Science and religion aren’t friends By Jerry A. Coyne

Standard
Religion in America is on the defensive.

Atheist books such as The God Delusion and The End of Faith have, by exposing the dangers of faith and the lack of evidence for the God of Abraham, become best-sellers. Science nibbles at religion from the other end, relentlessly consuming divine explanations and replacing them with material ones. Evolution took a huge bite a while back, and recent work on the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our personality or behavior distinct from the lump of jelly in our head. We now know that the universe did not require a creator. Science is even studying the origin of morality. So religious claims retreat into the ever-shrinking gaps not yet filled by science. And, although to be an atheist in America is still to be an outcast, America’s fastest-growing brand of belief is non-belief.

But faith will not go gentle. For each book by a “New Atheist,” there are many others attacking the “movement” and demonizing atheists as arrogant, theologically ignorant, and strident. The biggest area of religious push-back involves science. Rather than being enemies, or even competitors, the argument goes, science and religion are completely compatible friends, each devoted to finding its own species of truth while yearning for a mutually improving dialogue.

As a scientist and a former believer, I see this as bunk. Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible, and for precisely the same reason that irrationality and rationality are incompatible. They are different forms of inquiry, with only one, science, equipped to find real truth. And while they may have a dialogue, it’s not a constructive one. Science helps religion only by disproving its claims, while religion has nothing to add to science.

Irreconcilable

“But surely,” you might argue, “science and religion must be compatible. After all, some scientists are religious.” One is Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian. But the existence of religious scientists, or religious people who accept science, doesn’t prove that the two areas are compatible. It shows only that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time. If that meant compatibility, we could make a good case, based on the commonness of marital infidelity, that monogamy and adultery are perfectly compatible. No, the incompatibility between science and faith is more fundamental: Their ways of understanding the universe are irreconcilable.

Science operates by using evidence and reason. Doubt is prized, authority rejected. No finding is deemed “true” — a notion that’s always provisional — unless it’s repeated and verified by others. We scientists are always asking ourselves, “How can I find out whether I’m wrong?” I can think of dozens of potential observations, for instance — one is a billion-year-old ape fossil — that would convince me that evolution didn’t happen.

Physicist Richard Feynman observed that the methods of science help us distinguish real truth from what we only want to be true: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”

Science can, of course, be wrong. Continental drift, for example, was laughed off for years. But in the end the method is justified by its success. Without science, we’d all live short, miserable and disease-ridden lives, without the amenities of medicine or technology. AsStephen Hawking proclaimed, science wins because it works.

Does religion work? It brings some of us solace, impels some to do good (and others to fly planes into buildings), and buttresses the same moral truths embraced by atheists, but does it help us better understand our world or our universe? Hardly. Note that almost all religions make specific claims about the world involving matters such as the existence of miracles, answered prayers wonder-working saints and divine cures, virgin births, annunciations and resurrections. These factual claims, whose truth is a bedrock of belief, bring religion within the realm of scientific study. But rather than relying on reason and evidence to support them, faith relies on revelation, dogma and authority. Hebrews 11:1 states, with complete accuracy, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Indeed, a doubting-Thomas demand for evidence is often considered rude.

And this leads to the biggest problem with religious “truth”: There’s no way of knowing whether it’s true. I’ve never met a Christian, for instance, who has been able to tell me what observations about the universe would make him abandon his beliefs in God and Jesus. (I would have thought that the Holocaust could do it, but apparently not.) There is no horror, no amount of evil in the world, that a true believer can’t rationalize as consistent with a loving God. It’s the ultimate way of fooling yourself. But how can you be sure you’re right if you can’t tell whether you’re wrong?

The religious approach to understanding inevitably results in different faiths holding incompatible “truths” about the world. Many Christians believe that if you don’t accept Jesus as savior, you’ll burn in hell for eternity. Muslims hold the exact opposite: Those who see Jesus as God’s son are the ones who will roast. Jews see Jesus as a prophet, but not the messiah. Which belief, if any, is right? Because there’s no way to decide, religions have duked it out for centuries, spawning humanity’s miserable history of religious warfare and persecution.

