PZ Myers: Casey Luskin caught quote mining

Hey Casey Luskin, if you're still googling your own name looking for people to write threatening but ultimately toothless emails to, try this on for size:

Casey Luskin is a disgusting individual who manufactures quotes from fragments of what others have said out of desperation born of having to defend an undefendable position. His dishonest actions reflect poorly (but accurately) on the organization he is acting as spokesperson for, the Discovery Institute.

You may send your flaccid, impotent emails to me at stodolaxx at yahoo dot com. Except replace the two Xs with 76.

You can't expect someone that knows that his employers lied about the intelligent design scam, before he joined up, to have any integrity.

Luskin participated in the Colloquy discussion on teaching intelligent design just before the Discovery Institute perps ran the bait and switch on the Ohio rubes, and he didn't let on that the switch was going down, so he either didn't know or he wasn't telling. Either way what do you expect from someone that took a job with the Discovery Institute after that fact?

What an "A-Hole" Can the NAS sue him?

Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

Casey wrote:

"My science courses rarely, if ever, allowed students to seriously entertain the possibility that Darwin’s theory might be fundamentally flawed."

Oh really. So just how can a course prevent you from entertaining a possibility? Did the course prevent you from doing any research? Did the course prevent you from finding evidence to support you views? Did the course control you thoughts and make it impossible for you to even think about any other possibilities? Or maybe the course simply resented evidence that you had no answers for.

Perhaps the problem was that you didn't do any research. Perhaps the problem was that you had no evidence. Perhaps the problem was that you needed some excuse to justify your complete and miserable failure. Perhaps you can use the same excuse to justify your continued quote mining and misrepresentation of science.

You know you are completely free to present any evidence you want. Where is the evidence that the theory of evolution is fundamentally flawed? Note that personal increduality does not count as evidence.

Just a note that in the Title heading for this thread Luskin is misspelled as Lusin.

If a scientist could actually prove that the theory of evolution is wrong, he would achieve fame that would eclipse Dawrin, Einstein and Newton put together! If that does not set up a juicy prize nothing will.
But the fact is every new advance in technology and science,
from plate tectonics to genetics and DNA, confirmed, not contradicted the theory of evolution. The micro fossils in rocks guide the geologists
seeking oil.

BTW, why is there an obsession with Darwin? Scientists have shown many
many things Darwin got wrong. He had no idea about how the beneficial
traits remained undiluted. His theory about the origin of mammals and nursing were rejected ages ago. Many parts of his work in sexual selection remain unaccepted to this day.

Most creationists are confused about the cause and effect in the case
of respect for Darwin and the acceptance of theory of evolution. The
theory is NOT accepted because we worship Darwin. We respect
Darwin because the theory of evolution has been confirmed over and over
again. The cause for Darwin's stature and fame among the scientists is the overwhelming confirmation and evidence for his theory, much of which he himself was quite unaware of.

I think this comes from the standard play book of the religious folk. Most Christian and Moslem armies would destroy and desecrate the revered holy objects, deities, idols and places of worship when they
win over a pagan tribe/city/nation. To show that the deities the losing
side worshiped had no power. They assume scientists are like those
pagan tribes in the Amazon jungles. They expect the scientists to
see that Darwin idol has no super natural powers and fall down to their
knees quivering and accepting the One True God. The image of warriors
chipping away the base of the pedestal of Darwin's bust sells books!
They remind me of Don Quixote and the wind mills.

And PZ's name is misspelled as well. He spells it "Myers". At least, that's what he has on his web page.

I think this comes from the standard play book of the religious folk. Most Christian and Moslem armies would destroy and desecrate the revered holy objects, deities, idols and places of worship when they win over a pagan tribe/city/nation. To show that the deities the losing side worshiped had no power. They assume scientists are like those pagan tribes in the Amazon jungles. They expect the scientists to see that Darwin idol has no super natural powers and fall down to their knees quivering and accepting the One True God. The image of warriors chipping away the base of the pedestal of Darwin’s bust sells books! They remind me of Don Quixote and the wind mills.

Imagine that, Discovery Institute spokesperson Casey Luskin was caught quote mining by an observant reader of Pharyngula.

Interesting debate:

1. Evolutionists are mad that the Discovery Institute made the claim that no serious discussions are allowed in education regarding the flaws in the theory of evolution.

2. Evolutionists are legislating all over the country to make sure they are NOT allowed.

Would you like to get your stories straight or ban together with us to promote a critical analysis of evolution in education?

Who is your Creator, this is about how ID creationists are quote mining the statements by scientists to serve their purpose. I understand you want to change the topic. I would be embarrassed to

To show that the deities the losing side worshiped had no power.

Luskin is misspelled as Lusin.

who is your creator: Interesting debate: 1. Evolutionists are mad that the Discovery Institute made the claim that no serious discussions are allowed in education regarding the flaws in the theory of evolution.

2. Evolutionists are legislating all over the country to make sure they are NOT allowed.

Would you like to get your stories straight or ban together with us to promote a critical analysis of evolution in education?

"Evolutionists are mad that the Discovery Institute made the claim that no serious discussions are allowed in education regarding the flaws in the theory of evolution."

To which flaws do you refer? Please cite a specific example for discussion.

"Evolutionists are legislating all over the country to make sure they are NOT allowed."

False. The Creationists are the ones responsible for the legislation attempting to shove Creationist ideas down the throats of schoolchildren. Just within the past couple of weeks, for example, Florida state legislators have proposed such legislation.

Please do try to keep up with the facts here. Thank you.

who is your creator: Interesting debate: 1. Evolutionists are mad that the Discovery Institute made the claim that no serious discussions are allowed in education regarding the flaws in the theory of evolution. 2. Evolutionists are legislating all over the country to make sure they are NOT allowed. Would you like to get your stories straight or ban together with us to promote a critical analysis of evolution in education?

Evolutionists are mad that the Discovery Institute made the claim that no serious discussions are allowed in education

who is your creator: Interesting debate: 1. Evolutionists are mad that the Discovery Institute made the claim that no serious discussions are allowed in education regarding the flaws in the theory of evolution. 2. Evolutionists are legislating all over the country to make sure they are NOT allowed. Would you like to get your stories straight or ban together with us to promote a critical analysis of evolution in education?

1. Evolutionists are mad that the Discovery Institute made the claim that no serious discussions are allowed in education regarding the flaws in the theory of evolution.

Bill Gascoyne: Show me a piece of legislation such as you speak of that is not in response to a legislator pandering to a Bible-thumping constituency. "Critical analysis of evolution in education." What a crock!

If, by “critical analysis of evolution,” you mean by teaching the Theory of Evolution as it is taught in a college-level course at a reputable college or university, then yes.

In regard to an above comment:

"Well, why don’t you provide a critical analysis of evolution right here, and don’t make a fool of yourself, with strawman arguments, other lame fallacies, or even outright lies, like most Creationist bigots do?"

