Why are evolutionists such hypocrites?

One of the most interesting evolutionary studies was done by Linus Pauling, relating human evolution to vitamin C requirements. The story is simple: in the descent of man through evolution, we came upon a diet containing large amounts of vitamin C, found the gene in ourselves that makes vitamin C from sugar an expensive waste of genetic and biochemical energy, and shut it down. Then, we changed diets again, to one that lacked vitamin C, but haven't awakened our vitamin C making gene yet. Hence, we suffer great health disadvantages, and have over the 10,000 years or so that we have been agricultural, and without much C. Supplying vitamin C, to compensate for this evolutionarily caused problem, is the sensible response.But the evolutionists at the National Academy of Sciences, while declaring that evolution is at the basis of our biological sciences, insists on setting vitamin C requirements for humans at a level that is about one-tenth that required by every other mammal or primate studied. Now, what's that all about?There are other examples of this sort of inconsistency. The theory of evolution insists that population genetical fitness, W, drives all organic progress. But, evolutionists insist that there is some sort of population problem, that can be solved by reproductive restraint, practised mostly by evolutionists. By their own theory, they are naturally selecting themselves out of existence.Or take the way they talk about science. Evolution, they will insist, is the best science, but try to find an evolutionist with some sort of understanding of sophisticated scientific methodology, the law of succession, or Bayes Theorem, for example. They will insist on double-blind experimentation, a technique almost impossible to apply to evolution/creation debates, or research supporting evolutionary thinking.All these inconsistencies are hypocritical. The very things evolutionists advocate form our lives, they themselves turn away from in practical matters. The only exception I know of appeared in evolutionary nazi-ism, where the evolutionists in Hitler's regime encouraged Hitler's final solution and genocide, to create a master race.I hate hypocrisy, and this makes me wonder about the value of evolutionary thinking.Stephen[This message has been edited by Stephen ben Yeshua, 01-22-2004]

Mr. Jack,We have this exchange: Levine, M. 1986. New Concepts in the biology and biochemistry of ascorbic acid. New England Journal of Medicine 314: 892-902.This source summarizes biosynthetic rates of ascorbate for various mammals under various conditions.Meanwhile, I believe the Subcommittee on Laboratory Animal Nutrition of the National Research Council recommends that most primates be fed 1.75 to 3.5 grams of ascorbate per day, compared to the less than 100 mg recommended for humans (all adjusted to a 70 kg body weight).I may be mistaken in my understanding that the National Research Council and the NAS are accountable to one another in some way.You later comment, So, why are you bringing the curious word "morality" into the discussion? Sorry, I don't get the point here, either.

