Neither Evolution nor Creation are

Greetings:To toff:I did provide the reference you seek when I answered joz. Here it is again:Geneticist John McDonald writes:The results of the last 20 years of research on the genetic basis of adaptation has led us to a great Darwinian paradox. Those (genes) that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those (genes) that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many, if not most, major adaptive changes apparently are not variable within natural populations.from an article entitled, "The Molecular Basis of Adaptation" Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics vol. 14, pg. 93.CheersRobert

Greetings:There is much to reply to here and I do not believe that I will get to all of it. Here are some thoughts from evolutionists, non-creationists, and creationists concerning evolution and various aspects of evolution.To show the scientific history of the denial of evolution: In 1871 St. George Mivart wrote this criticism:What is to be brought forwarg (against Darwinism) may be summed up as follows: That "Natural Selection" is incompetent to account for the incipient stages of useful structures. That it does not harmonize with the co-existence of closely similar structures of diverse origin. That there are grounds for thinking that specific differences may be developed suddenly instead of gradually. That the opinion that species have definite though very different limits to their variability is still tenable. That certain fossil transitional forms are absent, whhich might have been expected to be present.... That there are many remarkable phenomena in organic forms upon which "Natural Selection" throws no light whatsoever.from: Kauffman, S (1993) The Origins of Order, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, pg. xiii.M. W. Ho and P.T. Sunders point out:It is now approximately half a century since the neo-Darwinian synthesis was formulated. A great deal of research has been carried on within the paradigm it defines. Yet the successes of the theory are limited to the minutiae of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths, while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place.from an article printed in the Journal of Theoretical Biology (1979) vol. 78, pg. 589.As I was reading most of the evidence produced here for the theory of evolution it follows in the same trail of "the minutiae of evolution" that Ho points out above.In 1966 at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia a symposium was held with leading mathematicians and evolutionary biologists. After arguing that there is insufficient time for evolution to occur they came to the following conclusion:There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we beleive this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology.article entitled "Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution" (1967) in the book Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution edited by P.S. Moorhead, Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, pg. 75.I am now going out on a limb and am going to quote some "juicy" ones that I have found in Creationist books. (I would like to remind those reading that I do not believe everything that creationists teach concerning the nature and beginnings of the universe).D.M.S. Watson is quoted as saying:Evolution (is) a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.Source of quote: article entitled "Adaptation" in Nature magazine, 1929, 124:233 as quoted in Refuting Evolution by Dr. John Sarfati (1999)pg, 16.Professor Richard Lewontin a respected geneticist and evolutionist is reported to have said:We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior-commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.Source for this quote: article entitled "Billions and Billions of Demons," The New York Review January 9, 1997, pg. 31. Quotation found in Refuting Evolution, Dr Jonathan Sarfati.Theistic Evolutionist Dr. Philip Johnson - distinguished Berkley Professor of Law examines evolution through the lens of a lawyer in his book, Darwin On Trial. He domonstrates that there is no material evidence for the theory of evolution.Non-Creationist Dr. Mishael Behe has written a devastating book on the theory of evolution. Here is a quote from his book:Lynn Margulis is Distinguished University Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts. Lynn Margulis is highly respected for her widely accepted theory that mitochondria, the energy source of plant and animal cells, were once independent bacterial cells. And Lynn Margulis says that history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology." At one of her many public talks she asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet. Proponents of the theory, she says, "wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin - having mistaken him ... Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations), is in a complete funk"article entitled, "Lynn Margulis: Science's Unruly Earth Mother by C. Mann(1991), in Science, 252, 378-381. As quoted in Darwin's Black Box by Dr. Michael Behe (1996) Simon and Schuster, pg. 26.3,I have found an unbiased scientist (Mivart quoted above) saying that evolution is incompetant. I have an evolutionist (Ho and Saunders) saying that there is no evidence that backs up the major premises of evolution - just evidence that proves the "minutiae of evolution." I have two respected evolutionists admitting that the scientific data does not support evolution but they hold to the theory because the opposite is unthinkable! I have a theistic-evolutionist proving that the "evidence" currently provided for evolution cannot even stand up in a court of Law.Finally, I have two highly respected non-creationist biochemists who claim that neo-Darwinism "is a complete funk".And you guys want me to think that evolution is factual? I very much respect and admire you all, but at least you can now see the basis of my skepticism. I have not even produced 1/10th of what I could show concerning unbiased scientific investigation into the theory of evolution.I have produced this as something for you all to think about as I digest all of your recent posts.Again, I hold you all in the highest regard and thank you for your kind responses (though some did not seem too kind)Robert

Greetings:Since I have been accused of an "appeal to authority" I think I would have to answer that one first.If I was making an argument against evolution based solely on what "such and such" said, then I think that the logical fallacy applies. However, I was not so arguing against evolution. My attitude is not an "attack" against evolution - so please do not be defensive and try to pidgeonhole me with creationists. I am not.Allison accuses me of taking these quotes "out of context" but such a statement is incredibble. I hope she can prove it.Dr. Mizar was certainly a Lamarkian, and Lamarkianism is not considered a viable "theory" of evolution. His criticism of darwinism is certainly relevant - even though his own theory is not. Ho and Saunders are both the same. Ho does believe in the Gaia hypothesis, which I think is a bit bizarre, but such a view does not irradicate his own criticism of darwinism and neo-darwinism.The point is that if scientists who have studied Darwin's Theory and have found it "incompetant", "unsatisfying" and "in a complete funk" why then should I believe it? When evolutionists themselves state that there are no scientific reasons to believe in evolution why, then is it being forced down the throat of every schoolchild in America as "scientific fact"?Mizar has laid down the exact problems found in Darwinism. Has any darwinian evolutionist even attempted to respond to his critique? What he said was over 150 years ago. Where is the evidence that evolution is true? Where are the "abundance of scientific facts"? Not simply the incidentals, but the meat and potatoe kind of facts that are necessary for you to say that "evolution is a scientific fact".Some here seem to think that I should take the abiogenisis reference out of my definition of evolution, but I do not think so. The very title of Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" implies that his theory wants to describe the beginning of life. In the introduction to his book he writes:In considering the Origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that species had not been indipendently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species ... Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists until recently entertained, and which I formerly entertained - namely, that each species has been independently created - is erroneous.Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species, Random House, 1993 pgs.19-20, 22-23.If you do not believe that he was saying it outright, then it is very heavily implied that he wants to apply his theory to the beginnings of life on Earth.Mark:That was very interesting concerning M.xanthus, and I can see why you are excited about it. I am also interested in it. Does this new "organism" (if I can call it that) reproduce the same exact organism (or better)? I will not let my doubts try to modify your beliefs, but can this new multi-celled organism be considered a viable new species under the "survival of the fittest" mentality of Darwinism?It is a very, very promising example, and I would like to hear more about it.Allison points out a variety of goatsweed that has adapted itself to the North American environment. Since the new "species" is still considered a member of the goatsweed family I would say that the person writing the article is playing fast and loose with the word "species". A doberman and a schnauzer are still both considered "dogs".John McDonald, at least from what I have read, seems to be saying that those genes within a species that are variable, "do not seem to lie at the basis of many adaptive changes." What that says to me is that those genes that are flexible in a species to create a doberman/schnauzer do not apply when an adaptive change is necessary to create a new species. And, those genes that do constitute those adaptive changes which are necessary are not flexible within the species.As you are probably aware I have not responded to all of the posts here. To do so in one sitting is very exhausting - especially after coming home from a hard day at work. Please be patient with me.Robert