questions evolutionists can't or won't answer

To all who have responded to my questions evolutionists can't or won't answer (5/26/02), TC, Shraf, Moose, and others, please refer to the thread: ‘Questions Creationists Never Answer-still waiting!’ for hopeful answers on solar time dilation relative to molecular clocks.I apologize for the lapse of my counter-arguments at this time. Thank you for your in-depth replies.
Suffice it to say, we should come to a head again on this shortly, hopefully with less whining about ID with comments like: Nope, wrong, sorry, Hondas aren’t like universes, and I have no idea what this (ToM) ‘theory of mutations’ is did you make it up?, etc.
Ah Shraf, you don’t remember the theory of mutation? Why its only the raw mechanism of the ToE (all evolutionists must swear by it or jump the boat), surely you of all scientists remembered that?More later, I hope.

You have objections to whether mutations occur or not? If you do object, then what is your mechenism for building biodiversity?------------------

jeff:
Now we can discuss JP's loathing of science ( which he always denies...but always seems to be trying to change it ).John Paul:
Seeing that engineering is applied science and I have an engineering degree, it would be safe to say I don't loathe science. After all applied science is my life's work. I even got a quite substantial bonus at work for my "scientific approach...". What I loathe is what evolutionists are doing to science in the name of their dogma. Too bad jeff is too narrow minded to see the difference.If we listen to jeff's stupid remark it would also mean that Newton, Pasteur, Pascal, Mendell, Linne et al. also loathed science, after all they were Creationists.Science is a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, especially concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe.Theoretical musings on past unobserved & untestable events are fine and dandy but they don't build bridges, they don't put men on the moon, they don't cure diseases, they don't bring good things to life, and they don't add anything to the advancement of science or mankind.Lord Kelvin (also a Creationist) once said that heavier than air flight would not be accomplished- science and engineering proved him wrong (maybe he meant just in his lifetime). Edison was against Tesla's idea of alternating current, science and engineering again took over. These were ideas that could be objectively tested and verified. The theory of evolution takes an observation (variation in organisms) and falsely extrapolates it without the benefit of objective testing and definitely without verification. The fossil record is no ally of the ToE as about 99% does not show evolution. Yet edge thinks it has to be explained and the ToE allegedly does that (not).------------------
John Paul

John Paul writes:

---

Lord Kelvin (also a Creationist)...

---

Lord Kelvin believed he had demonstrated through thermodynamic evidence that the earth was around 20 million years old. No matter what label you place on him, were he alive today I suspect you two would agree on very little.--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-28-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
You have objections to whether mutations occur or not? If you do object, then what is your mechenism for building biodiversity?

​

---

--'Mutation spots' are not raw mutations; they are 'built-in' within 'fine-tuned' and 'set-in' genetic complexities. In other words raw mutations would have to involve ‘explicit’ and entropically ‘risky’ recombinance for any macro-ToE to be valid. (Note: the term ‘raw’ mutation is an evo term). Such metastatic recombinance in nature and in labs has never been proven to make an intrinsically ‘better surviving’ organism, only a tumor-infested one. (Notwithstanding the terrific, yet ‘limited’ advances in DNA-recombinant technology) Perhaps one day bacteria and viruses may survive a trite ‘better’ by such metastatic recombinance; but I don’t see it yet, nor do I see it in animals and man. (I speak as a physician under cross-fire.)--Otherwise, such tumor-infested 'mutants' would become entropic (randomized) failures, in every case. (See older debates with Dr. Taz and Darwin_T under one of your 'ID' threads, I believe) ‘Mutation spots’ are the closest things to supposed raw mutations (allowing biodiversity), to the best of my logic. But these mutation spots are mere genetic variations and are always ‘checked’ holistically by the organism/population’s complicated genetic code. (Dr. Taz might undoubtedly say I’ve spoken ungrammatically here).Thus the mechanism is natural selection involving genetic variation(s) (not metastatic mutations) that exist within all populations to ‘enjoy’ limited biodiversity.
See Quetzel's non-mutational recapped NS mechanism under the thread "Falsification Theory of Natural Selection" (5/28/02); his evo-mechanism goes into great technical depth while covering the basics of NS as well.--This is mere micro-evolution in all its glory. (without any ‘raw’ mutations). True, many life-forms have ‘stretched’ the evolutionary ‘envelope’ beyond what it ‘appears’ intelligently designed for. (If anyone fails to compute ‘ID’, think Honda-Civic for purposes of illustration here) Yet, no ‘freak’ metastatic beneficial mutations are evidenced in any set-in complexities of present day organisms.

