Comments on: Origin of the Unoriginal: Episode I http://crosseyedblog.com/?p=1153 Tue, 07 Sep 2010 03:34:18 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Origin of the Unoriginal: Episode I by Amanda Read - Uncategorized - Charles Darwin Evolution Louis Agassiz Thomas Huxley - LUKE HISTORIANS http://crosseyedblog.com/?p=1153&cpage=1#comment-7617 Origin of the Unoriginal: Episode I by Amanda Read - Uncategorized - Charles Darwin Evolution Louis Agassiz Thomas Huxley - LUKE HISTORIANS Fri, 28 May 2010 02:59:00 +0000 http://crosseyedblog.com/?p=1153#comment-7617 [...] here to continue [...] [...] here to continue [...]

]]> By: Roger Richards http://crosseyedblog.com/?p=1153&cpage=1#comment-2956 Roger Richards Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:04:37 +0000 http://crosseyedblog.com/?p=1153#comment-2956 Fascinating, Amanda. To the fellow who parroted the mainstreammedia response of evolution is a fact: It was the late Dr. Colin Patterson, author of the British Nationial Museum's book "Evolution" who famously asked an audiance of over 500 evolutionists "Can anyone in this room tell me one thing about evolution that is true?" He got zero responses. Later, in a letter to Luther Sunderland, author of Darwin's Enigma, he answered Sunderland's question as to why he had not included even one transitional form in his large book on evolution. "I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which we can make a watertight argument. If there were I would have included it in my book." They have over 7 million fossils in their collection. And it was Dr. Lee Spetner who put the nail in evolution's coffin when his research showed that mutations always subtract information, they never add useful information. Occassionally information will be mistakenly repeated, but that is not useful. Occassionally a mutation will provide a temporary benefit but that benefit disappears in the organism's normal, natural environment. Sickle cell anemia, for example, provides only problems for folks that get it in North America. In the jungles rife with malaria it can provide a small benefit. (Which would disappear if radical environmentalists would reintroduce DDT. All credible research showed DDT to be very safe for humans and wildlife. Only when concentrated a 100 times what pesticide spraying would ever leave behind does it cause problems. So perhaps 10 plus million died due to malaria related diseases because of one deluded, very poor researcher, Rachel Carson and her book of lies. Sort of like Darwin's. But if you repeat a lie often enough, control the press and the universities, hey, even global warming becomes an accepted "consensus", the facts notwithstanding. Thank the Lord for that hacker who unleashed climategate. Too bad some hackers wouldn't unleash evolutiongate, it would be a much bigger flood revealing much larger deception. And for those who believe nonlife could possibly produce life (there is no such thing as simple life, our electron microscopes have made that abundantly clear), remember matter and energy alone never produce an increase in information. Systems and intelligence are required. So you can't even get started, let alone build up the gene code from amoeba to man. (Mutations subtract information, remember? So how does one build up the billions of lines of informational code to program for lungs, eyes, brains etc. when one is always subtracting information? The idea is ludicrous.) No wonder Sir Francis Crick, Sir Frederick Hoyle and Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe found the possibility of even the protein needed for a living cell evolving to be less than one in ten to the forty thousandth power. They concluded it did not happen on earth and must have come from outer space. Oh, like it is somehow easier on some other planet? I do agree it came from elsewhere, ie Creator God. Lastly, the 100,000 rpm machines found even in bacteria coded for by DNA (which is 27 trillion times better than our computer chips at storing information) ought to show even the most brainwashed evolutionist intelligence is required. Oh, wait. It did! Dr. Charles Oxnard of Oxford converted to design in Dec. 2004 after 66 years in atheism. Why? He studied DNA for 2 months and concluded he had to follow the evidence where it led, to a Designer. Yeah! The Bible calls Him Jesus. Romans 1:20. rarichardsjr@hotmail.com Fascinating, Amanda. To the fellow who parroted the mainstreammedia response of evolution is a fact: It was the late Dr. Colin Patterson, author of the British Nationial Museum’s book “Evolution” who famously asked an audiance of over 500 evolutionists “Can anyone in this room tell me one thing about evolution that is true?” He got zero responses. Later, in a letter to Luther Sunderland, author of Darwin’s Enigma, he answered Sunderland’s question as to why he had not included even one transitional form in his large book on evolution. “I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which we can make a watertight argument. If there were I would have included it in my book.” They have over 7 million fossils in their collection. And it was Dr. Lee Spetner who put the nail in evolution’s coffin when his research showed that mutations always subtract information, they never add useful information. Occassionally information will be mistakenly repeated, but that is not useful. Occassionally a mutation will provide a temporary benefit but that benefit disappears in the organism’s normal, natural environment. Sickle cell anemia, for example, provides only problems for folks that get it in North America. In the jungles rife with malaria it can provide a small benefit. (Which would disappear if radical environmentalists would reintroduce DDT. All credible research showed DDT to be very safe for humans and wildlife. Only when concentrated a 100 times what pesticide spraying would ever leave behind does it cause problems. So perhaps 10 plus million died due to malaria related diseases because of one deluded, very poor researcher, Rachel Carson and her book of lies. Sort of like Darwin’s. But if you repeat a lie often enough, control the press and the universities, hey, even global warming becomes an accepted “consensus”, the facts notwithstanding. Thank the Lord for that hacker who unleashed climategate. Too bad some hackers wouldn’t unleash evolutiongate, it would be a much bigger flood revealing much larger deception. And for those who believe nonlife could possibly produce life (there is no such thing as simple life, our electron microscopes have made that abundantly clear), remember matter and energy alone never produce an increase in information. Systems and intelligence are required. So you can’t even get started, let alone build up the gene code from amoeba to man. (Mutations subtract information, remember? So how does one build up the billions of lines of informational code to program for lungs, eyes, brains etc. when one is always subtracting information? The idea is ludicrous.) No wonder Sir Francis Crick, Sir Frederick Hoyle and Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe found the possibility of even the protein needed for a living cell evolving to be less than one in ten to the forty thousandth power. They concluded it did not happen on earth and must have come from outer space. Oh, like it is somehow easier on some other planet? I do agree it came from elsewhere, ie Creator God. Lastly, the 100,000 rpm machines found even in bacteria coded for by DNA (which is 27 trillion times better than our computer chips at storing information) ought to show even the most brainwashed evolutionist intelligence is required. Oh, wait. It did! Dr. Charles Oxnard of Oxford converted to design in Dec. 2004 after 66 years in atheism. Why? He studied DNA for 2 months and concluded he had to follow the evidence where it led, to a Designer. Yeah! The Bible calls Him Jesus. Romans 1:20. rarichardsjr@hotmail.com