Response to Darwinsterrier,You comment, re Linus Pauling, Now, the mistakes here are actually understandable, the way the media and critics publically defamed Pauling. Of course, Pauling never claimed that vitamin C would cure cancer. He only acknowledged the consistent findings of compassionate and open-minded cancer doctors that massive doses of vitamin C usually resulted in terminal cancer patients living longer, and in much greater comfort. And despised those cancer centers, like the Mayo Clinic, who claimed to replicate (unsuccessfully) these results, but used a protocol different from that published and doomed to failure. All the while trying to hide this fact, and pretend that their replication was honest science, which it wasn't. So, Mayo kept on getting lots of dollars, and their patients a miserable death. At least it was relatively quick.But, no, in large quantities, vitamin C will cause diarrhea. Dr. Cathcart occasionally gives patients 100 grams of vitamin C per day, for colds. That's 1000 times the MDR.Finally, Pauling didn't start taking vitamin C until he was in his sixties, I believe, and commented that this late start would greatly limit his capacity to benefit from the stuff. Hence, he only lived to 94, scientifically productive until months before he died. Saner, I might add, than any of his critics. I don't know what happened with his wife, but I've been married, and wouldn't be surprized to learn that his wife refused to follow his lead re taking vitamins.Ok, mis- or dis- information corrected, we can get to my point, which is that evolutionists are ugly people. But, Darwinsderrier, no terrier, sorry, at least you aren't that hypocritical, since you call yourself a dog, saving me the trouble. To call someone like Pauling "mad as a hatter." is, however, a good example of contemptible scientific debate. (It's called an ad hominem. Not that you'll have any idea of what that means.)re our inability to make vitamin C, This we don't know. Creationists argue that the Creator, in making primates, saw that they didn't need the gene to make vitamin C, and somehow biologically engineered its shut down. Evolutionists believe that the gene was zapped by a chemical or physical mutagen in some early primate, who got along so well without it, that it out-survived and out-reproduced all the other early primates around at the time. In either case, the primates then didn't need the gene because the food they were eating had plenty vitamin C. See previous post. Evolutionists attacking creationists. (re evolutionists who know something about scientific methodology.)I see little evidence that these people have carefully examined scientific philosophy and methodology. See what I mean? You evolutionists, for all your claims about being real scientists, don't even know what this philosophical basis for inference is. But, I'm not going to explain it for a while, to see if any evolutionists following this debate can do so. The theory of evolution, is a theory of an unobserved historical process. The process is supposedly ongoing, and if we assume that history repeats itself, if we can find present day events that follow the process, we have evidence supporting our notion that similar sorts of things took place in the past, and got us where we are. But, we have to show that present day events are not driven by a Creator. This putative Creator has their own agenda, if He is really out there, and to show that current changes in species are evolving, and not an act of creation, we have to control, in some way, the hypothetical Creator. This, hypothetically, we are allowed to do through prayer. So, studies of, say bacterial adaptation in chemostats, need to be done with and without prayer. If there is no difference in the changes observed, we have evidence supporting natural as opposed to artificial selection. But, when these studies are done, there is a difference. (See references summarized by Dr. Larry Dossey.) A continuation of the long-standing tradition of evolutionists to hate and attack people, not evil actions. Humanity continues to find hope in the fact that evolutionary thinking appears to castrate those who adopt it, so that they don't reproduce very well, and we don't have to put up with their thinking forever.I believe that, if you change your mind and way of thinking, you will have a clearer conscience, greater peace, and more joy. Just a suggestion.Stephen

Holmes,You ask, My question about evolutionists was only posed because I have some hope that evolutionists may want to change their minds, to improve their behavior. I have much less hope for creationists, although many more creationists do take vitamin C, in my experience. The Xian scientists are Xian enough, but not scientists, and far deeper hypocrites than the evolutionists. They go about prayer the same way the NAS goes about vitamin C, operating at some pathetic minimalist standard. But, I think that the Spindrift group has a Xian Scientist foundation, and has done some pretty neat experiments. Interesting question! I have actually gotten the "evolutionist" agenda from Ehrlich's books, not any of his writings in journals. In population genetics, two factors have to be in operation for a population to persist. First, W must be greater than 1, or in time the population will go extinct. Second, if W in genotype A is higher than W in genotype B, A will eventually drive B to extinction. Now, in wildly varying populations, we have to see what happens during population growth and during population decline. Now, W is less than one in many evolutionary countries. And, these countries have the agenda of a stable population world-wide, dooming themselves to exinction. The creationist sub-populations (Amish, home-schoolers) have much higher values of W. Thus, the evolutionists are sink populations, the creationists, source populations. Is there a genetic difference, that can explain the phenotypic difference? The evolutionists normally believe that every heritable phenotypic trait has a genetic basis, although in humans they allow for something called cultural evolution to amplify such differences. Creationists, of course, believe that genetic differences between evolutionists and creationists are not relevant--it's all a matter of choice, and training. My point is, to be consistent and not hypocritical, the evolutionists ought to be alarmed at their poor reproductive history. If they are right, they are doomed. I thought I won those debates! But, I began in this forum calling for independent judges to decide who won or lost, arguing that agreement of this matter would never be found otherwise. Actually, of course, I don't regard these as debates at all. Until they are properly refereed, and a clear set of rules established, and, frankly, until I see that all the debaters have coaches, someone who can correct them, or take them out of the game if they misbehave, all we can do here is provide information, and help others understand something. Let's see you explain the law of succession to darwinsterrier. I alone of the two of us appears to have grasped that MN, a general set of rules for scientific thinking, contains H-D, a specific set of rules. It's like there is a mountain. MN says climb the mountain. H-D says, take this road up the mountain. H-D is saying what MN is saying, but it gives some actual directions. Also, it turns out that the road up the mountain will cross ridges, going downhill for short periods in order to get to a gentle slope. In short, I know, now, everything that you know, but you still have failed to learn what I know. Maybe I am wrong about this. All you have to do to correct me is explain how Bayes Theorem justifies MN.You keep forgetting, by the way, that creationists are worse than evolutionists, in my opinion. As Jehovah put it, "I would that you be hot or cold. Because you are neither hot or cold, but are luke-warm, I vomit you out of My mouth." You'll have to explain the logic of this.Stephen

