."

But why would I, when you so quickly dismiss the genetic expertise and credentials of a Cornell Associate Professor just because he is now a creationist? You demonstrate again further evidence of an a-prior adherence to a BELIEF system that brooks no dissent.

However I digress...I might possibly be interested if you would first provide a completely naturalistic account that cogently explains the origin of the complex information system required for life to begin. Preferably without reference to aliens, outer space or other 'advanced civilisations' as do Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick. If a divine foot is not allowed in the door, then aliens are also banned. It would also be great if mere mortals who don't inhabit the lofty heights of scientific academia could actually understand said explanation. Then perhaps we will have a solid foundation to discuss the rest of evolutions veracity.

But getting back to John Sanford & his book (for the benefit of those reading who may actually be interested)...

Please note: this is not a summary, it isn't even an overview, but it's the main point that I took away after reading it.

In "Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome" Sanford, referencing studies from leading population geneticists (including Kimura, Muller & Haldane), proposes that the build up of relatively frequent harmful mutations in the genome, far outweigh the potential benefits of relatively infrequent 'useful' mutations. Citing the same population geneticists and using extremely conservative figures Sanford puts this ratio at 10,000 bad mutations for every good one.

Thus if an organism is lucky enough to hit the useful mutation jackpot, that mutation will be most likely be drowned out by the abundance of harmful ones. With this ongoing build-up of harmful mutations the 'fitness' of the organism is eventually compromised to the point of extinction.

But wait a minute - I thought evolution theory with its natural selection acting on beneficial mutations, led to bigger and better. Surely a decrease in fitness is not what we need here. Perhaps it was better in the past, but it ain't so flash now. Based on this scenario the evolution train is on the wrong track!

No doubt the howls of indignation will be forthcoming, but comments from people who have actually read the book would be most interesting. But don't expect me to debate the science as I'm not a population geneticist - state your case and take it up with the author. Integrity would be good, but I'm not holding my breath.

But just for fun, supposing what I said was indeed true. That the genetic integrity of the genome is degrading. That the ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations is 10,000 to 1.

How do you explain evolution working in that scenario? That the average bloke on the street would understand, that is...

"But don't expect me to debate the science as I'm not a population geneticist - state your case and take it up with the author."

Taking the 'shift the burden' strategy to a new level. 'I won't debate myself, here is reading from a third party that represents my views, take it up with the author'. You're as hopeless at presenting your own case as Graham was. Now that the WWers, his lovely fellow christians, have managed to chase him off this blog, you might make for a rather good replacement.

Pick and choose. A nice strategy! As expected - attack the person, ignore the argument.

So remind me, how did life get here?

And gee, that does seem like a lot of bad mutations doesn't it?

K, you have a problem, and it is a Very Big One. Sanford's argument is very easily refutable (if it is as you state, and actually I think you have put it in similar terms to other people who have tried to use it).

Firstly, it is incorrect to say that the vast majority of mutations are harmful. A mutation is a change in the DNA sequence. You contain over 100 mutations that your parents did not have, and they contained over 100 mutations that THEIR parents did not have, and they passed these on to you. The result of this process over many generations is an increase in the VARIATION in the population; it is irrelevant whether the mutations are "beneficial" or not at this stage (natural selection hasn't decided yet). Actually, that's a little trite - many mutations never even make it to that stage - they will cause miscarriage, failure to implant, stillbirth, etc - THOSE mutations are lost, but the other mutations are just sitting twiddling their thumbs in YOUR genome right now.

You can see the effects of this if you look around you. Some people have slightly darker skin than others in the same population. Or some have longer big toes. More hooked noses. Some metabolise aromatic compounds better. Some have faster reactions. Some have slower metabolic rates. Some are bigger. Some are wirier. And they pass the genes behind these traits on to their children in ways that we understand very very well.