]]> By: Amanda Read http://crosseyedblog.com/?p=1153&cpage=1#comment-2008 Amanda Read Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:18:51 +0000 http://crosseyedblog.com/?p=1153#comment-2008 In response to kemibe, Your comment is that of an excellent Huxley protege: not only do you mold science to fit your desires, but you mold Darwin to fit them as well. Charles Darwin did not present macroevolution as a "rock-solid concept whose core precepts have been observed and verified". His observations of microevolution might be called positively powerful, but his extrapolation of macroevolution is not (notice: it was an extrapolation, not an actual observation). But sadly, despite the work of Darwin that was honest, the dramatic Huxleyites who wanted to use Darwin for their personal religious agenda have probably set science back further then we might ever know. For instead of drawing focus to observable science, they have given scientists incentive to waste a century trying to solve the "mystery of the origin of the species" - which isn't a mystery at all - when they could have focused even more in depth on science that is beneficial to our understanding of the natural world and medicine. Scientists have still made quite a bit of progress in some ways, but think of how much more they could have made (and could be making) if they weren't chasing the phantom ape man all their breathing days! You cited molecular biology to make your point. Hmm...poor choice when 99% of evidence from molecular biology shows that Evolution is anything but rock-solid. Molecular biology is the study of molecules important to life, particularly focusing on the study of proteins. The more similar or closely related one organism is to another, the more similar their amino acid sequences ought to be. This means that the more complex an organism appears to be on the evolutionary scale, the more different their cytochrome C amino acid sequences should be from those of simple organisms. If macroevolution has any plausibility, then cytochrome C amino acid sequences of various species ought to reflect that. However, take a look at the following data that is likely kept under lock and key: Compared to Bacterium Rhodospirillum rubrum (1), A Horse has 64% difference A Pigeon has 64% difference A Tuna has 65% difference A Silkworm moth has 65% difference Wheat has 66% difference Yeast has 69% difference So, according to molecular biology, horses and pigeons have more in common with bacteria than silkworms and yeast! Also, compared to a lamprey eel, A Horse has 15% difference A Pigeon has 18% difference A Turtle has 18% difference A Carp has 12% difference There are no consistent trends of common descent in any of these relationships. When the overwhelming evidence suggests that your hypothesis is wrong, it's time to get back to the drawing board. People need to stop holding science back by indulging in fantasies (even Charles Darwin himself once wondered if he had devoted his life to a fantasy). ~Amanda~ WORKS CITED: (1). Wile, Jay L. and Marilyn F. Durnell. Exploring Creation with Biology. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2003. Pg. 294-298. Post Scriptum - Don't you dare attempt a phony cheap shot and say the amino acid sequences are invalid because I happened to find the list in a textbook that has the word "Creation" in the title. I know that as an evolutionist you have tremendous faith in the human imagination, but surely you do not devalue PhDs in Nuclear Chemistry as products of spontaneous generation too... http://blog.drwile.com/ In response to kemibe,

Your comment is that of an excellent Huxley protege: not only do you mold science to fit your desires, but you mold Darwin to fit them as well. Charles Darwin did not present macroevolution as a “rock-solid concept whose core precepts have been observed and verified”. His observations of microevolution might be called positively powerful, but his extrapolation of macroevolution is not (notice: it was an extrapolation, not an actual observation).