In contrast, scientists don’t kill each other over matters such as continental drift. We have better ways to settle our differences. There is no Catholic science, no Hindu science, no Muslim science — just science, a multicultural search for truth. The difference between science and faith, then, can be summed up simply: In religion faith is a virtue; in science it’s a vice.

But don’t just take my word for the incompatibility of science and faith — it’s amply demonstrated by the high rate of atheism among scientists. While only 6% of Americans are atheists or agnostics, the figure for American scientists is 64%, according to Rice professor Elaine Howard Ecklund’s book, Science vs. Religion. Further proof: Among countries of the world, there is a strong negative relationship between their religiosity and their acceptance of evolution. Countries like Denmark and Sweden, with low belief in God, have high acceptance of evolution, while religious countries are evolution-intolerant. Out of 34 countries surveyed in a study published in Science magazine, the U.S., among the most religious, is at the bottom in accepting Darwinism: We’re No. 33, with only Turkey below us. Finally, in a 2006 Time poll a staggering 64% of Americans declared that if science disproved one of their religious beliefs, they’d reject that science in favor of their faith.

‘Venerable superstition’

In the end, science is no more compatible with religion than with other superstitions, such as leprechauns. Yet we don’t talk about reconciling science with leprechauns. We worry about religion simply because it’s the most venerable superstition — and the most politically and financially powerful.

Why does this matter? Because pretending that faith and science are equally valid ways of finding truth not only weakens our concept of truth, it also gives religion an undeserved authority that does the world no good. For it is faith’s certainty that it has a grasp on truth, combined with its inability to actually find it, that produces things such as the oppression of women and gays, opposition to stem cell research and euthanasia, attacks on science, denial of contraception for birth control and AIDS prevention, sexual repression, and of course all those wars, suicide bombings and religious persecutions.

And any progress — not just scientific progress — is easier when we’re not yoked to religious dogma. Of course, using reason and evidence won’t magically make us all agree, but how much clearer our spectacles would be without the fog of superstition!

Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago. His latest book is Why Evolution is True, and his website is www.whyevolutionistrue.com.

 

Advertisements

78 thoughts on “Science and religion aren’t friends By Jerry A. Coyne

  1. A commenter on Jerry Coyne’s original article:

    “Atheism is not a religion, it is a personal relationship with reality.”

    Since Dawkins, Hitchens, P Z Myers, Coyne and others have started writing about the reality of being an atheist, the godbots have had to see their delusional world attacked by the up-till-now silent bystanders.

    But wait until the wheel picks up speed – this wheel will amputate religiose heads.

    Like

  2. Ah Savage, how I hope you are correct. I want to agree with you, but I think RSA (and probably USA) still have a long way to go. The other day I was treated by a medical docter and while treating me he made a few remarks on his belief in his god. A medical docter!

    Another example is the Stellenbosch University lecturer with a Phd in Physics (Dr Bis van der Ventel) that is an outspoken creationist that believes in a 6000 year old earth, 6 day creation etc. This guy refers people to the apologetic website “creation.com” (go visit it for a good laugh – really funny). He often writes on the Kerkbode online site, (www.kerkbode.co.za) and is at loggerheads with the NG church that has a more liberal viewpoint (difficult to believe, but true). To top it all, Dr van der Ventel is from a previously disadvantaged grouping that suffered under Apartheid, but is still blind to the dangers of religous dogma. Simply mindblowingly astonishing.

    Like

  3. Malherbe, perhaps I am optimistic to predict rationality will kill religion – I find it inconceivable that people who spend a little time reading scientific findings, can still believe in one or other god.

    This dr. van der Ventel is obviously a loon. How can a renowned university like Stellenbosch keep him on? Another loon at US was Martin Breytenbach (PhD in chemistry) who sowed his crackpottery on the now defunct Prometheus blog. (Though I think US finally got rid of him.)