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-29-2002]

Hi Philip:Just a quick clarification on your reference here:

quote:

---

Thus the mechanism is natural selection involving genetic variation(s) (not metastatic mutations) that exist within all populations to ‘enjoy’ limited biodiversity. See Quetzel's non-mutational recapped NS mechanism under the thread "Falsification Theory of Natural Selection" (5/28/02); his evo-mechanism goes into great technical depth while covering the basics of NS as well.

---

(Thanks for your kind words, btw). If you'll look back over the post you referenced, you'll note that a key assumption in NS is:1. There must be heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness, visual acuity.Without going into excruciating detail, the bit that I left out (because it wasn't germane to the specific topic) is that this variation is based on changes to the genetic code of the organism. Heritable variation occurs by mutational changes in an organism’s DNA (any change in the hereditary message — base pair substitution or insertion/deletion of new bases, etc) leading to the creation of new genetic material AND/OR creation of new genetic combinations through transposition (changing the position of a gene changes what it does), recombination (through cross-over during meosis), or genetic reshuffling (through sexual reproduction).So it's still the old "mutationalist" explanation. NS operates on those genetic changes that cause changes in the phenotype of the organism. Sorry.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
[b]

John Paul writes:

---

Lord Kelvin (also a Creationist)...

---

Lord Kelvin believed he had demonstrated through thermodynamic evidence that the earth was around 20 million years old. No matter what label you place on him, were he alive today I suspect you two would agree on very little.--PercyJohn Paul:
I was under the impression that Lord Kelvin's figure was the oldest the earth could possibly be. I know that still is much larger than >10K...
That could be. Many times disagreements lead to new discoveries. Would you want to live in a world where everyone agreed on everything? Boring... As for the "label"

quote:

---

The author of the biography of Thomson [23], puts forward the view that during the first half of Thomson 's career he seemed incapable of being wrong while during the second half of his career he seemed incapable of being right. This seems too extreme a view but Thomson's refusal to accept atoms, his opposition to Darwin's theories, his incorrect speculations as to the age of the Earth and the Sun, and his opposition to Rutherford's ideas of radioactivity, certainly put him on the losing side of many arguments later in his career.

---

from:
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Thomson.htmlWhat would call him? An anti-Darwinist (but not a Creationist)?------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
jeff:
Now we can discuss JP's loathing of science ( which he always denies...but always seems to be trying to change it ).

​

John Paul:
Seeing that engineering is applied science and I have an engineering degree, it would be safe to say I don't loathe science. After all applied science is my life's work. I even got a quite substantial bonus at work for my "scientific approach...". What I loathe is what evolutionists are doing to science in the name of their dogma. Too bad jeff is too narrow minded to see the difference.

​

If we listen to jeff's stupid remark it would also mean that Newton, Pasteur, Pascal, Mendell, Linne et al. also loathed science, after all they were Creationists.

---

Ah yes, JP’s blizzard of misinformationor should we just consider them lies ?Did I say you hated science because you’re a YEC ? No, it’s more likely the other way around: you hate science and it led you to become a YEC.
I am merely stating an observation, based on your many posts over the last two years.
You want to change science. WHY would you want to change science ? Answer: because you are not satisfied with its conclusions. So you voice an agenda to politically abduct science and define it to suit one particular religious view and the rest be damned.Another John Paul factual perversion:
Newton was not a creationist. Creationism wasn’t invented until the 20th century — as a political reaction to science. How could Newton be a creationist ? Do you have an article penned by Isaac stating so ?
Why would you lie like that ? Is your position THAT desperate ?
Newton wasn’t really a true ‘christian’ so to speak, he denied the divinity of Jesus.Yep, that claim is a pile of bovine scatology, but typical considering the source.I can cite articles that indicate Pascal & Mendell WERE scientists and they conducted science. Can you cite an article or quote stating that they claimed to be creationists and they tried to railroad science to accept their narrow view of religionor is this just another desperate lie from a miserable liar ?Perhaps the difference between these examples and yourself is, they were wise enough not to compromise their scientific endeavors with religious precepts.
Perhaps THEY valued both more highly than you.Just for conversation, I’ll list the sciences you despise:
Biology — reason is self evident
Geology — indicates a very old earth
Cosmology — indicates an even older universe where the laws of physics have been at work for tens of billions of years
Paleontology — indicates organisms have been living and dying for billions of years
Nuclear Physics — allows us to assess the age of various layers in the geologic column via radiometric techniques
Biogenetics — illustrates the means by which change occurs in organisms over many generations and indicates common descent.
Archeology — has failed to present evidence for a global flood and a creation week.Here’s your chance to put me in my place: Tell everyone here that you embrace all the disciplines above.
Ohbut you don’t dislike them ? you only disagree with their conclusions ?well then you oppose their methodology too.Is it coincidence or conspiracy that all these disciplines suggest the creation account in Genesis is false ?