Natural selection is very simple - the genes that build bodies that survive and reproduce most effectively will become enriched in the next generation. So the phenotypes that those genes are responsible for will become more numerous in the next generation, while genes that cause their owners to reproduce *less* effectively become selected out. And so on for millions of years. The problem for people who try to parse mutations into "beneficial" and "harmful" is that they don't seem to understand this process. Harmful mutations, although they are striking in their effect, are actually rather rare in comparison to nearly-neutral mutations. And whatever selection criteria you choose, nearly-neutral mutations are pretty much as likely to be beneficial as harmful, when assessed by an organism's reproductive ability. A little amino acid tweak here; a subtle 3' frame shift there; a minor duplication here, etc. These are all KNOWN genetic mechanisms that we see operating NOW in the human (and other) population.

Now, if these mutational processes were not subject to the serious bias of selection, "genetic entropy" would assuredly occur, but it is selection that makes the difference here. Selection is pretty darned ruthless. It does NOT work in single jumps, but over many generations (which can still be pretty rapid - look at the cichlids in Lake Malawi!). The effect is to enrich the population for certain genetic traits - evolution is a GENETIC process.

So the bottom line is this: MUTATION injects VARIATION into a POPULATION. SELECTION modifies gene FREQUENCIES, resulting in a change in the GENEPOOL.

This is a spectacularly effective process, and we can see the evidence for it very clearly in the genomes of many many species. Ironically, it is the relatively HIGH frequency of new mutations that demolishes the argument you have put forward. It would seem that Sanford needs to brush up on his mathematics somewhat.

As for the beginning of life itself, do not bear false witness against Dawkins or Crick. They have pointed out that life *could* have been seeded from elsewhere - that is a valid hypothesis. It is at present unknown; I find it unlikely, and indeed Dawkins is on record as saying that he finds it unlikely too. And it is unnecessary. The current hot candidate for this is the "RNA world hypothesis", but there are others. All you need is an informational replicator, and natural selection does the heavy lifting after that. We can go into this in more detail if you wish, but that might need another thread. You'll need to come loaded for bear, because you will be expected to defend the assertion that "god" does not need an explanation, and better minds than yours have been ripped to bits on this very forum for such a lame cop-out.

But the evidence for the RNA world is even better than the hypothetical - it still IS an RNA world! The majority of key cellular processes use RNA instead of DNA; RNA is by far the most abundant nucleic acid within cells, and every RNA molecule has a phenotype, thereby exposing it to selection by definition.

K, the science behind how we got here is as fascinating as it is beautiful. Don't waste your brain following fairy stories.

Copied over from the post I incorrectly put in the Darwin film thread-

Sure thing bud, here goes this might get a bit long in places so bear with me.

Sanford was indeed a Biologist at one point. His expertise and depth of knowledge is really without reproach. B.Sc in horticulture and an M.Sc/Ph.D in plant breeding and genetics. Add to this the fact that he was an associate professor for nearly two decades at Cornell, co-developer of the genegun (among numerous other patents) and it would certainly be very easy for someone to place him up on the pedestal. Aside from knowledge that by his own admission that he became a born again Christian and young earth creationist post Ph.d. during marital problems, there is no need to resort to ad hominem attacks on his character. His theories seem to do most of the work for us on that front anyway.

Sanfords 'genetic entropy' is analogous to the already present population genetics term 'mutational load'. That is the concept that, in a population, deleterious mutations must accumulate (with a frequency of mutation/selective disadvantage). In the standard models 'mutational load' is offset by 'selectional load' (advantageous genes/alleles march towards fixation) and 'segregational load' (heterozygotes maintain equilibrium through hybrid vigor). Layman will be fairly familiar with the hybrid vigor or heterosis in dog and plant breeding whereby hybrids are fitter than pedigree; if you have ever tried to grow from f2 seed packets you will note that the seeds they produce often give inferior plants, this is because the plant breeders produce them from F1 parents knowing that the F2 strain will be very fit, but subsequents wont. What Sanford does is quite artfully dodge the role of beneficial mutations, and focus entirely on the deleterious ones.

