quote:
slp:
JP tried it - I pointed out the contradictions and shadiness in his links, he flipped out and is now ignoring me.
John Paul:
I am ignoring you because you offer nothing to debate. You only think you found contradictions & shadiness in the links I provided. Big difference nbetween that and there actually being contradictions and shadiness
The usual assertions unsupported by facts.
All too easy to once again demonstrate erroneous information on JPs part:
From:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=34&p=3
JP provides these links:
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/junkdna031901.htm
and
http://www.idthink.net/arn/shap/index.htm
to support his claims regarding junk DNA.
In my response, using quotes from the very sites that JP linked to, I post the following:
I am at a loss as to explain why you chose those links. Did you even bother to read them? They contradict each other on many points. From:
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/junkdna031901.htm
The junk comes in several varieties, the most common of which are repetitive segments. There are short repetitive segments, such as the pieces that Schmid studies, consisting of 272 base pairs; and there are long repetitive segments of 6,000 base pairs. Both segments pop up repeatedly in human DNA, collectively accounting for 20 percent of the entire genome, Schmid said.
Yet from
http://www.idthink.net/arn/shap/index.htm:
And what plays the crucial role in this organization is the repetitive DNA (commonly called "junk DNA").
So, is junk DNA just repetitive segments, as Mike Gene clearly indicates, or are repetitive segments just one type of ‘junk’? The distinction is important.
Gene also condescendingly writes:
In the future, the non-teleological revisionism will try to make it seem as if non-teleologists have always known "junk DNA" wasn't junk. Every time you see a non-teleologist using junk DNA in this way, copy and save it, for history's sake.
And yet what do we see in the ARN article?
The idea that the junk may not be junky hearkens back to the early days of molecular biology. The prevailing view once was that all DNA was useful to the body. Then, two different teams of scientists published commentaries in the journal Nature in 1980 suggesting that some DNA is "selfish" -- that it exists simply for the sake of existing.
It seems that for at least 21 years, real scientists have suspected — even ‘known’ — junk DNA wasn’t simply ‘junk’.
Instead of saving such claims for ‘history’s sake’, I suggest keeping the self-serving rantings of ‘teleologists’ for history’s sake.
I think two examples are enough to show contradictions between the two. JP, of course, will simply refuse to accept that one link claiming that junk DNA is all sorts of things, the other clearly implying it is only repetitive elements, is not a contradiction. He will insist that one link showing that biologists knew 21 years ago that junk DNA has functions while the other claims that ‘non-teleologists’ are just now finding this out is not contradictory.
He has to.
Shadiness?
In the same thread, JP links to Richard Deem’s web site.
I post the following:
**********************************************************
As an aside, I would be a bit cautious in referring to the 'work' on the godandscience.org site.
Much to my astonishment, the author - lab tech Richard Deem - STILL has an extremely deceptive bit on his website, despite the fact that I pointed it out to him nearly 3 years ago!
On his page:
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/news.html#07on the very bottom thetre is a blurb entitled "Molecular Biology Fails to Confirm Darwinism."
In this blurb, he refers to this article
Sharp, P.M.. 1997. In search of molecular darwinism. Nature 385: 111-112.
Deem quotes Sharp "Attempt to detect adaptive evolution at the molecular level have met with little success."
Deem, however, leaves out several key points.
Here is a post that I made at the BOTCW board about a year ago, after again seeing Deem's site:
*************************
Richard Deem, Apologist, at
http://www.jps.net/bygrace/evolution/news.html#07 writes:
Molecular Biology Fails to Confirm Darwinism
Although molecular biology has been used to hasten research in many fields of biology, it has failed to confirm the evolutionary mechanisms proposed by Darwinian theory. According to Dr. Paul Sharp, "Attempt[sic] to detect adaptive evolution at the molecular level have met with little success."
7.Sharp, P.M.. 1997. In search of molecular darwinism. Nature 385: 111-112.
The page this appears on is dated March 29, 2000. This is especially interesting to me because more than a year ago, I contacted Deem, for the second time, to inform him how deceptive and dishonest his characterization was (is).
You see, as I write this, I am looking at two things — the same 2 things I was looking at when I challenged Christian Apologist and lab tech Deem more than a year ago —
A photocopy of the Sharp article and a reprint of the research article that Sharp referred to from the same issue of Nature. Yes, Sharp did write: "Attempts to detect adaptive evolution at the molecular level have met with little success." But he also wrote, and Christian Apologist Deem fails to mention, this: One apparent success concerns the enzyme lysozyme in Primates., referring to a paper in that very journal. More importantly, Deem deceives by omission — as I mentioned, the Sharp article is from the news section of Nature, it was not a research report itself. It provided, as these essays usually do, a bit of background for an actual research report in the journal. And that is the other thing I am looking at — the actual paper titled Episodic adaptive evolution of primate lysozymes, Messier and Stewart. 385:151-154, 1997. This Deem fails to mention at all. Nor does Deem anywhere mention the other bits of molecular evidence for selection.
I first broached this topic when Deem appeared on the old Internet Infidels Evolution Discussion board some 2 years ago. He provided links to his site, boasting about how well documented his ‘essays’ disproving ‘Darwinism’ were. I pointed out the Sharp deception at the time — he ignored it. The subject came up again some time later, when another discussion board poster referred to Deem’s site. I visited, only to see the same disinformation being presented. I wrote about it on a discussion board, and Deem made a brief appearance, claiming to have ‘corrected’ his error, but still insisting that he was right. Visiting his site, I saw a half-baked attempt to cover his tracks. A quickly written, typo-riddled addendum claiming that there was an article in the journal, but that it still didn’t ‘prove’ Darwinism.
I gave up, and had completely forgotten about it until I read creationist-engineer Fred Williams refer to one of Deem’s ‘well referenced’ articles in an email/online debate at his propaganda web site (
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/bdka_mypost2.htm : Here's a well referenced online article refuting junk DNA.).
I went to the link, and checked out Deem’s (very impressive) site. And to my surprise, the ORIGINAL bit of disinformation was again present!
How can one characterize this other than as a bit of propagandistic nonsense? Of disinformation? Of LYING for Christ? He KNOWS that the wording of that asinine little blurb is misleading — indeed, if he did not, he would not have changed it once.
It is extremely informative that this self-described Apologist feels the need to lie and mislead to sway the flock.
***************************
Reading the site today, I see that Deem has actually removed his addendum, leaving the original misrepresentation intact. This is not an isolated event:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/gencode.htmfrom the introduction:
(Note from the owner of this site: When this page was initially placed on the internet, Richard Deems removed from his internet pages, the paper which the below criticized. Now it has come to my attention that Deems has placed the old, flawed and uncorrected paper back on the internet. I have changed the link below to make sure that the reader can see the original document. It is sad that Deems does not seem open to change.--GRM)
Seems Deem is more interested in the ends than the means...
The Evolution Fairytale [/URL] - Percy
*******************************************
The fact that Deem reposts articles that he must know are deceptive is, in my book and the books of any rational person, a shady occurrence.
JP cannot see this. Shame.
What do I add to the discussion?
Well, I can formulate my own opinions — fact based opinions — rather than mindlessly link to articles that I have convinced myself prop up my cause.
I add reality. The creationist adds myth, condescension, arrogance, mockery, and intimidation.
But, that is the nature of the debate.
Isn’t it?
™ Version 4.2