OK - Here it is:

You guys can rant all you want but you would further your cause more if you could just articulate properly how evolution might work to create novel or more complex traits that create morphological changes needed to prove your theory.

Until you finally come up with solid ‘naturalistic’ explanations instead of silly scenarios that are reduced down to, "evolution did it," evolution is nothing but ‘supernatural.’ Isn’t that violating your own standards?

Here’s a recent example:

“This ancient animal probably had very simple eye spots with no image-forming ability, but still needed some diversity in eye function. It needed to be able to sense both slow, long-duration events such as the changing of day into night, and more rapid events, such as the shadow of a predator moving overhead. These two forms arose by a simple gene duplication event and concomitant specialization of association with specific G proteins, which has also been found to require relatively few amino acid changes. This simple molecular divergence has since proceeded by way of the progress of hundreds of millions of years and amplification of a cascade of small changes into the multitude of diverse forms we see now. There is a fundamental unity that arose early, but has been obscured by the accumulation of evolutionary change. Even the eyes of a scorpion carry an echo of our kinship, not in their superficial appearance, but deep down in the genes from which they are built.”
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/03/eyeing_the_evolutionary_past.php?page=3

To break this scenario down:

1. The premise of 'need.'

“but still needed some diversity in eye function. It needed to be able to sense both slow, long-duration events such as the changing of day into night, and more rapid events, such as the shadow of a predator moving overhead.”

• The organism senses a need?

“Contrary to a widespread public impression, biological evolution is not random, even though the biological changes that provide the raw material for evolution are not directed toward predetermined, specific goals.”
“Science, Evolution, and Creationism,” 2008, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), The National Academies Press, 3rd edition, page 50.

2. An unknown mechanism

"simple gene duplication"

• What mechanism would cause an organism to ‘sense’ a non-existing function, ‘duplicate’ a gene that performs an entirely different function, and turn it into something else that it had never possessed before

3. An unknown mechanism

"concomitant specialization"

• Used to prompt the reader to think it means something more than the term ‘evolution.'

- Definition of concomitant: “existing or occurring with something else, often in a lesser way.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concomitant
- Definition of specialization: “to be adapted to a special function or environment.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/specialization

4. An unknown mechanism

"of association with specific G proteins"

• Explain in detail how a new molecular switch ‘evolves’ or an existing one ‘reprograms’ itself (which would render useless the other functioning gene that it previously controlled).

• How would the new or ‘evolved’ switch know how to specifically control the new gene that it previously had no exposure to?

• How would a new G protein know that it needed to penetrate the cell membrane after it was created?

(“Receptor-activated G proteins are bound to the inside surface of the cell membrane.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_protein

• If the G protein ‘evolved’ together while bound to the gene, explain the mechanism that would allow for the precise timing of the on and off switch adjusting itself to the new function.

Feel free to cite research that proves any of these above phenomena are "naturally occurring" and qualifying for being a 'naturalistic' explanation.

“In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others.”
“Science, Evolution, and Creationism,” 2007, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), The National Academies Press, page 10.)

This is wildly off-topic, but I didn’t bring it up, so here goes, no blushes:

Stanton writes,

While I’m not saying that Muslim armies were not capable of desecration, either, but, many Muslim armies did make it a point to not ransack or violate the conquered’s holy places. Instead, many Muslim armies made it a point to convert such places into mosques, like the Hagia Sofia.

But from the Byzantine Christian point of view, seizing the Church of the Holy Wisdom by force and converting it into a mosque WAS “desecration” -- precisely so. As for “ransacking,” the Muslim conquerers did ransack the church -- stole its relics and other precious paraphernalia -- as a matter of course, as any conquering army of the period, Christian or otherwise, would have done. As the Fourth Crusaders did do, in fact, several centuries earlier. So, how the Hagia Sophia shows how “many Muslim armies did make it a point to not ransack or violate the conquered’s holy places” escapes me. One might with equal logic cite the preservation of the Alhambra after the Catholics took it in 1492 as evidence of the restraint of “many Christian armies.” It would all be silly. These generalizations have little, if any, historical meaning and certainly say nothing about the nature of intrinsic Christianness or Muslimness, which probably don’t exist.

Larry

who is your creator: 2. Evolutionists are legislating all over the country to make sure they are NOT allowed.

who is your creator: • How would a new G protein know that it needed to penetrate the cell membrane after it was created?

who is your creator: • How would a new G protein know that it needed to penetrate the cell membrane after it was created?

You guys can rant all you want but you would further your cause more if you could just articulate properly how evolution might work to create novel or more complex traits that create morphological changes needed to prove your theory.

As rare as hen's teeth? Not any more, say scientists Katherine Demopoulos Thursday February 23, 2006 SocietyGuardian.co.uk If you thought hen's teeth were the rarest thing in nature, think again: researchers from Britain and the US have succeeded in growing teeth in a chicken. Far from being rarer than students who turn up at 9am lectures or lecturers who like giving them, a hen with teeth does occur naturally, scientists based at the universities of Manchester and Wisconsin have found. And by studying that mutant chicken - which is too weak to hatch, explaining its rarity - the team has been able to stimulate "natural" tooth growth in chickens. The mutant chicken harks back to toothier days: the ancestors of today's birds lost their teeth about 80 million years ago, but not the ability to grow them.continues

Have you considered some college biology courses?

1. The premise of ‘need.’

“but still needed some diversity in eye function. It needed to be able to sense both slow, long-duration events such as the changing of day into night, and more rapid events, such as the shadow of a predator moving overhead.”

Need does not refer to a need, but rather the idea that it would be benificial to have. Your second point about sensing this need is just silly. It's called Natural selection.

2. An unknown mechanism

“simple gene duplication”

• What mechanism would cause an organism to ‘sense’ a non-existing function, ‘duplicate’ a gene that performs an entirely different function, and turn it into something else that it had never possessed before

Again this is simple genetics. Gene duplication mutations happen relatively frequently. That is the mechanism. There is no foresight needed or involved.

3 and 4 again represent not understanding molecular biology. Enzymes, receptors, and channels naturally vary in their specificity. Cocomittant specialization refers to rather than having two copies of a gene do two things poorly they both specialize on one substrate. These are all well understood widely applicable molecular processes.

When people grouse about non-testability these are exactly the reasons they are dead wrong. All of genetics was one huge test of Natural selection and the fact it keeps working is awesome evidence to the power of Darwin's hypothesis (especially considering his own genetic theories were far off the mark). Of course we've also added some interesting wrinkles to MET as a result of molecular biology, but all the quote mining in the world does not make that refute the fact of evolution or the ability of Natural selection to explain adaptation.

who is your creator: 2. Evolutionists are legislating all over the country to make sure they are NOT allowed.

In regard to a response to my posting:
"What mechanism would cause an organism to ‘sense’ a non-existing function, ‘duplicate’ a gene that performs an entirely different function, and turn it into something else that it had never possessed before?"