Reply to MammuthusYou note, Interesting observation. Actually, whenever I ran into someone who claimed to be a MNist, they consistently argued that MN would not and could not deal with spiritual truth, because spiritual reality was non-electromagnetic in "nature." I thought that a silly reservation, and never looked further into the (I thought cowardly) philosophical underpinnings of MN. Then I realized that, duh, all these people were behaving hypocritically, that the MN they claimed to follow actually did allow the study of spiritual truth, as long as that truth could be shown to influence electro-magnetic reality. Our measurables. I admit, I should have gotten to this point quicker, when I saw how upset MN scientists got over prayer experiments. They knew, and know, that if these prayer experiments are validated, they have to either renounce MN, or face the truth about spiritual reality.It's like evolutionists, taking creationists' reports of what the Bible says, or what it means to follow Yeshua, when they, the creationists, are so patently hypocritical.I'm not a creationist, by the way. I am a truthist. I find the creation hypothesis much more scientifically plausible than the evolution hypothesis. But, to attach an -ist to a title, in my personal practise, means that I am practically dogmatic about it. I am, for all practical purposes, dogmatic about the existence or reality of truth. But, creation or evolution are just ideas, whose plausibility needs to be assessed. Well, not just ideas, since the implications of both influence how I am to decently try to respond to God, and my fellow man. Because the creationist hypothesis is so well confirmed scientifically, and no strong inference test of evolution confirms it, that I know of, I consider it indecent to not honor the rights of the hypothetical creator. Of course, believing in evolution is a good rationalization for not stealing from Jehovah, and otherwise ignoring His rights to be respected.As I noted in my reply to Holmes, that evolutionists attack people, instead of ideas, confirms my major point. I do think that, if you start changeing the way you think, and get more serious about loving the truth, you'll get a clearer conscience, more peace of mind, and greater joy.Stephen

Percy,You note, I'm only trying to convince other true scientists, who of course are only impressed by the data. Which, of course, make my claim to be a scientist highly plausible. Only the rationalizations, unsupported declarations, and expressions of wishful thinking are there to counter the claim, all of which sound good to the easily deluded. I stand corrected. Please change the word "setting" in my post to recommending. My required was that for optimal health, the natural condition, not the level required to prevent scurvy. See my post to Mr. Jack. The rate at which most mammals synthesize vitamin C reflects true nutritional optimal use, if we suppose that these mammals only use precious carbohydrates to make vitamin C when that C would be good for them. All that have been studied make between 10 and 100 times more C per Kg than the MDR. And, as Pauling noted, wild primates and primitive, cave-man, humans, consume in their diet about the same amount. Wonder why the evolutionists haven't been interested in the prayer studies on bacterial fitness. My point is, the fossil evidence doesn't discriminate between artificial selection, and creation using artificial selection, and natural selection. So, why gather it? If evolutionists were really scientists, they would know about strong inference, and would set up there studies using it. They would know how to make predictions and how Bayesian logic requires confirmation of those predictions to be interpreted. Evolutionist say that creationists need to use good scientific methods, but then continually try to make way too much out of straw man data. Hypocrisy! I have won all the debates in the other threads, so why go on? You calling those positions "indefensible" while I was defending them, and calling what I was advocating "ridiculous" proves that I won. What else can you say, to keep the truth out of your mind?But change your mind. That's what humans do. Join us in happy living.Stephen