    Crackpots who are educated in science (I don’t call them scientists because science and religion are incompatible) are obviously in the minority, but another classic one is Kurt Wise. He got his PhD in geology and palaeontology under Stephen Jay Gould (no less), but is a young earth creationist (YEC) and the Director of Creation Research Center at Truett-McDonnell College. How can a person get a PhD in science at a good university and be a creationist? The workings of the human brain are still very much an unknown, I think, or the poison of religion can dominate and erase any rationality.

    Like

  4. “It is better to be high-spirited even though one makes more mistakes, than to be narrow-minded and all to prudent.”
    ~ Vincent van Gogh

    Cheers !!!!!

    Like

  5. You right, rationality will kill religion but not REVELATION!

    Rejoice Dr Brandon! You are being persecuted for your faith in Christ Jesus.

    Like

  6. Ag please Justin. Get a life and then acquire some honesty too. You Crushtians just looove the pe persecuted and play martyr. Who is persecuting your Dr Brandon? If anything, he is sidelining himself in acadmic circles. Get an education and read a bit of history – shouldn’t take long for you to realise that the religiots of this world are the champions of persecution. Ever heard of a war faught for non-belief?

    Like

  7. So what is your qualification malherbe, clearly you don’t have the GUTS to say what’s on your mind in Dr. van der Ventel’s face, now you choosing this platform to dis him. Oh sorry you wouldn’t know what dis means. and yes this is just another example of what a Coward you are, because you couldn’t even speak your mind to the medical doctor and challenge him, cause you are to afraid of being challenge by someone with a qualification. Do me a favour, or should I say do yourself a favour and prove to us that you can re-create the atmosphere. Until then you shut up and keep your comments to yourself, cause clearly the above experiment has not been proven.

    Like

  8. SNJ, this van der Ventel says Earth is 6 000 years old. That means he is a nut, a crackpot, a loon no matter how you look at him, PhD and all. I feel sorry for the patients who visit this asshole when they are ill. Could you imagine the medicine he will give you? Snake-oil, dulsies and paragorie.

    Like

  9. Clearly his credentials speaks WAY louder than your opinions that why the University found it fit to keep him as a lecturer. Another thing SAVAGE, why do you swear at Jesus if you believe he doesn’t exist, clearly you must be swearing at something or someone. Also Dr van der vVentel is not a medical doctor, Please read Malherbe’s comments before you raise your opinion

    Like

  10. What scientific evidince, and I speak of accurate hard core proven evidence do you have that the earth is older than 6000yrs. And Please don’t come to me about the whole dinosaur CRAP, that’s not even a subject in school to cover. The only place you hear about it is in a Museum. Pls Pls Pls, do me the favour & try to recreate the atmosphere. If you can get that right, thats if you get it right, I’ll be impressed with science

    Like

  11. SNJ, I never said v d Ventel is a medical doctor. He is a physicist who thinks Earth is 6000 years old. I have tried to find where he refutes the science of radio metric dating, but cannot find any. V d Ventel is a dishonest individual. He gets a PhD in physics, but deep down does not believe in the science he studies. If he openly advocates his creationism, the university will get rid of him as they got rid of Bredenkamp. I can give you many examples how science determines the age of planet Earth. Your job is to show where and why scientists are wrong, without reverting to you book od fables, called the bible.

    Btw, JFC is a nice word configuration – how nice to get you cretins up in arms about a hippie who bullshitted the world for 2000 years. Fuck, but you guys are bumb.

    Like

  12. oh before I forget, Id rather be a freak or a FOOL in your eyes & believe in the Trinity (Father, Son & Holy Spirit to be more specific) and find out in the after life that they don’t exist, than not to believe and get a wake up call on the other side that they actually do. Also my Name is written in the Palm of His hands & yes he know everything about me, & YEs he created the universe & yes the Great Flood did happen & yes the Red Sea did open & Yes God became flesh, cause he is God & He can do anything that he wants to. Oh & He died for My SINS, So its doesn’t really matter what science come up with on a daily basis, its still not going to convince me that He is not alive cause he Proved Himself over & over in my life. To hell with science. I’m just glad that you have scientist that still believes in God the Creator.