Response
"Again this is simple genetics. Gene duplication mutations happen relatively frequently. That is the mechanism. There is no foresight needed or involved."

Since it's so simple, why don't you share with the world the step-by-step genetic explanation of it occurring and cite specific research that verifies your claim that it happens "relatively frequently"?

raven: And trying lately to pass the DI written "religious freedom" bill allowing kids to put down goddidit to any questions they feel like.

who is your creator: In regard to a response to my posting: "What mechanism would cause an organism to ‘sense’ a non-existing function, ‘duplicate’ a gene that performs an entirely different function, and turn it into something else that it had never possessed before?" Response "Again this is simple genetics. Gene duplication mutations happen relatively frequently. That is the mechanism. There is no foresight needed or involved." Since it's so simple, why don't you share with the world the step-by-step genetic explanation of it occurring and cite specific research that verifies your claim that it happens "relatively frequently"?

• What mechanism would cause an organism to ‘sense’ a non-existing function, ‘duplicate’ a gene that performs an entirely different function, and turn it into something else that it had never possessed before

The creator being stupid: and cite specific research that verifies your claim that it happens “relatively frequently”?

1: Nat Genet. 2007 Oct;39(10):1256-60. Epub 2007 Sep 9. Links Comment in: Nat Genet. 2007 Oct;39(10):1188-90. Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation.Perry GH, Dominy NJ, Claw KG, Lee AS, Fiegler H, Redon R, Werner J, Villanea FA, Mountain JL, Misra R, Carter NP, Lee C, Stone AC. School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287, USA. Starch consumption is a prominent characteristic of agricultural societies and hunter-gatherers in arid environments. In contrast, rainforest and circum-arctic hunter-gatherers and some pastoralists consume much less starch. This behavioral variation raises the possibility that different selective pressures have acted on amylase, the enzyme responsible for starch hydrolysis. We found that copy number of the salivary amylase gene (AMY1) is correlated positively with salivary amylase protein level and that individuals from populations with high-starch diets have, on average, more AMY1 copies than those with traditionally low-starch diets. Comparisons with other loci in a subset of these populations suggest that the extent of AMY1 copy number differentiation is highly unusual. This example of positive selection on a copy number-variable gene is, to our knowledge, one of the first discovered in the human genome. Higher AMY1 copy numbers and protein levels probably improve the digestion of starchy foods and may buffer against the fitness-reducing effects of intestinal disease.

who is your creator wrote: 1. The premise of ‘need.’ “but still needed some diversity in eye function. It needed to be able to sense both slow, long-duration events such as the changing of day into night, and more rapid events, such as the shadow of a predator moving overhead.”

• The organism senses a need? “Contrary to a widespread public impression, biological evolution is not random, even though the biological changes that provide the raw material for evolution are not directed toward predetermined, specific goals.” “Science, Evolution, and Creationism,” 2008, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), The National Academies Press, 3rd edition, page 50.

2. An unknown mechanism “simple gene duplication” • What mechanism would cause an organism to ‘sense’ a non-existing function, ‘duplicate’ a gene that performs an entirely different function, and turn it into something else that it had never possessed before

3. An unknown mechanism “concomitant specialization” • Used to prompt the reader to think it means something more than the term ‘evolution.’ - Definition of concomitant: “existing or occurring with something else, often in a lesser way.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concomitant… - Definition of specialization: “to be adapted to a special function or environment.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/specializat…

4. An unknown mechanism “of association with specific G proteins” • Explain in detail how a new molecular switch ‘evolves’ or an existing one ‘reprograms’ itself (which would render useless the other functioning gene that it previously controlled).

• How would the new or ‘evolved’ switch know how to specifically control the new gene that it previously had no exposure to?

• How would a new G protein know that it needed to penetrate the cell membrane after it was created? (“Receptor-activated G proteins are bound to the inside surface of the cell membrane.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_protein

• If the G protein ‘evolved’ together while bound to the gene, explain the mechanism that would allow for the precise timing of the on and off switch adjusting itself to the new function.

Feel free to cite research that proves any of these above phenomena are “naturally occurring” and qualifying for being a ‘naturalistic’ explanation.

Cutting edge science is always done in high school classrooms.

Darwinists are downright unhappy, so much so those at Florida Citizens for Science think academic freedom is “smelly crap.”

This academic freedom stuff is merely the next evolutionary step as anti-science folks continue their attempts to shove creationism into the public school classroom. First, there was blatant creationism. Next there was intelligent design. Both failed miserably. Now comes along academic freedom. Same smelly crap, different packaging.

www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/darwinist_activists_at_florida.html

I spoke with a reporter this morning about this bill. I had three basic things to say, but it looks like the media is picking up on some of this nicely on their own. 1 — This academic freedom stuff is merely the next evolutionary step as anti-science folks continue their attempts to shove creationism into the public school classroom. First, there was blatant creationism. Next there was intelligent design. Both failed miserably. Now comes along academic freedom. Same smelly crap, different packaging. 2 — Simply put, there are no other scientific theories challenging evolution. None. Nil. Zero. Zip. So, what is the academic purpose of this bill then? 3 — This bill will fade away and die. Kinda like in Alabama. There were also threats of such a bill in Utah. And there was Oklahoma. And Maryland. Well, you get the point. I’m not giving away any trade secrets here. These are just the ABCs of fighting the anti-evolution crowd.

1: Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2007 Oct 15;178(2):120-7. The MDR1/ABCB1 regional amplification in large inverted repeats with asymmetric sequences and microhomologies at the junction sites.Kitada K, Yamasaki T. Kamakura Research Laboratories, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, 200-Kajiwara, Kamakura, Kanagawa, Japan. kitadakno@chugai-pharm.co.jp A multidrug-resistant lung cancer cell line PTX250, established by treatment with the anti-cancer drug paclitaxel, has been demonstrated to have an increased copy number in the 7q21.12 region including the MDR1/ABCB1 gene. The amplicon is 2.7 megabases in size, and the copy number increase is 11-fold compared with the parental cell line. Here, we examined the amplicon structure and determined nucleotide sequences at both junctions of the amplicon. Fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis using an MDR1 probe demonstrated a cluster of fluorescent signals at the chromosomal end, suggesting an intra-chromosomal amplification. DNA fragments of both junctions were cloned and sequenced. The distal junction was a head-to-head fusion with a 4-base pair (bp) overlap separated by an asymmetric sequence of 1,265 bp, and the proximal junction was a tail-to-tail fusion with a 2-bp overlap intervened by an asymmetric sequence of 2,203 bp. These results suggest that the amplicon has a large palindromic structure with an asymmetric sequence and has been amplified through the breakage-fusion-bridge cycle. Specific sequences, which might be related to the occurrence of double-strand-breakages, were found at or near the junctions of the amplicon -- an inverted repeat in the distal junction and a highly AT-rich region near the proximal junction.

