Where is the evidence for evolution?

I think this is a pretty good example of the problem. After all I've written in messages to you, far far more than to any other single member, and probably for the same reason Adminnemooseus gave, that you seem a likable guy who only needs a nudge in the right direction, there is still no hint of any understanding. You ask the questions so nicely and with such a strong undercurrent of "I'm just trying to understand this" that everyone has been very accomodative, but it is all for naught - you either dispute the answer or just ask more questions. This isn't a discussion, it's an "exhaust the opposition with endless questions whose lengthy and detailed answers I'll ignore or misunderstand" strategy.Now, I know the above must seem inaccurate and unfair to you, but I'm afraid that's the way I see it. I try to run the site for all the members, that's why we have both evolutionist and Creationist representation on the administrative staff. I've taken administrative action in the form of 24-hour suspensions against both evolutionists and Creationists, so as far as board administration goes I don't feel particularly vulnerable to the charge of bias. Perhaps it would help if you sent email to Adminaquility or AdminTC, asking them to look in and see if they have any helpful observations or advice, for either you or for me.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

SOn:
Most creationist are bible believing christians, as such they hold to a higher calling, upholding truth at all cost.

---

This is incorrect, Sonnike. If these creationists were so concerned about 'truth', why is it that so many of them have been caught fudging the data or worse -blatently lying?[/quote]Evolutionists on the other hand are not accountable to a Higher Being, and thus whether lies or truths come out of their mouths, is irrelevant to them because there is no specified benchmark.[/quote] What bullshit.
Jim Bakker is a creationist too.

quote:

---

Also, morals are a product of mindless evolution according to them. Now how is it that I'm supposed to believe an evolved microbe, over a designed human who serves his God?

---

In other words, you will believe anything a creationist says over anything an evolutionist says - whether or not you can even understand the issues, whether or not the creationist has been shown to be in eror.Man, my intuition keep sgetting reinforced on a near daily basis...I am on spring break next week, so I will have some time (when I am not enjoying myself) to refuter batten's propaganda.though ti seems that, at least as far as Sonnike goes, such will be an utter waste of time.

I've emailed adminaquility for advice.Sonnikke

quote:

---

Most creationist are bible believing christians, as such they hold to a higher calling, upholding truth at all cost. Evolutionists on the other hand are not accountable to a Higher Being, and thus whether lies or truths come out of their mouths, is irrelevant to them because there is no specified benchmark. Also, morals are a product of mindless evolution according to them. Now how is it that I'm supposed to believe an evolved microbe, over a designed human who serves his God?

---

First, I have seen far too many bible believing Christians bend and distort the truth to agree with your statement. Also, many people who understand that evolution has occurred, and likely through one of the forms of natural selection, are also Christians (or Jews or Moslems) and hold in a higher being. I am married to one. Finally, if you had been paying attention to some of the earlier threads you would have seen proven examples of where people such as Gish have been caught misrepresenting others statements or work. A while ago someone posted a link to an expose of Hovinds doctorate. A degree purchased from a diploma mill. Some of the tracks at Paluxy were staged by your truthful, god-fearing Christians. So please do not tell me about their higher morals.Now, as I was pleasant and polite in my earlier post to you I intend to take a little bit of a personal affront to te obvious implications in your post. You are correct in stating that I do not think that I am accountable to a higher being. However you could not be more mistaken in your statement whether lies or truths come out of their mouths, is irrelevant to them because there is no specified benchmark. My benchmark is my personal honor and frankly I have found that I stick to that far, far better than most Christians stick to their book. And there is no comparison to the state of my honor and the lack thereof with many of the lying miscreants at ICR. Musashi wrote in the Book of Five Rings that small deviations from the path become large deviations. Well the deviants at the ICR are so far off the path of personal honor and truthfulness that they are going in circles.As to the other parts of my post, do you have any comments on the evolutionary question at hand or is SLPx correct in that all you want to do is hand wave. The ball is very much in your court on this one.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 03-07-2003][This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 03-07-2003]

Scott,Board adminstration is addressing the forum guideline issues and politely requests that you let us do our job. Sonnikke is probably perplexed enough already and doesn't need you piling you. Thanks!------------------

Dr. Maximus,
As SLPx has kindly pointed out, I am a "lay-creationist" so regarding the other parts of your post, you will have to explain it to me in terms I can understand. Are you willing to do that?I was expecting a "backlash" from my post re: lies, and understandably so. I am not claiming that christians don't lie, we are not perfect, no one is. But to say what you did, is simply propaganda, no offence.It doesn't matter, explain to me, don't explain, igonore me, I don't care anymore.I thought I was discussing things with people but apparantly I wasn't.Back to work..S