quote:

---

Science is a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, especially concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe.

​

Theoretical musings on past unobserved & untestable events are fine and dandy but they don't build bridges, they don't put men on the moon, they don't cure diseases, they don't bring good things to life, and they don't add anything to the advancement of science or mankind.

---

So you’ve mistaken applied science for theoretical science ? I see
According to you then, OJ Simpson SHOULD have been acquitted. And I guess Timothy McVeigh didn’t bomb Oklahoma City either. and the holocaust didn’t happenand the bible is wrong too.
Theoretically speaking, you don’t exist either, John Paul. You can’t name your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather so he probably didn’t existso you don’t either because everyone KNOWS you have to have had a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather unless you were just *poofed* here by gawd or LaLah or which ever sky-man rules your world.

quote:

---

The theory of evolution takes an observation (variation in organisms)

---

Perhaps THIS is why you can’t understand science. Do you think the ToE was based on a single observation ? Do you really think its based on just variation in organisms ?
What about the fossil record that YECism can’t explain ? What about the fact that Darwin formed his hypothesis without knowing of the mechanism involved with inheritable changes, and his hypothesis was vindicated by the discovery of DNA almost a hundred years later ?
The ToE is NOT just based on variation in organisms, but also on the historic record in the geologic column. It’s a very long story too, requiring several billion years to encompass. The best part is, the ToE doesn’t need magic as an integral element of its mechanism.
I’m sure the converging agreement between all the scientific disciplines that indicate the ToE is especially unnerving to you. So much work to un-do so many sciences to redefineso many brilliant ideas to bury.It’s quite sad when one is convinced they need to use science to validate their religious beliefs.

quote:

---

and falsely extrapolates it without the benefit of objective testing and definitely without verification. The fossil record is no ally of the ToE as about 99% does not show evolution.

---

I suppose it doesn’t when you’ve already concluded that it does not show evolution — before conducting any investigation. I can claim the newspaper has no Headlines if I never open it up and actually LOOKED. But it doesn’t mean there are no headlinesit means I am in denial that there are headlines.Your refusal to acknowledge evolution doesn’t make it go away — which is why you must seek political satisfaction. Your ‘science’ certainly doesn’t satisfy anyone — your self included.99% ?? Where did you get this number ? You act as if willful ignorance were a virtue.

quote:

---

Yet edge thinks it has to be explained and the ToE allegedly does that (not).

---

No, you are wrong. Evolution HAPPENED. Life has been ongoing for billions of years. There have been at least 5 major extinction events in the past, separated by millions of years. There is a definite progression of complexity in living things over that span of time. The theory attempts to explain HOW. Right now there is no other explanation that even comes close to explaining the evidence. You and all other YECs have given up the quest for ‘truth’ as you like to call it — you’re not interested in objective results. You already HAVE your results and you want to pervert the rest of the world to conform to your particular perversion.Why else would YECs try to change the methodology of science thru political means ?
Answer: because their ‘science’ fails on its own merits and political leverage is all that is left to them.Are you going to finally tell us how science will evaluate the supernatural ? Or can we conclude from Theoretical musings on your past avoidances that you have no answer and your position is intellectually & ethically bankrupt ?Nevermind. You’ve given us your answer.------------------
"I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: I am fighting for the work of the Lord."Adolf Hitler 1923 - Creationist, Man of God

JP Loather and misrepresenter of science sez:

Theoretical musings on past unobserved & untestable events are fine and dandy but they don't build bridges, they don't put men on the moon, they don't cure diseases, they don't bring good things to life, and they don't add anything to the advancement of science or mankind.