PZ Myers wrote: So what Casey Luskin has done is to flip through the book and manufacture quotes by splicing together clauses from scattered sentences.

"[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution,"¹ because [the theory of evolution] is "so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter"² it?

Casey Luskin wrote: Next month, a documentary will be released featuring Ben Stein titled "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," that recounts the stories of scientists who experienced persecution because they questioned evolution. One scientist was Richard Sternberg, a biologist at the Smithsonian with two Ph.D.s in evolution, who was harassed and intimidated because he was a skeptic of neo-Darwinism. Another biologist, Caroline Crocker, lost her job at George Mason University because she challenged evolution in a classroom.

William Wallace: Opps, that link was supposed to be to PZ Myers blog, not Casey Luskin's piece published at the San Diego Union tribune piece:

Casey Luskin wrote: Next month, a documentary will be released featuring Ben Stein titled "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," that recounts the stories of scientists who experienced persecution because they questioned evolution. One scientist was Richard Sternberg, a biologist at the Smithsonian with two Ph.D.s in evolution, who was harassed and intimidated because he was a skeptic of neo-Darwinism. Another biologist, Caroline Crocker, lost her job at George Mason University because she challenged evolution in a classroom.

This information is, I expect, the real reason why we're hearing allegations of "quote mining."

"[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution,"¹ because [the theory of evolution] is "so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter"² it?

I vote that you add these recent wonderful and articulate explanations to the rest of the nonsense evolutionists profess:

"Whether found in primary sources or popularizations, phrases like “needed to” are anthropomorphizations intended only as figures of speech and not to be taken literally. Of course, those who insist on taking things literally, or who are incapable of taking them any other way, are likely to erroneously assume the same of others, just as the man with a toothache assumes that everyone with sound teeth must be happy."

" I can’t imagine how primitive eyes could possibly be an advantage over having no eyes at all. Can you?"

"Even if no research on your particular question doesn’t exist, there are many things that science has yet to explain. That in no way invalidates what it has explained."

"Genes and regulatory regions don’t know to do anything, they just do what they do."

I vote that you add these recent wonderful and articulate explanations to the rest of the nonsense evolutionists profess:

who is your creator: I vote that you add these recent wonderful and articulate explanations to the rest of the nonsense evolutionists profess: "Whether found in primary sources or popularizations, phrases like “needed to” are anthropomorphizations intended only as figures of speech and not to be taken literally. Of course, those who insist on taking things literally, or who are incapable of taking them any other way, are likely to erroneously assume the same of others, just as the man with a toothache assumes that everyone with sound teeth must be happy." " I can’t imagine how primitive eyes could possibly be an advantage over having no eyes at all. Can you?" "Even if no research on your particular question doesn’t exist, there are many things that science has yet to explain. That in no way invalidates what it has explained." "Genes and regulatory regions don’t know to do anything, they just do what they do."

The Creator being a boringly predictable troll: I vote that you add these recent wonderful and articulate explanations to the rest of the nonsense evolutionists profess:

William Wallace Wrote: "[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution,”1 because [the theory of evolution] is “so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter”2 it?

Casey Luskin Wrote: “[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution,“1 because neo-Darwinism is “so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter”2

The possible role of non-disjunction in evolution. A common objection to natural selection as the mechanism for evolution is that while it may act as an editor, it cannot be an author. That is, it may change genetic information through mutation, but it cannot cause genetic information to increase. And they are right, but genetic information can still increase across the generations of organisms through a process called non-disjunction. This occurs when an unequal amount of genetic material is passed on to two daughter cells after the process of a cell dividing. One cell will have slightly less genetic material, and the other will have slightly more. The most famous example of non-disjunction is the kind that causes Down’s Syndrome, when a human embryo receives three 21st chromosomes from its parents rather than the normal number of two. But non-disjunction can occur regarding any chromosome in any organism and may not even involve chromosomes at all, such as in the case of bacteria. Let us imagine that three billion years ago, a bacterial cell was dividing, but because of a chemical malfunction, slightly less genetic material ended up in one daughter cell, and slightly more in the other. The cell with less material will probably end up smaller, while the cell with more material may end up larger, because a greater amount of genetic material can produce a greater amount of proteins, the molecules that provide the structural basis for all organisms. Larger cells (assuming the reproductive potential of the different cells was the same) would have an advantage over smaller cells in the race to gain food, thus natural selection would favor larger cells. If this process was repeated many times, then it is possible that over a billion years a bacterial cell would have emerged that had hundreds of times more genetic material than the first primitive organisms that arose on Earth about four billion years ago. And that would have enabled the evolution of more complex organisms than bacteria…including us!

“[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution,”1 because [the theory of evolution] is “so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter”2 it?

“[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution,“ because neo-Darwinism is “so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter” it.

Well Creator, perhaps if you could even get the basics of evolution right, we wouldn't have to come up with such eloquent explanations.

Ignore William Wallace. He posts here only to wind people up, and does not actually believe what he posts.

Caroline Crocker, lost her job at George Mason University because she challenged evolution in a classroom.

Yes Nigel, but for once his posts aren't off topic.

To Who is your Creator, I have a few questions:

(1) What scientific alternatives are there to modern evolutionary theory (MET)? What makes them scientific?

(2) Do you agree with DI fellow Michael Behe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old?

(3) Do you agree with Michael Behe that the evidence for universal common ancestry is overwhelming?

(4) Do you agree with Michael Behe that most biological change over time is due to mechanisms described in MET (he claims simply that some biological change is not)?

if you don't disagree with a mined quote, then it's not a mined quote? nice.

are we going to hear "it's not a lie if you really, really believe it" next?

Perhaps 'Who is your creator' could bless us all with HIS step-by-step explanation - evidence backed, of course - for the creation of the eye?

Heck - I'd settle for the step-by-step explanation for the creation of G-protein.

Have at it.

I love your questions Nigel. Please keep asking them.

J. Biggs: Yes Nigel, but for once his posts aren't off topic.

skyotter: if you don't disagree with a mined quote, then it's not a mined quote? nice. are we going to hear "it's not a lie if you really, really believe it" next?

Good point, Nigel.

With apologies to J's A:

"I've been caught quote-mining;
once when I was 35...
I enjoy quote-mining.
It's just as simple as that.
Well, it's just a simple fact.
When I want to say something, and
I don't want it to be correct.
I re-write quotes and their out on the web.
Sent right out through the web.
Hey all right! If I get by, it's mine.
Quote-mine, all mine!"

skyotter wrote: if you don't disagree with a mined quote, then it's not a mined quote? nice. are we going to hear "it's not a lie if you really, really believe it" next?

Isn't this the party line? There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution, because evolution is so well established that no new evidence is likely to substantially alter it.

Wallace, you are confusing the fact of evolution with the theory of evolution

Sigh

So it seems that William Wallace can't deal with statements of actual scientific hypotheses, like my Comment #145715 on March 10, 2008 6:01 PM. Instead, he resorts to nitpicking and strawman type arguments against other opponents.