    Last thought, God Loves You, whether you believe it or not & there is still GRACE (God Riches At Christ Expense) while you are walking on this 6000yr old earth

    Like

  13. SNJ, you are clearly a loon. You must be pissed at your gods for making you stand in the back of the line when they handed out brains. Or maybe this is just another example of how a lifetime of religion rots away healthy brains.

    Btw, your religion is nothing but a death cult. You believe all the good shit starts after you die, as long as you didn’t do any “unpure” things with your sexual organs and your imagination. Pathetic at best.

    Your gods are a pretty mean and sick bunch. Flood the earth and kills every person on it, except those lucky bastards who got onto the ark. Seems to me every time your god did something in the old testament the human race got regulated to another big spell of total inbreeding. That would explain a lot.

    Your rants on this blog proves to everyone that you are extremely uninformed in anything scientific. A godbot that will follow any scoundrel with a bible under his arm to the ends of the earth.

    One more thing. Do you realize what a sick bastard your holy ghost is? Look at all the suffering on the planet. If he can do whatever he wants, as you put it, why doesn’t he help those millions of children that die around the world every year? Why did he let the tsunami in 2004 and the Japan tsunamis kill so many?

    I still have to bump into one of your brain dead zombie morons who can give me a clear answer on that question.

    Happy grovelling in front of your invisible friends SNJ. Don’t hurt your knees.

    Like

  14. JFC Savage. I tried to read the article the good Dr BIS van der Ventel wrote about evolution. I have a headache right now. To be honest I couldn’t even get to the end of the article. How does a brain dead moron like this get a job at Stellenbosch University?

    Like

  15. On “God Loves You, whether you believe it or not & there is still GRACE (God Riches At Christ Expense) while you are walking on this 6000yr old earth”
    Thank You SNJ ! Thank You SO MUCH for the great laugh … always need a good FN laughter !!!!!

    Grace definition –noun
    1. elegance or beauty of form, manner, motion, or action.
    Synonyms: attractiveness, charm, gracefulness, comeliness, ease, fluidity. Antonyms: stiffness, ugliness, awkwardness, clumsiness, klutziness.
    2. a pleasing or attractive quality or endowment.
    3. favor or goodwill. Synonyms: kindness, kindliness, love, condescension.
    4. a manifestation of favor, especially by a superior. Synonyms: forgiveness, charity, mercifulness. Antonyms: animosity, enmity, disfavor.
    5. mercy, clemency, pardon. Synonyms: lenity, leniency, reprieve. Antonyms: harshness.

    That is a very small definition and explanation of the word grace from the dictionary; also understood and translated worldwide in many different languages.

    Your grace acronym only works in the English Language and therefore makes sense only to your fellow imaginary-friend-called-god English speakers worshippers !

    In Spanish, Grace = Gracia … How does that acronym work now ? Please let me know … OMG I’m confused !!!!!

    God=Dios=Allah=Dieu=Gott=Deus=Dio=Code=Zot=Jainkoaren=Gог=Déu=Bog=Bůh=Gud=Jumal=Diyos=Bondye=Isten=Guð=Tuhan=Dia=Dievs=Dumnezeu=Boh=Mungu=Tanrı=Thiên Chúa=Duw= etc.

    So many different names, so many different faces without adding the Asian Languages and all the others that use symbols and not our standard set of letters.

    So SNJ ! Before you tell us and our children what G.R.A.C.E means on the World Wide Web, get some R.E.S.E.A.R.C.H. done and your neurons will thank you !

    And BTW sorry to burst your bubble >> B.I.B.L.E doesn’t mean “Basic Instructions before Leaving Earth” either.
    I found one that fits far more better >> B.I.B.L.E = Blinded Information Based on Lack of Evidence !!!!!