JM: Oops, JP slips up again during his rants. Let's consider some of these claims:1. They don't build bridges---they most certainly do! Geologists 'muse' over the best locations to find oil and that oil is used during the construction of brdiges, ditto for the location of other materials.2. They don't put men on the moon--they most certainly do! See above also please note that some of the materials used to build the Apollo spacecraft were based on geologists musing over the best locations to mine the elements based on past unobservable events.3.they don't cure diseases---they most certainly do! Musings on the germ theory of illness presented medicine with the opportunity to develop new cures for diseases. Geologists also discovered many of the materials used in the treatment of disease using musings about past events on an old planet. Geologists also muse on how contaminants moved through groundwater and identify regions that could possibly cause disease. So not only do random musings cure disease, they also prevent it!4. They don't add to the advancement of manking- This is easily one of the most absurd statements I've ever read anywhere. I must say, your hatred of science has completely blinded you and I find it hard to believe that a real engineer would say something so patently absurd and false.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Lord Kelvin (also a Creationist) once said that heavier than air flight would not be accomplished- science and engineering proved him wrong (maybe he meant just in his lifetime). Edison was against Tesla's idea of alternating current, science and engineering again took over. These were ideas that could be objectively tested and verified.

---

So, what do you expect, JP? Do you want scientists to know everything right from the outset? This shows me that you do not understand science.

quote:

---

The theory of evolution takes an observation (variation in organisms) and falsely extrapolates it without the benefit of objective testing and definitely without verification.

---

An assertion. Show us that the the explanation is false. Why has it worked for the last 100 years. Seems to me that as an engineer you would understand that if something works, that would be one factor in favor of it being correct.

quote:

---

The fossil record is no ally of the ToE as about 99% does not show evolution. Yet edge thinks it has to be explained and the ToE allegedly does that (not).

---

If you have an alternative explanation of the fossil record, I would be glad to discuss it. Or are you saying that it is not necessary to explain the fossil record? What do you mean by not supporting the fossil record? How is this so?

jeff your stupidity continues to astound me. How the heck did you even make it this far in life?Newton was a Creationist in that he knew we are part of God's Special Creation. Someday you will get off of your lazy a$$ and read about him. You do realize that evolution was postulated by the Greeks well before Newton was around.I don't hate science. Science gave us technology. I love science and technology. Every science class I ever took I aced. An engineering degree required advanced science.Evolutionists are so misguided they feel they have to lie and misrepresent the Creationist's and IDist's position. Pretty sad when you think about it.Too bad no evolutionist posting here can or will answer my questions. I wonder why that is? (they can't or won't just like the title of the post states)------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JP Loather and misrepresenter of science sez:

​

Theoretical musings on past unobserved & untestable events are fine and dandy but they don't build bridges, they don't put men on the moon, they don't cure diseases, they don't bring good things to life, and they don't add anything to the advancement of science or mankind.

​

JM: Oops, JP slips up again during his rants. Let's consider some of these claims:

​

1. They don't build bridges---they most certainly do! Geologists 'muse' over the best locations to find oil and that oil is used during the construction of brdiges, ditto for the location of other materials.

​

2. They don't put men on the moon--they most certainly do! See above also please note that some of the materials used to build the Apollo spacecraft were based on geologists musing over the best locations to mine the elements based on past unobservable events.

​

3.they don't cure diseases---they most certainly do! Musings on the germ theory of illness presented medicine with the opportunity to develop new cures for diseases. Geologists also discovered many of the materials used in the treatment of disease using musings about past events on an old planet. Geologists also muse on how contaminants moved through groundwater and identify regions that could possibly cause disease. So not only do random musings cure disease, they also prevent it!

​

4. They don't add to the advancement of manking- This is easily one of the most absurd statements I've ever read anywhere. I must say, your hatred of science has completely blinded you and I find it hard to believe that a real engineer would say something so patently absurd and false.

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

JOhn Paul:
Joe please go buy a vowel because it is obvious you are clueless. This is what I said Theoretical musings on past unobserved & untestable events are fine and dandy... Notice I didn't say musings as you have responded, I said Theoretical musings on past unobserved & untestable events are fine and dandy..Methinks you have been a geologist for too long and now have rocks for brains.BTW, Pasteur, a Creationist, is responsible for fighting germs, not Darwin.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
JOhn Paul: Joe please go buy a vowel because it is obvious you are clueless. This is what I said Theoretical musings on past unobserved & untestable events are fine and dandy... Notice I didn't say musings as you have responded, I said Theoretical musings on past unobserved & untestable events are fine and dandy..