All he proves is that you cannot attack evolution without lying about it or ignoring the evidence for it.

Says a guy who does not know how to read: “I can’t imagine how primitive eyes could possibly be an advantage over having no eyes at all. Can you?”

Oh my; ABC/Larry, William Wallace, and who-the-hell-is-my-creator all together on one thread. What an unholy alliance of thick-sculled trolls who repeatedly lie and proudly show off their stupidity to the entire world.

One seldom gets to observe such a massive black hole of ignorance. Let’s see how they go about “stimulating” each other to anti-radiate and spread darkness everywhere.

Do their religious handlers know where these children are?

William Wallace: If the juxtaposed quotes more or less accurately characterizes the standpoint, complaining that the juxtaposed quotes were unethical certainly seems petty. The quote is not that far off in meaning, it seems, from:

Mike wrote:

"One seldom gets to observe such a massive black hole of ignorance. Let’s see how they go about “stimulating” each other to anti-radiate and spread darkness everywhere."

Well, at least now we can finally get to determine the speed of dark.

After his op/ed gibberish Luskin was invited to speak on a chat line. Here's the link to that forum. Have your air-sickness bags at hand.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20080307-1413-idchat.html

Curse you DavidK - I couldn't get through 5 paragraphs before I had to spew! :-(

One seldom gets to observe such a massive black hole of ignorance. Let’s see how they go about “stimulating” each other to anti-radiate and spread darkness everywhere.

It's a form of the Hawking information paradox--once information goes into this black hole, it is completely destroyed.

jeh: One seldom gets to observe such a massive black hole of ignorance. Let’s see how they go about “stimulating” each other to anti-radiate and spread darkness everywhere. It's a form of the Hawking information paradox--once information goes into this black hole, it is completely destroyed.

There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution,

You again fail to see the distinction in accuracy of the quotes. A reasoned person would assume naturally that the words radical must describe any contemporary philosophy of the Founders, because the entire concept was in fact radical. In short the Judges opinion does not alter the original passage in a way that misleads, rather it clarifies instead of confuses by avoiding the use of Whig, which is likely to be an obfuscating term for many. On the other hand you continually seem not to be able to comprehend basic parts of the history and nature of science. We have tested and probe and accumulated a huge mound of evidence. Despite many efforts no one has conceived of a scientific alternative that could possibly explain as many of the facts. The most radical scenario possible would be somewhat analogous to Relativity, where we can find a more precise formulation to current theories, but at current levels of observation the predictions and understandings are the same. This balance between reasonable practical certainty and openness to other possibilities as at the core of scientific practice and the Luskin quote totally misses that with the implicit purpose of trying to pass on the absurd notion of science being a religion.

In reference to an above posting:

To Who is your Creator, I have a few questions:

(1) What scientific alternatives are there to modern evolutionary theory (MET)? What makes them scientific?

(2) Do you agree with DI fellow Michael Behe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old?

(3) Do you agree with Michael Behe that the evidence for universal common ancestry is overwhelming?

(4) Do you agree with Michael Behe that most biological change over time is due to mechanisms described in MET (he claims simply that some biological change is not)?

Response:

1. One will be posted by next week on:
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/whats_more_scientific.html

2. No

3. Yes, and it points to God.

4. Variation within kinds, nothing else.

This following is from Answers In Genesis and please refer to the link below for more detailed information:

"Evolution, of the fish-to-philosopher type, requires that non-living chemicals organize themselves into a self-reproducing organism. All types of life are alleged to have descended, by natural, ongoing processes, from this ‘simple’ life form. For this to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the genetic information in living things today.

In contrast, creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/re1/chapter2.asp

who is your creator: 2. Evolutionists are legislating all over the country to make sure they are NOT allowed.

I decided to waste a minute, so I went to this "who is your creator" website. The website is a reservoir of ignorance and delusion, not unlike "Answers in Genesis".

For this to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the genetic information in living things today.

who is your creator: Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments."

Nigel asked: (3) Do you agree with Michael Behe that the evidence for universal common ancestry is overwhelming?

who is your creator wrote: 3. Yes, and it points to God.

In contrast, creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.

I checked out 'creator's website and his portrayal of the scientific evidence is, as expected, highly biased and ignores any data that contradicts it, which is to say, most of the data. An excellent example of Morton's Demon. Glen Morton is, like me, a recovered Young Earth Creationist.

"In contrast, creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25)."

To anyone who believes this, please explain the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities that precisely mirrors the appearance all major groups in the fossil record, i.e. the tree of life.

As I see it, there are only two possiblilites given the available evidence: either all apecies are descended from a single common ancestor; or God really, really wants us to think that they are. Take your pick. Personally, I don't think it would be a good idea to piss God off. If we have to start with the Bible, she seems to have quite a temper, so I guess we all just better play along.

First, in regard to the comment:

"I decided to waste a minute, so I went to this “who is your creator” website. The website is a reservoir of ignorance and delusion, not unlike “Answers in Genesis”."

WIYC Response:
1. We believe evolutionists are as ignorant and delusional as you think we are, but the difference is that most creationists don't hate evolutionists ...
and we don't engage in name calling and insulting comments when debating.

2. Please submit any lies or misconceptions that you find on our site to info@whoisyourcreator.com. If they are proven correct, we will change them as we actually do appreciate a critical analysis of our information.

Second, in regard to my accusation made about legislation not allowing ANY critical analysis of evolution:

Go to
http://www.aibs.org/public-policy/evolution_state_news.html

The 'anti-evolution' bills are mostly ones that ONLY proposed allowing a critical analysis of evolution in the classrooms NOT the teaching of any alternatives, such as creationism and ID.

Also, go to:
FYI: Threats Remain for Evolution Education
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2008_01.html

Note in the letter:
"Although he seems to have received the memo from the Discovery Institute about not openly advocating for intelligent design to be taught in the schools, and instead to argue...'teach the controversy'..

Just in case you don't think evolution is a religion itself, here are two examples of the 'evolution thought police' in action:

1.In her Introduction to Human Genetics class at Normandale Community College in Bloomington, Minnesota, Priscilla Lundquist obediently wrote down the expected evolutionary answer for the following question:
Compare the following sequences. (Rat, chimp, human, rice, deer.) Which two organisms are the most closely related? Explain your answer.
In full accordance with evolutionary propaganda, she responded with, “The human and the chimp are supposedly the most closely related because their sequence here is the most similar.”
But, because she wrote on the side of the paper, “However, I believe that God created these species separately and what I just answered was a lie,“ Priscilla’s professor denied her credit. Only after pleading her case did she end up receiving full credit for her ‘correct’ answer.