Holmes,You ask, Please forgive me for leaving the idea open that you were as hypocritical as those I was chastising. I keep responding to you because I believe you are sincerely after the truth. And I like, have always liked, the methodological in MN. Especially the way you handle it. Actually, I wanted to give the evolutionists a great argument. A mean, we need lots of vitamin C to be healthy. If Jehovah created us, why has he left us bereft of this important gene, when He's going to feed us on bread and wine and milk and cooked meat, all pretty much devoid of it?There's a neat paper by a guy named Spitznagle, in 1971 Bioscience, where he lays out Pauling's theory, before Pauling had really published much about it. How we have been evolving some sort of vitamin C adjustment since agriculture. He then summarizes the various experiments that had been done to that date, showing that vitamin C requirements in humans were spread out the way phenotypic traits often are under severe selection pressure.Besides, vitamin C raises IQ. Maybe if more of these evolutionists would take some, they would be as bright as you seem to be. Yeah, I concede that point. My remark was facetious, actually. Like I say, I don't see us debating, just informing each other of data and arguments. If you want to debate, we need to line up a judge, and set out the rules. Great tip! I don't agree. And I still lack substantial data refuting the hypothesis that you really don't understand Bayes theorem and how it applies, nor are willing to be up front about that. What would MN say to this hypothesis? Because MN says simply, get to the top of the mountain? Actually, I don't really like my "H-D is a subset to MN" statement, since I don't think there are any points in MN that are not in H-D. I think the reverse is the case. I think that all H-D scientists are MN scientists, but that some MN scientists reject doing H-D science. Which makes MN a subset of H-D. Everything we do qualifies as MN research. But, we do things that meet MN's basic positive conditions and goals, that MN scientists reject doing anyhow. What do you think? The shotgun in H-D got put there by strong inference. You have to deal with any plausible hypothesis, and do your best to test predictions that contrast between the two. Does MN like to deal with implausible hypotheses? I thought you once said that the only hypotheses that could be dealt with had to have a clear mechanistic explanation in hand. Don't know what that does to gravity, but never mind. H-D says start with the best you have. You will get to the mechanistic explanation after you have tested many predictions.But I'm off to the Great Debate!Stephen

Holmes,you note, I've got a request out checking up on this finding. Don't know why the website itself isn't validating the news report. Or other news reports.And a protocol of MN is what?Stephen

Now guys,Just because you are ugly people doesn't make you wrong. You are wrong because your ideas don't work, don't predict the outcomes of surprising experiments.But my query at the beginning was, why are you guys such hypocrites? Mostly, your posts demonstrate my point that you are hypocrites, claiming to be scientific, but demonstrating little or no understanding of science. Attempting to debate, but introducing ugly ad hominems. When the subject of the debate is "Why are you evolutionists such badly behaved people," of course, it is not hypocritical to bring to the light the bad behavior. By provoking it, in this case.My goal, of course, is to make sure you have a choice, to understand and know about a better way. Or, stay the way you are. It's your life. You are responsible for what you are. Your attacks on me, of course, are an honor to me. But, you are such biblical experts, you knew that already.Cheers!!StephenConfucious say, "Ostrich with head in sand soon become pile of lion shit."