    Like

  16. Excellent Juliet K…..and very true.

    SNJ, apologies for replying so late to your unfounded, and might I add, poorly written accusations directed at me. I will try to keep my answers to you short and simple, because you clearly did not understand anything I was attempting to convey in my earlier entries.

    1) My qualifications: Lets assume that like you, I also have a Gr 4 behind my name. What does this prove? Does it prove that one educated PhD person is correct in his laughable statements regarding a 6000 year old earth?
    2) If education is so important to you, why do you not put any value to the 99.9% scientists (PhD or otherwise) that will without doubt equate Van der Ventel’s opinions with pure, unadulterated lunacy?
    3) Your statement regarding me not taking on the medical doctor on his dogmatic belief – what makes you think that I did not take him on? If you knew me, you will know that one of my (many) shortcomings is the inability to keep my mouth shut. This has indeed landed me many-a-times in hot water with the Missus. The medical doctor I was refering to, also happens to be a very good friend that I have known since childhood. For this reason, I will not elaborate as to the reasons for his dogmatic stance.
    4) Your ridiculous challenge to me to prove the creation of the atmosphere: Assuming I could not prove it SNJ, what does this prove? Do you not see the errors of your argument? Why is it that when science cannot prove something, the godbots jump up with an ” Aaaah, you see, that proves there must be a god.” Ever heard of the “God-of-the-gaps” theory”. If not, google it and learn. The priciple is simple: The mere fact that science cannot explain everything, can never serve as proof for the supernatural. If anything, it is proof of the honesty of scientific methodology.

    SNJ, your comments, sadly proves the dangers of religious dogma. It proves that lazy thought patterns are propagated by religion. If I cannot explain something, the “goddidit” explanation will suffice. Sad, very sad indeed.