2.“—the story of Don McDonald, who was forced to pledge allegiance to evolution while working on his sociology Ph.D., or he might not have been permitted to proceed onward with his dissertation.”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/dr_don_mcdonalds_persecution_s.html

If you do acknowledge, like most reasonable evolutionists do, that there is much to learn about how evolution supposedly works, why genotype-phenotype distinctions are often contradictory, the problems with the fossil record need to be solved, etc., please free to support the Academic Freedom Act. After all, what are you guys afraid of?

Proposed Federal Law for the Advancement of Science
A. It shall be unlawful for a teacher in a public school or a teacher in a public institution of higher education, which receives Federal financial assistance, to be terminated, disciplined, denied tenure, or otherwise discriminated against for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological evolution, or chemical evolution, or cosmological origins in any curricula or course of learning, provided that the subject matter has been taught as appropriate to the grade and subject assignment.

B. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but it shall be unlawful for any student in any public school or institution of higher education, which receives Federal financial assistance, to be penalized in any way because he or she may subscribe to a particular position on any views regarding biological evolution, or chemical evolution, or cosmological origins.

c. Nothing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.
http://www.academicfreedomact.org/

By the way, the 'mention' of God is NOT prohibited in the constitution nor is it related to establishing a religion. (Establishment clause.)

PvM: An excellent example of Morton's Demon. Glen Morton is, like me, a recovered Young Earth Creationist.

we don’t engage in name calling and insulting comments when debating.

Puh-lease. Are you delusional? I'm sure all the names you find over at UD (Darwinoids, etc.) are purely terms of endearment. You can find a ton of these just in Denyse's comments. And that's just one site on the web. I really love your "rules of engagement"--you insist everyone play fair, then you slip in a sucker punch.

By the way, the ‘mention’ of God is NOT prohibited in the constitution nor is it related to establishing a religion.

So a theocracy would be just fine by you? And why do you hate democracy so? You're not interested in equal perspectives, you know that you want only ONE perspective presented--your sectarian view. And your imaginary "evolution thought police" can't hold a candle to religious thought police. It doesn't take much to become persona non grata in your typical evangelical/fundamentalist church--just ask something like why couldn't God use evolution as his way of making life on this planet. Do something like that and you will find yourself just as ostracized as if they found out you voted for a Democrat.

In the end, you wouldn't know what "critical thinking" is if it bit you on the ass. You think that being critical of something is the same as critical thinking. Have you ever thought "critically" about creationism or intelligent design? I very much doubt it--it would be a sin for you.

With apologies to Lee Dorsey

Workin' in a quote mine
Goin' down down down
Workin' in a quote mine
Whop! about to slip down
Workin' in a quote mine
Goin' down down down
Workin' in a quote mine
Whop! about to slip down
Five o'clock in the mornin'
I'm all ready up and gone
Lord I am so tired
How long can this go on?

Workin’ in a quote mine, ...

LOL!

WIYC

So I checked out your website. And I read about the evidence that you propose is critical towards evolution. And I noticed something really, really funny. Lots of that evidence that you describe is published in mainline, scientific periodicals. So if scientists are so close-minded, if evolution is so dogmatic and if the public is being "indoctrinated", why can research which shows alternative interpretations of one of the most important fossil finds ever (Lucy) be published by said dogmatists? If your charges were true, then those scientists would not ever be allowed anywhere near a scientific publication. They would be hounded and ignored and denied tenure simply because they dared to "question" evolution.

As a teacher, I have no problem with looking critically at the processes of evolution - how genes lead to variation, what happens in development, how new species originate. I listened skeptically to punctuated equilibirium many years ago. I remember discussing in school the pros and cons of what was a ridiculous geologic theory many years ago - plate tectonics. I weigh competing evidence and sometimes find that an alternative explanation is valid. Your alternative explanation isn't valid. It doesn't explain squat. And I can't "teach" students anything with it.

Sigh.
The earth does not go around the sun, not exactly. Kepler's formulation was overthrown 4 centuries ago by Newton.
I suppose it's picky of me to point this out.

WIYC Response LIES: 1. We believe evolutionists are as ignorant and delusional as you think we are, but the difference is that most >creationists don’t hate evolutionists … and we don’t engage in name calling and insulting comments when debating.

There is a serious reign of terror by Xian fundie terrorists directed against the reality based academic community, specifically acceptors of evolution. I’m keeping a running informal tally, listed below. They include death threats, firings, attempted firings, assaults, and general persecution directed against at least 9 people. The Expelled Liars have totally ignored the ugly truth of just who is persecuting who. If anyone has more info add it. Also feel free to borrow or steal the list. I thought I’d post all the firings of professors and state officials for teaching or accepting evolution. 2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton) 1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet) 1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson IDist) 1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT Permian) 1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas) 1 assault, fired from chairman Paul Micecki (U. of Kansas) Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas Academy of Science engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists. Up to 9 with little effort. Probably there are more. I turned up a new one with a simple internet search. Haven’t even gotten to the secondary science school teachers.

WIYC:

Please answer the question I posed in comment 145776.

Can do we start quote mining them? "Intelligent design is ... creationism."

I don't debate with kooks.

Since it’s so simple, why don’t you share with the world the step-by-step genetic explanation of it occurring

WIYC: Quick rundown of how you get "more" information. Let's say you have a set of scrabble letters. You make a new scrabble set by making one duplicate each of all of the letters you have. If it always works perfectly, you always have the same number of letters in each. But let's say you do your division to make two sets, but then you don't get another box because the box is stuck in the doorway as you do this. You suddenly have one box with double the letters - double the information you had before. A dozen scenarios follow from this where you could duplicate the letters in your set many times over, generating "new" information.

How is this an advantage? Well, if you lose your Z or X from a single set, that's it. But if you have two Z's, you can lose one and still make most of the words you need to. The extra energy for upkeep is offset by the error tolerance gained through more letters.

Just so you know, meiosis is the opposite of this, where a set of copies splits into one copy each - and crossbreeding in plants can result in multiple sets beyond two copies of a set of genes - hexeploidy in one case, if I recall.

Pretty easy to see how you can start out with a lot more of the same information - and since we know that information can change over time ("variation within kinds" as you call it) - you put two - or six - together and you have evolution with new information.

The real driver of evolution is repetition and resulting error tolerance. An animal with two legs can't vary that much and survive- but the velvet worm arthropod ancestor has dozens of pairs of legs, so if one is no longer good for walking but makes a decent set of jaws, you get a centipede. Similarly an organism made up of more than one cell: some don't even have to survive to be useful.

PvM: Who is your Creator, this is about how ID creationists are quote mining the statements by scientists to serve their purpose. I understand you want to change the topic. I would be embarrassed too

who is your creator: This following is from Answers In Genesis and please refer to the link below for more detailed information: "Evolution, of the fish-to-philosopher type, requires that non-living chemicals organize themselves into a self-reproducing organism.

Are we making progress? The creationists (WiyC, WW) here are now openly admitting that they’re lying but trying to claim that their ends justify the means. Apparently that is what they mean by “academic freedom”

Nigel D asks:

(2) Do you agree with DI fellow Michael Behe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old?