But sadly, despite the work of Darwin that was honest, the dramatic Huxleyites who wanted to use Darwin for their personal religious agenda have probably set science back further then we might ever know. For instead of drawing focus to observable science, they have given scientists incentive to waste a century trying to solve the “mystery of the origin of the species” – which isn’t a mystery at all – when they could have focused even more in depth on science that is beneficial to our understanding of the natural world and medicine. Scientists have still made quite a bit of progress in some ways, but think of how much more they could have made (and could be making) if they weren’t chasing the phantom ape man all their breathing days!

You cited molecular biology to make your point. Hmm…poor choice when 99% of evidence from molecular biology shows that Evolution is anything but rock-solid.

Molecular biology is the study of molecules important to life, particularly focusing on the study of proteins. The more similar or closely related one organism is to another, the more similar their amino acid sequences ought to be. This means that the more complex an organism appears to be on the evolutionary scale, the more different their cytochrome C amino acid sequences should be from those of simple organisms. If macroevolution has any plausibility, then cytochrome C amino acid sequences of various species ought to reflect that. However, take a look at the following data that is likely kept under lock and key:

Compared to Bacterium Rhodospirillum rubrum (1),

A Horse has 64% difference

A Pigeon has 64% difference

A Tuna has 65% difference

A Silkworm moth has 65% difference

Wheat has 66% difference

Yeast has 69% difference

So, according to molecular biology, horses and pigeons have more in common with bacteria than silkworms and yeast!

Also, compared to a lamprey eel,

A Horse has 15% difference

A Pigeon has 18% difference

A Turtle has 18% difference

A Carp has 12% difference

There are no consistent trends of common descent in any of these relationships.

When the overwhelming evidence suggests that your hypothesis is wrong, it’s time to get back to the drawing board. People need to stop holding science back by indulging in fantasies (even Charles Darwin himself once wondered if he had devoted his life to a fantasy).

~Amanda~

WORKS CITED:

(1). Wile, Jay L. and Marilyn F. Durnell. Exploring Creation with Biology. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2003. Pg. 294-298.

Post Scriptum – Don’t you dare attempt a phony cheap shot and say the amino acid sequences are invalid because I happened to find the list in a textbook that has the word “Creation” in the title. I know that as an evolutionist you have tremendous faith in the human imagination, but surely you do not devalue PhDs in Nuclear Chemistry as products of spontaneous generation too…

http://blog.drwile.com/

]]> By: Amanda Read http://crosseyedblog.com/?p=1153&cpage=1#comment-1940 Amanda Read Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:49:03 +0000 http://crosseyedblog.com/?p=1153#comment-1940 I am working on the next one. I hope to have at least three installments. ~Amanda~ I am working on the next one. I hope to have at least three installments.

~Amanda~

]]> By: Jay Wile http://crosseyedblog.com/?p=1153&cpage=1#comment-1939 Jay Wile Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:05:56 +0000 http://crosseyedblog.com/?p=1153#comment-1939 I am interested in the next installment. Is there one? If so, where do I go? I am interested in the next installment. Is there one? If so, where do I go?

]]> By: kemibe http://crosseyedblog.com/?p=1153&cpage=1#comment-1137 kemibe Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:16:28 +0000 http://crosseyedblog.com/?p=1153#comment-1137 Of course, none of this changes the fact that Charles Darwin is hardly the only evolutionary biologist to have ever lived, and that his ideas ultimately gave rise to the most powerful theory in all of modern biology, one which touches and informs every aspect of the field. To pretend that evolution is not a rock-solid concept whose core precepts have been observed and verified a million times over (with the advent of molecular biology allowing scientists to confirm virtually every hypothesis about common descent) is to proudly display one's own stubborn, Biblically based ignorance. Of course, none of this changes the fact that Charles Darwin is hardly the only evolutionary biologist to have ever lived, and that his ideas ultimately gave rise to the most powerful theory in all of modern biology, one which touches and informs every aspect of the field. To pretend that evolution is not a rock-solid concept whose core precepts have been observed and verified a million times over (with the advent of molecular biology allowing scientists to confirm virtually every hypothesis about common descent) is to proudly display one’s own stubborn, Biblically based ignorance.

]]> By: Sincerely Amanda » Blog Archive » Origin of the Unoriginal: Episode I http://crosseyedblog.com/?p=1153&cpage=1#comment-856 Sincerely Amanda » Blog Archive » Origin of the Unoriginal: Episode I Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:12:19 +0000 http://crosseyedblog.com/?p=1153#comment-856 [...] here to continue [...] [...] here to continue [...]

]]> By: Peter A. Johnson http://crosseyedblog.com/?p=1153&cpage=1#comment-848 Peter A. Johnson Tue, 18 Aug 2009 07:22:49 +0000 http://crosseyedblog.com/?p=1153#comment-848 I'd never heard of Louis Agassiz before. I also found the part about the debate between Samuel Wilberforce and Thomas Huxley particularly interesting. Thank you for your sharing your research. I’d never heard of Louis Agassiz before. I also found the part about the debate between Samuel Wilberforce and Thomas Huxley particularly interesting. Thank you for your sharing your research.

]]>