OK, my statements concerning the ICR is not propaganda. Rather they are drawn from personal experience where I have hunted down original quotes and proven that the ICR representative was lying concerning those quotes. You can believe that or not but I have done it repeatedly on this and other boards.As to the paper(s), they simply put, follow a line of genetic sequence comparison, coupled with comparison of the pathways which turn on the genes, and by this I mean both which genes are turned on due to different environmental conditions and how they are turned on. A very clear line of descent for duplication and modification of PATHWAYS is demonstrated for those pathways most functionally similar while those less functionally similar are not clear cut, and in fact have a far lower degree of relationship. The paper also references papers which describe genetic mechanisms for the dunplication of either whole or sections of pathways. Simply put they papers and those they reference describe how chuncks of DNA are copied and duplicated and then how the genes contained in the chunks of DNA may have been modified (ie mutated) w.r.t. new functions and environmental responses. There is a lot more but it acts as a start and actually refutes a umber of the points made in your citation in the earlier post w.r.t. control of genes and gene products w.r.t. evolution of pathways.As to the Horseshoe Crab, the first site was a laymans site so you may find it interesting. Essentially it shows that the very proto style blood clotting system that Dr. Behe of LeHigh University said could not exist, DOES exist. And works quite well. The second paper is a desription of up and down stream (before and after reactions for certian biochemical events) mutations could, and likely did, result in an efficient clotting mechansim for a close circulation animal vs insects (and Horseshoe crabs, which are really more closely related to spiders than crabs).Hope that helps.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
TazPS The way your earlier post read indicated that, not believing in a diety, that supporters of evolution (and by extension me) lie to support our nefarious purposes. That was the reason for the backlash. We have supported our assertions concerning the ICR and people such as Hovind with a great deal of facts and examples, if you think that WE lie please try to provide support for that statement. For the record, I don't.PPS.
I generally go by Taz.[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 03-07-2003][This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 03-07-2003]

Sonnikke, your efforts to "learn" on this thread appear to me to have been disingenuous. You seem to have made a concerted effort to draw in red herrings. And your plead that you are a lay person and therefore cannot understand Dr M's post #276 regarding honesty and personal honour is laughable. You initiated this distraction by slighting any scientist who isn't religious and commending creationists because they uphold religious tenets above any opposition, even empirical evidence.I can only suggest that SLPx and others might invest some more time in explaining gene duplication etc for the benefit of interested lurkers.

WJ, I think that his comments re: a lack of understanding were in reference to my request that he look at the references provided rather than to my comments on honesty and honor. Although I disagree with him and think that his faith in the integrity of the people at ICR is sorely misplaced, I would be dishonest if I didn't point out what I think is a misunderstanding.Once again I come to Musashi, the way of the sword, narrow paths and attempting not to stray. Just wish I could get time from my new job to stray into the school and practice at least twice a week .------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Misunderstanding noted.

Hi Taz,
Thank you for clarifying that, that means alot to me.Sonnikke

quote:

---

I am not claiming that christians don't lie, we are not perfect, no one is. But to say what you did, is simply propaganda, no offence.

---

It is not propaganda.It is demonstrable.The following website lists some prominent creationists and their "credentials":http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.htmlThe following is a site which talks about Gish and a ICR pamplet which had/s erroneous information that they knew was wrong for years but was not corrected until public embarrasment made it necessary.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.htmlThe following site explains yet another intentional misquote by a creationist of a scientist, which has continued to be propagated unchecked in Creationist writings:Creationist Arguments: The Monkey QuoteThis is a straight-up list of lies told by creationists:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.htmlThe following is an expose on Duane Gish and his copious "lies for Jesus":Telnet Communications - High Speed Internet & Home Phone SolutionsFinally, a page about creationists and how they handle their errors. I include a bit from that article:Scientific Creationism and Error"Science is wedded, at least in principle, to the evidence. Creationism is unabashedly wedded to doctrine, as evidenced by the statements of belief required by various creationist organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationists. Because creationism is first and foremost a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. Authoritarian systems like creationism tend to instill in their adherents a peculiar view of truth.Many prominent creationists apparently have the same view of truth as political radicals: whatever advances the cause is true, whatever damages the cause is false. From this viewpoint, errors should be covered up where possible and only acknowledged when failure to do so threatens greater damage to the cause. If colleagues spread errors, it is better not to criticize them publicly. Better to have followers deceived than to have them question the legitimacy of their leaders. In science, fame accrues to those who overturn errors. In dogmatic systems, one who unnecessarily exposes an error to the public is a traitor or an apostate."

What about the comment as to redundancy?On the one hand you say it's redundant, but also say
that it can introduce phenotypic change ... a clarification
is in order I feel.

Schraf, the problem I see is that you either reference a massively evo-biased/anti-creationist website ie. talkorigins, or you reference an ad hominem smear campaign. The whole thing is a nice smoke screen so you can avoid dealing with the flaws of evolutionism.Sonnikke

Hi Page,Page: Indeed, Borger's comments are off base. It seems that, like "non-random", Borger's definition of 'redundancy' is at odds with those in the field.PB: What definition do you use?I have cited a couple of times now a paper that experimentally duplicates a HOX gene. the result is not mere redundancy, the result is an alteration of phenotype.PB: Do you mean the Nature paper by Kmita et al? Please let me know.best wishes,
Peter