Holmes,I did a fairly lengthy google search on H-D science, and on MN. Now I see why you never have any protocols on MN handy.Cheers,Stephen

Percy,Well, I had to dig up the source that I got my belief from. It's a Keats Good Health Guide written by Jeffrey Bland. Looks like Gary Wade and Bland used the same source, or that one or the other was orginal, and the other cited him. Anyway, to allay your concerns, look here Not Found |The National Academies Press,with a calculator handy. You'll get figures comparable to those I Bland, and Wade gave, as long as you consider optimal health, not simply protection from scurvy.As to Levine's other paper, we are dealing here with rampant stupidity. Vitamin C is involved in more biochemical processes in the body than any other nutrient, save maybe calcium and magnesium. I would add potassium to that list, but that remains to be discovered scientifically. Anyway, we are talking about synthesis of collagen, the most commen biochemical agent in the body, maybe 35% of all protein. Cell membranes, another very widespread part of the body. Most other protein synthesis. Absorption of stuff. One source, not handy, lists 300 different functions. Including anti-oxidant work in the blood, and tissues, and synthesis of antibodies in the white blood cells. Now, we know that individuals, especially babies, given consistently high levels of C, if suddenly withdrawn, suddenly go into scurvy-like conditions. Probably the vitamin C requiring enzymes are inducible, not synthesized by the genome when C is low. When high levels of C have induced a lot of use of the vitamin, and then the vitamin is withdrawn, available C is seriously reduced by all the now available enzymes. Conversely, when steadily higher doses are given, it will take time for the body to make the enzymes that can use it.So, let,s give increasing doses of vitamin C and see what happens in the blood, and maybe the white blood cells. That's two of the 300 compartments known to use the stuff, and not the two biggest users. So we saturate them with a five-fold RDA. And believe (on faith) that any excess is being thrown away, will always be thrown away?Meanwhile, the animals making their own C are making 10 to 100 times this amount. Why? When cave-man diets are reconstructed, the figures are a little lower, maybe 7 to 20 times RDA. Meanwhile, to get healthy lab animals, especially under stress, we are talking 20 times. So, why the low values for humans? Kidney stones? See the study on primates with 1000 times RDA, and no toxic effect. Oh, humans were specially created by God to have low levels of ascorbate requirements? Pauling tried for decades to get a simple research grant funded, where he would give steadily higher doses of C to humans and observe many general health parameters. Constantly shot down by sneer review.But your curious over-reaction to the story does perhaps hint at the answer to the question. As we are discussing on another thread. Vitamin C, in the form of mineral ascorbates, makes such a huge difference in the health and well-being of humans, that, of course, Satan would never leave that topic alone! What better way to defile the image of God, than to keep them away from mineral C if possible, to get them taking ascorbic acid, if they must. Lack of ascorbate causes addictions, stupidity, runny noses, bad skin, bad gums and breath, aching joints, arthritus, heart disease, diabetes, obesity....What a plan! Teach them evolution, so they quit praying, then make them irrationally opposed to a perfectly obvious nutritional requirement, that, when neglected, makes them incapable of rational thought and lukewarm about a longer life, high fitness, lots of babies, etc. We've discovered Satan's ugly stick!Googling on ascorbate and the topics mentioned would teach you a lot, if you prayed before you tried to learn.Stephen

Holmes,You say, It was an insult, not an ad hominem. And an allusion to a vague sense that MN ought to be more popular if it was so useful. Sort of a "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"But thank you for the chance to review my history of becoming an H-D scientist. I was a Princeton on a post-doc, and Henry Horn astutely called our efforts to legitimize our ecological research as "Physics Envy." We were willing to indulge in all sorts of wierd ideas, because there was no way we could out-weird quantum mechanics. We were willing to replace "proved forever" ideas, like Darwinism, retaining their usefulness while admitting that they weren't exactly true. Like the physicists were doing with Newton. We were willing to forgive data fudging, since so many of the great Physics heros, (and Mendel) were clearly guilty of this, while discovering great stuff. Replication cleaned all that stuff up.Great moments.I remained baffled by your insistence in seeing me as a protagonist for Xianity. You are in terrible trouble, but conversion to that religion would only deepen it.Are familiar enough with the Bible, to appreciate how much of a blessing it is when you and others insult me? How it confirms the predictions made there? What a great reward it brings to me?Just wondering.Stephen