---

But, JP, from all of your posts I have read, anything that is not a 'hard' science really only consists of theoretical musings. If you have changed your mind on this, please let us know.

quote:

---

Methinks you have been a geologist for too long and now have rocks for brains.

---

Methinks you have never been a geologist, but that doesn't keep you from pontificating on the subject.

quote:

---

BTW, Pasteur, a Creationist, is responsible for fighting germs, not Darwin.

---

I love it when creationists bring up pre-Darwinian scientists and point out how they are "a creationist, by the way..." Like they had some choice? I rather think that Newton, for instance, was a naturalist who happened to also be religious. If he had been able to review the evidence for evolution, he would have embraced it. Likewise, Pasteur who railed against spontaneous generation in the context of the day. Just because these examples were religious does not mean that they were anti-evolutionary. It is disingenuous of you to infer so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

There must be heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness, visual acuity.

​

Without going into excruciating detail, the bit that I left out (because it wasn't germane to the specific topic) is that this variation is based on changes to the genetic code of the organism. Heritable variation occurs by mutational changes in an organism’s DNA (any change in the hereditary message — base pair substitution or insertion/deletion of new bases, etc) leading to the creation of new genetic material AND/OR creation of new genetic combinations through transposition (changing the position of a gene changes what it does), recombination (through cross-over during meosis), or genetic reshuffling (through sexual reproduction).

​

So it's still the old "mutationalist" explanation. NS operates on those genetic changes that cause changes in the phenotype of the organism. Sorry.

​

---

--No need to apologize; what you call ‘mutational’ is never ‘freak’ metastasis (AKA raw mutations). Nor is it actually new in the apriori population’s gene pool. I see all such recombinance as set-in, which becomes much clearer on the eukaryotic level and higher.The error of your ‘detailed’ mechanism is that entropic destruction occurs where mutation is uncontrolled in any 'reshuffling', transposition, etc.

Hi Philip:I think I'm beginning to catch a glimmer of where our disagreement lies (I mean, beyond the obvious).

quote:

---

what you call ‘mutational’ is never ‘freak’ metastasis (AKA raw mutations).

---

In the first place, mutations leading to metastatic conditions (sorry if that's the wrong term - I'm not an oncologist) only occur in somatic cells. In addition, metastasis only occurs if the somatic mutation is of a specific type that modifies the protein product without killing the cell. In any event, a somatic mutation has no direct bearing on evolution or natural selection, since these mutations are not inherited. (The indirect exception would be if a tumor kills the organism before it can reproduce.)The only mutations that can have any effect on evolution are therefore germline mutations. Even here, the vast majority are going to either be neutral (i.e., of no consequence to natural selection because they have no effect on phenotype) or will kill the cell (or at least render the developing organism unviable). Another fraction of these mutations will have effects that show up later in development which may kill the organism before it can reproduce - again, having no effect on evolution because the changed genotype is eliminated from the population before it can be passed on.What's left, therefore, are the few mutations that are either mild enough to permit the organism to live long enough to reproduce, OR provide a genuinely beneficial phenotypical change. http://207.36.64.70/ubb/smilies/wink.gif[/IMG] When it's expressed, then I'll worry about it. These are the mutations that create the actual heritable novelty in a population. They are not "in the a priori (sic) population’s gene pool". They represent NEW additions.However, you are correct: mutations alone - which as you can see are relatively rare - cannot completely account for the significant variation between individuals within a given population on which natural selection operates. Instead, NS operates on variation thrown up by recombinations or other changes in the genetic code which already exists in the gene pool - everything from random chromosome shuffling to transposition and cross-over. Just to complicate things, plants are especially liable to chromosome doubling (polyploidy), and some prokaryotes can swap genetic material - again creating the diversity upon which NS operates.The above is, of course, grossly over-simplified. I hope I've made my position clearer, however.

quote:

---

The error of your ‘detailed’ mechanism is that entropic destruction occurs where mutation is uncontrolled in any 'reshuffling', transposition, etc

---

Actually, your error is your misunderstanding that mutation = cancer. As I explained, this is not necessarily the case.