(3) Do you agree with Michael Behe that the evidence for universal common ancestry is overwhelming?

Who Is Your Creator answers "No" to (2) and "Yes, and it points to God" to (3).

From the rest of your answer, I guess you mean "no" to (3), because "common ancestry" as understood by mainstream science and Michael Behe means a biological "tree of life" (nested hierarchies and all), not an "evolutionary lawn" descended from "God the common ancestor."

Rather than direct your long-refuted arguments to "evolutionists" (though I admit that that's a good tactic if you want to deflect attention from the fatal flaws and contradictions in anti-evolution positions) you really need to direct them to people like Behe, or Hugh Ross who agrees with you on (3) but not (2). Or perhaps learn from them that you are wrong.

Singling out only mainstream science and downplaying the same disagreements with advocates of other pseudoscientific position is a sign that your objection is emotional, not scientific.

who is your creator: 2. Please submit any lies or misconceptions that you find on our site to info@whoisyourcreator.com. If they are proven correct, we will change them as we actually do appreciate a critical analysis of our information.

The creationists (WiyC, WW) here are now openly admitting that they’re lying but trying to claim that their ends justify the means.

— Paul M

Thank you both for your examples of 'quote mining.' It is a gift that will keep on giving when we add your examples to OUR own websites! ("OUR" - As a matter of fact, yes, we are a type of 'collective,' just like evolutionists are.) Very funny!

While we don't feel the need to defend ourselves from the silly accusations, we did want to share with everyone the ironic turn of events, considering what the first post was all about!

My original posting:
2. Please submit any lies or misconceptions that you find on our site to info@whoisyourcreator.com. If they are proven correct, we will change them as we actually do appreciate a critical analysis of our information.

"PvM said:
Are we making progress? The creationists (WiyC, WW) here are now openly admitting that they’re lying but trying to claim that their ends justify the means. Apparently that is what they mean by “academic freedom”
A scary thought"

"J. Biggs said:
I love that you admit your site might contain lies and misconceptions. However, I find it dubious that you would change or remove anything, considering your woeful ignorance about even the basics of biology that you have demonstrated here. Anyway, if you removed all the lies and misconceptions on your site all that would be left is a blank page; what fun would that be? By the way what’s with the “we” thing, are you part of some kind of creo-collective?"

And, by the way, from the responses above ... should we assume no one could find any?

Thank you!
Who Is Your Creator

“PvM said: Are we making progress? The creationists (WiyC, WW) here are now openly admitting that they’re lying but trying to claim that their ends justify the means. Apparently that is what they mean by “academic freedom” A scary thought”

should we assume no one could find any?

As to the accuracy of your site, this is a task that you should take seriously yourself as your statements directly are tied to Christianity and any inaccuracy will be seen, rightly or not, as impacting the veracity of Christianity.

List to Augustine and avoid making Christianity look foolish by making foolish claims about science.

And, by the way, from the responses above … should we assume no one could find any?

And, by the way, from the responses above … should we assume no one could find any?

— WiyC

Funny! I'm looking at this:

http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/whats_more_scientific.html

....and it's a mostly blank page. Was it taken down earlier because it got critiqued to death? LOL!

Here's a strawman type argument:

http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/big_bang.html

The ‘Big Bang’ theory claims NOTHING formed a complex, orderly, and vast universe composed of over 100 billion galaxies that are minimally estimated to equal a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion tons of matter.

Nothing? Well, actually from a strictly scientific standpoint, we can't possibly support the assertion that the Big Bang came from "nothing" because we have no access, at least at the present time, to any evidence of what happened BEFORE the Big Bang.

Start off on the wrong foot and you won't go far at all.

Evolutionists accuse creationists of NOT being ‘enlightened,’ but then devise science fiction scenarios of star and planet formation that are pure nonsense and utterly unproven. The first glaring problem in the following hypothetical scenario is…where did the gases come from?

I guess the writer has no understanding of physical laws and how they work over long periods of time.

Outright libel is found here:

http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/natural_selection.html

Realizing that the word ‘random’ is a tough sell, evolutionists have decided to refer to evolution as being ‘deterministic’:

Must I point out that experts of evolution have ALWAYS understood and taught how the random and deterministic parts of natural slection work together to cause evolution?

More damning evidence:

http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/evolution_indoctrination_in_education.html

But instead of being confident that students will embrace evolution as fact when exposed to all the claimed ‘evidence, to support it, pro-evolution advocacy groups vehemently insist that absolutely NO discussion of the inconsistencies of evolution be allowed. In fact, most evolutionists are now demanding that word ‘theory’ be deleted because they don’t want to confuse students to think it’s not true.

That is NOT funny! There are NO inconsistencies in modern evolutionary theory, and we DO want it taught as a "theory" because we also want students to know what we mean by the word "theory", not the popular strawman type definition that Creationists take advantage of!

One more thing:

http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/about_us.html

We believe that God is The Creator, and that Jesus is The Way, The Truth, and The Life. Our hope is that we can Advance His Kingdom by countering the false foundations for the faith of evolution and to offer Christians more opportunities for sharing the Gospel.

Well, do you really think it proper to use scientific terminology and misrepresentations of science and your opponents to promote what you claim to be truth? Isn't that a blatant contradiction that will actually convert many people to atheism instead?

The ‘Big Bang’ theory claims NOTHING formed a complex, orderly, and vast universe composed of over 100 billion galaxies that are minimally estimated to equal a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion tons of matter.

In regard to several comments about our 'blank page,' please refer to my original comment:

Response:
1. One will be posted by next week on: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/whats_more_scienti…

Comment #145764 on March 11, 2008 7:15 AM | Quote

For those that didn't understand what that meant, it means 7 days from now.

I better get back to work to finish it up, but thank you all for the discourse and entertainment!

WIYC lying some more: We believe that God is The Creator, and that Jesus is The Way, The Truth, and The Life. Our hope is that we can Advance His Kingdom by countering the false foundations for the faith of evolution and to offer Christians more opportunities for sharing the Gospel.

You challenged:

"Since it’s so simple, why don’t you share with the world the step-by-step genetic explanation of it occurring and cite specific research that verifies your claim that it happens “relatively frequently”?"

A source was supplied within 3 minutes of your post. Do you agree you were mistaken?

You then claimed:

"Evolutionists are legislating all over the country to make sure that discussion in the flaws of evolution are NOT allowed."

You were repeatedly asked for proof of that statement. The best you could finally do is link to a clearing house tracking evolution related laws across the country. Not a single one of the tracked laws does what you claim.

Let me offer you some fraternal correction, brother. You have borne false witness. You have given non-Christians ample evidence to conclude that Christians are whited seplecures who must routinely lie to evangleize.

Your efforts to carry out the Great Commission are not appreciated. Please review the text of the Ten Commandments, especially Exodus, 20:16, learn some theology and then rededicate yourself to the Way, the Truth and the Light.