Brad,We need to discuss this on another thread, because I saw neither evidence that evolutionists behave badly (Levin's "too philosophical" seemed more honest than a cop-out), or any explanation as to why they carry on so rudely in your post. Let's get over to The Best Scientific Methodology, since what I understand you are dealing with is the integration of intuitively complex mathematical insights into the social framework of the science.Stephen

M.I can tell you're starting to have fun, now! The ad hoc whining about "flaws" in the Bible Code Studies, Theomatics, and the prayer studies, and the appeal to some sort of majority authority rejection of these, are both unscientific. The simple ignoring of the Bible Code studies by evolutionists, which went unchallenged for 5 years, was unscientific. The use of data that confirm both artificial selection by God, and natural selection, to confirm evolution, is unscientific. The failure to find strong inference tests of evolution vs creation, and the explaining away of any that anyone else finds, is unscientific. Evolutionists believe their idea, and to Hell with the data. That's not science. I don't know what it is, I don't actually think it exists. Just words that evolutionists have made up to make it appear that they have a plan and are doing science by some methodology. Whenever I ask any of them to explain it, I get nothing. The only people discussing it on the web that I have found so far are critics, who are complaining about evolutionists functioning with a pre-set bias that no amount of science or methodology or data can dislodge. So, you believe in absolutes, do you? This sort of exaggerated remark simply reveals your own failure to deal with your "orginal sin" the dogmatic opinionation, that has to see things in an all or nothing light. But, as I have said elsewhere, Malachi 3:8-12 sets up a test that proves or falsifies the orthodox theology hypothesis. The reproductive rate comparison falsifies evolution. So, I have some concept. But, I'm sure you'll find some reason to ignore or dismiss me on these matters. That's what non-scientists do. Scientists look at the data, anecdotal included, then set up tests and replications. But you're an evolutionist. You wouldn't know about such things. Or so I am hypothesizing. Crudely put, but, lookee there, you do know something about science! Now the question is, why are you seeing the splinter in my eye, but ignoring the log in your own? You are clearly talking about yourself here, far more than me. I mean, I look at your rude remarks, and see that they appear to be inspired. Not by God, of course. He's a gentleman and only helps when invited. So, by Satan, of course. At least, that's a possible variable contributing to your sarcasm. My rudeness, of course, may be Satanic as well, but at least I asked God to help me frame some inspired insults in this contests. See, there you go again. "Everything?" You are professionally qualified to make this remark? Or are you suffering from the delusion that you are such a great and grand psycho-analyst that you can make such a judgment, publically, over the internet? My assertion, besides being a truthist, is that I choose to walk like Yeshua walked. If you check out the way He talked to the hypocrites, you'll find my remarks quite consistent. My behavior is intended to be an example of how a non-hypocritical, non-christian believer acts.But, of course, I will screw up, and will admit it when it is brought to my attention in a convincing manner. Only evolutionists demand perfection, at least in studies that generate data that conflicts with their paradigm. And in those that argue with them. Hypocrites rarely will say they made a mistake.Stephen

M.Well, I'm glad I get you laughing.You respond so frequently with non-sequitors, or outright confusion, that I'm not sure that I ought to say any more.Do this prayer experiment. Pray agnostically for understanding of what I am saying. Like, "Jehovah, if You are out there, give me a spirit of understanding, to know what Stephen is trying to say." Maybe that would help.Not too optimistic, actually. But we can hope...Stephen