Sanfords strawman arguments essentially extrapolate ad absurdium from the theoretical works of Haldane and Kimura. On the one hand it depends on Haldanes dilemma, a theoretical calculation that posits that new highly beneficial alleles can effectively drive a population extinct (i.e. lots of mortality when a new allele arrives and clears the way); and on the other Kimuras neutral theory of molecular evolution, that states correctly if the population size or selective advantage of an allele (gene) are too small then the allele can be effectively regarded as neutral. The idea is essentially this, that the likelihood of having an allele that is beneficial is extremely low; on top of which if said allele arises it is unlikely to be fixed or reasonably represented within a population in a timely fashion at best, and at worst it will drive the parent population extinct. The neo-darwinian synthesis has multiple solutions for these theoretical problems including but not limited too silent third codon mutations, pseudogenes, junk DNA, conserved sequences and mutational hotspots, selective sweeps, purifying selection and synergistic epistasis.

By subtly weaving these together and over inflating the number of deleterious mutations by several orders of magnitude he decides that that the genome can do nothing but deteriorate over time. The resultant claims being that mutations do not create information (sigh), are rarely beneficial and those that are beneficial are effectively neutral. He further posits that geneticists never see beneficial mutations and that plant breeding has resulted in no meaningful crop improvement. Can anyone spot the bias here already? I hope everyone remembers his horticultural background, and I'm sure that even the staunchest of believers in creation can find several examples of how plant and animal husbandry has produced meaningful crop improvement.

However regarding his theories he falls within first few sets of hurdles so to speak. Regarding Haldanes dilemma (which would over inflate the length of evolutionary time required to separate any two species or reduce the observed differences), Haldane himself even recognised that the work was unfinished; and Bruce Wallace more or less laid this dilemma to rest twenty odd years ago, correcting many of the invalid assumptions in the calculations. Likewise with Kimuras curve it depends entirely on the value of selection used and whilst this may generally apply to humans due to our historically low population sizes, it becomes irrelevant for other creatures (namely those with large historically populations). When we look at such species like Caenorhabditis, Saccharomyces and Drosophila we find the opposite effect to that of humans, namely that very slightly beneficial mutations can accumulate as evidenced by codon usage bias (genome streamlining for quick translation into protein). In effect if we were to extrapolate his theory to the natural world and ignore the observed data, these species would have to die out every few thousand generations and be created from scratch. I wonder who the creator is in his theory?

The real problem though is the claim that there is no evidence for selection of beneficial mutations. Over the last decade numerous papers have been published indicating the contrary including but not limited too,















which as you can see proves empirically that this is not the case.

Outside of Genetic Entropy, He also resorts to more standard ID/YEC arguments. Namely in the Kansas evolution hearings where he advocated that we were intelligently designed and that 'A car is complex, but so is a junkyard. However, a car is complex in a way that is very specific which is why it works. It requires a host of very intelligent engineers to specify its complexity, so it is a functional whole'. Can anyone else say specified complexity? Double facepalm on that old chestnut. Recent creation, nothing but bad mutations attributed to the fall, and a genomic apocalypse coming. Truly absurd stuff.

Regarding his publications. It should be noted that he has published two peer reviewed articles, concerning this subject. Both are in reference to the computational model that he and his colleagues (who it should be noted are also creationists), have presented in the computer program Mendels Accountant. The publications are also in journals concerned primarily with computing and not biology, and to date I cant find any references that have actually generated datasets using the program. So it is perfectly valid to assume that the scientific community has largely discounted this work.

At the end of the day though, his work on the Genegun vastly outweighs the deleterious nature of this stuff, as it clearly isnt selling well or getting much air time. In my opinion everyone is allowed to go a bit funny in their old age, although for me it will probably be meds, sponge-baths and dirty limericks.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.