Paul M lied: Are we making progress? The creationists (WiyC, WW) here are now openly admitting that they're lying but trying to claim that their ends justify the means.

who is your creator: Second, in regard to my accusation made about legislation not allowing ANY critical analysis of evolution: Go to http://www.aibs.org/public-policy/evolution_state_news.html The 'anti-evolution' bills are mostly ones that ONLY proposed allowing a critical analysis of evolution in the classrooms NOT the teaching of any alternatives, such as creationism and ID.

who is your creator: Interesting debate: 1. Evolutionists are mad that the Discovery Institute made the claim that no serious discussions are allowed in education regarding the flaws in the theory of evolution. 2. Evolutionists are legislating all over the country to make sure they are NOT allowed. Would you like to get your stories straight or ban together with us to promote a critical analysis of evolution in education?

who is your creator: Thank you both for your examples of 'quote mining.' It is a gift that will keep on giving when we add your examples to OUR own websites! ("OUR" - As a matter of fact, yes, we are a type of 'collective,' just like evolutionists are.) Very funny!

[T]he Discovery Institute made the claim that ... evolution might work to create novel or more complex traits that create morphological changes.

Typical PT-mafia tactics, while PvM watches.

— Wallace

WIYC ignored my questions. Want to take a shot at it WW?

The ‘Big Bang’ theory claims NOTHING formed a complex, orderly, and vast universe composed of over 100 billion galaxies that are minimally estimated to equal a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion tons of matter.

Okay, that does it... Show some restraint or refrain from polluting the thread.

David Stanton wrote in comment 145776: As I see it, there are only two [possibilities] given the available evidence: either all [species] are descended from a single common ancestor; or God really, really wants us to think that they are. Take your pick.

Can you explain why you believe these are the only two possibilities?

PvM: Because the fact of common descent is pretty well supported that it is unlikely to be overthrown, so two possibilities remain given the available evidence.

There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution, because evolution is so well established that no new evidence is likely to substantially alter it.

William Wallace:

PvM: Because the fact of common descent is pretty well supported that it is unlikely to be overthrown, so two possibilities remain given the available evidence.

Deja vu

There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution, because evolution is so well established that no new evidence is likely to substantially alter it.

It occured to me that we should alway remember to point out that "quote mining" is lying.

Quote mining is lying, and Casey Luskin is a liar. Simple.

Dear "Who is your creator",

Why are you studiously avoiding the question, why did the Great
Creator create humans on a chimpanzee prototype?

I explained why your side is actually insulting God in this comment. Any response, buddy?

WW wrote:

"Can you explain why you believe these are the only two possibilities?"

Yes I can. There is only one reasonable interpretation of all of the available evidence. You have provided no argument to the contrary, therefore I am forced to presume that you agree. So, either the most reasonable interpretation is correct, or else God lied and really wants us to believe it for some reason.

Have you got a third alternative? What, maybe Zeus wants us to believe it, or space aliens planted all of the evidence? If you can't explain all of the evidence better than modern evolutionary theory then you lose, period.

Can you explain why you believe these are the only two possibilities?

— William Wallace

Have you got a third alternative?

— David Stanton

who is your creator: In reference to an above posting: To Who is your Creator, I have a few questions: (1) What scientific alternatives are there to modern evolutionary theory (MET)? What makes them scientific? (2) Do you agree with DI fellow Michael Behe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old? (3) Do you agree with Michael Behe that the evidence for universal common ancestry is overwhelming? (4) Do you agree with Michael Behe that most biological change over time is due to mechanisms described in MET (he claims simply that some biological change is not)? Response: 1. One will be posted by next week on: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/whats_more_scientific.html

2. No

3. Yes, and it points to God.

4. Variation within kinds, nothing else.

This following is from Answers In Genesis and please refer to the link below for more detailed information: "Evolution, of the fish-to-philosopher type, requires that non-living chemicals organize themselves into a self-reproducing organism.

All types of life are alleged to have descended, by natural, ongoing processes, from this ‘simple’ life form. For this to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the genetic information in living things today.

In contrast, creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25).

Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/re1/chapter2.asp

WIYC Response: 1. We believe evolutionists are as ignorant and delusional as you think we are, but the difference is that most creationists don’t hate evolutionists

— WIYC

… and we don’t engage in name calling and insulting comments when debating.

Just in case you don’t think evolution is a religion itself,

— WIYC

here are two examples of the ‘evolution thought police’ in action: 1.In her Introduction to Human Genetics class at Normandale Community College in Bloomington, Minnesota, Priscilla Lundquist obediently wrote down the expected evolutionary answer for the following question: Compare the following sequences. (Rat, chimp, human, rice, deer.) Which two organisms are the most closely related? Explain your answer. In full accordance with evolutionary propaganda, she responded with, “The human and the chimp are supposedly the most closely related because their sequence here is the most similar.” But, because she wrote on the side of the paper, “However, I believe that God created these species separately and what I just answered was a lie,“ Priscilla’s professor denied her credit.

Only after pleading her case did she end up receiving full credit for her ‘correct’

answer.

Larry, that's not quote mining as we define it. Judge Jones got the meaning and the intent of the original writer right. It seems you are grabbing at straws.

Do you EVER tell the truth around here? It seems not, and as long as we catch you lying, you should be censored.

ABC/Larry, Pim is not censoring your comments. You have been banned for violating rules of conduct on this board. If your comments are not removed, it sets a poor example and lets everyone know that it is OK to break the rules and post comments using other people's screen names. I remember very well that you were warned to discontinue your shenanigans or there would be consequences, yet you persisted. I'm sorry but you are solely to blame for this and I think you should give Pim and everyone else a break and quit posting comments at PT.

Please feel free to move this comment to the bathroom wall with Larry's.

Dunghill, I am as entitled to express my opinion here as anyone else.

Luskin's manner of quote-mining is very similar to what other ID advocates routinely use - see, for example, how Wells similarly manipulated "quotes," as documented here

arbitrary censorship of comments?

now you're "Arbitrary"?

I thought your name was Larry.

So it appears that Luskin is at worst just guilty of a poor word choice. IMO any misrepresentation of the NAS’s position was too subtle to have been deliberate.

— ABC / Larry

ABC/Larry: I am behaving myself. I am staying on topic and I use less profanity than other commenters.

Dembski's UD does not display logos of blogging awards & honors. PT owes something to those organizations that gave the awards & honors.

Does PvM "own" this blog? What about all the other co-bloggers here? Do they all approve of PvM's damaging PT's reputation by his arbitrary censorship of comments?

PvM is showing “reckless disregard of whether” those charges are “true or false.” I think that Casey could even win a libel lawsuit against PvM.

It is obvious that PvM is using my alleged past misconduct as a pretext for covering up the truth about Casey Luskin and Judge Jones.

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Yer not the boss of me, now / Yer not the boss of me, now / Yer not the boss of me, now and yer not sooo great...