    Like

  17. I have a degree in Chemical Biology majoring in Chemistry, Microbiology and Biochemistry and I am a strong Christian believer after believing initially in evolution due to my many years of such schooling (as is the case with most students). Before I start, I will mention that Jerry Coyne states many arguments here that have already been addressed, explained and refuted by Creationist scientists as well as Christians (just do some research). Thus, these arguments should not be viewed as new and originally thought of by him. It is a disappointing article in the journalistic sense as he does not address the subject from both views, but mostly from his own personal view. Firstly also, Christianity should not be equated with “all religions” as it is distinctly different. There are many fundamental differences between religions, so it is a mistake to blame them all for the same things like bombings and aeroplanes into buildings. This article sounds a lot like ranting and raving in a controlled manner. Another important thing is that he should not equate the words ‘science’ with the ‘theory of evolution’. There is operational experimental science and then there is theoretical science. He makes the mistake of equating experimental science (technology, pharmaceutical drugs, medicine, transport, etc.) with the theory of evolution (which is theoretical science) and calls them by the same name, i.e. ‘science’. This is known as the bait-and-switch method. It is a clever and manipulative use of words.
    The theory of evolution is still highly debateable and for very good reasons. After all, no scientist was there at the beginning of the universe. How can the events be tested today? The theories (like the big bang and evolution) are ‘supported’ though by a lot of assumption and speculation, even mathematically so. It is a mistake to read a little about this and then to make a decision, but to thoroughly investigate these claims. Unfortunately, most lay people cannot accurately investigate these claims and take scientists’ and the media’s word for it (especially with popular books like Stephen Hawking’s). So what’s wrong with taking the eye-witnesses of the Bible’s word for it?
    “Science nibbles at religion from the other end…”
    No Jerry, there you just mixed up the words again: You should have said “the theory of evolution supposedly (by atheists) nibbles…”
    Jerry, unwittingly and very unscientifically calls our brains a “lump of jelly in our head”. The same argument was used to justify abortion. They said that a foetus is just a ‘lump of jelly’ – which is not true and the same with the brain. A scientist should know that the human brain is immensely complex and not yet fully understood (it probably will never be). It is more complex than the most sophisticated computer on this planet. Even one human cell is unimaginably, astoundingly complex and researchers are even finding now that so-called archaebacteria (‘primitive’ bacteria) are complex and organised; contrary to previous beliefs. By demeaning the complexity of the body, scientists can make the theory of evolution (chance, random, formation of living organisms) more plausible. Darwin did not, at his time, know the complexity of a human cell and also thought it to be a ‘lump of jelly’, incorrectly. Yet, the biologists today, know firsthand, the beauty and organisational complexity of DNA, replication, and of a single human cell. It is more sophisticated and intelligent than any man-made factory in the world today and it too is not yet fully understood. Scientists are finding even greater and greater complexity and intelligence in the design of the human cell in a way they did not expect.
    “…and recent work on the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our personality or behavior distinct from the lump of jelly in our head”
    How do scientists test for souls and spirits etc.(or even for morality or where it began)? I’d really like to know. Then ask yourself what assumptions those ‘tests’ are based on and how plausible those assumptions are. For instance, what are they assuming the spirit or soul is made of, and where did they get that info. Also, how do they assume or expect to detect such a thing? Then ask yourself; once they have collected their ‘data’, what method do they use or how do they interpret it? This man is making huge claims, i.e. the soul has been disproved (I’m trying not to laugh). All people should investgate the ‘science’ behind this claim and not just take this man’s word for it.
    “We now know that the universe did not require a creator”
    How do we now know this? Is that when you assume that the theory of evolution is correct? So, if there really was a God (which I truly believe there is), how could a scientist, a human man (possibly thought to be ape-descended) prove or disprove His existence? Do you think it’s possible? How does random chance processes intelligently design and create a world like ours? How does an ‘unintelligent force’ devoid of a will or other human attributes “create”, “foresee”, “expect”, “desire”, etc.? These are the verbs attributed (in scientific journals and textbooks) to a non-living ‘mother nature’: the creator, which is not a Creator of all things we see today? I just think that some people are trying very hard to leave God out of the picture and to replace him with something else that we need not be accountable to.
    “So religious claims retreat into the ever-shrinking gaps not yet filled by science”
    Some are leaving the faith because they believe that scientists are infallible and that the Bible is not. They also do not ask, investigate or research, but basically read articles like this and believe every single word of it. Basically, they do not lose their faith, but transfer it to guys like this Jerry guy. People, please don’t bank your eternity on Jerry’s words. Don’t think to say to God one day, “But Jerry said…” That won’t be an acceptable excuse.
    “As a scientist and a former believer … Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible…”
    Yes, the theory of evolution and the Christian faith are incompatible, I would agree, but no sir; experimental science and the Bible are not incompatible. Because, as a scientist and a former evolutionist, I see that Christianity and science are compatible. But let us be careful, what we willy-nilly name as science. Words are very important and can be manipulated to bring across a certain bias. Some even believe that giving something a name makes it true and ‘scientific’.

    Like

  18. Statistics: How many scientists believe in God

    msnbc.com:

    “Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists — people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology — said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

    In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.

    “Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite,” Ecklund said.

    Some stand-out statistics: 41 percent of the biologists don’t believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.

    In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.

    “Now we must examine the nature of these differences,” Ecklund said today. “Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who don’t believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They have a way outside of themselves that they use to understand the meaning of life.”

    Ecklund and colleagues are now conducting longer interviews with some of the participants to try and figure it all out.””

    _ By Robert Roy Britt

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/scientists-belief-god-varies-discipline/

    Like

  19. Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626): “A little philosophy inclineth man’s minds about to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds to religion”

    “…the existence of religious scientists, or religious people who accept science, doesn’t prove that the two areas are compatible…”

    Surely, I agree. The same way that the existence of atheistic scientists does not prove that the two areas are incompatible, right? So it cancels out. So why the statistics about the majority of American atheistic scientists? And what were their disciplines? That is an important question.

    Why would Christianity be on the defensive when the atheists are vastly outnumbered in this world? I would think it is the atheists that have a chip on the shoulder and something to prove.
    “I can think of dozens of potential observations, for instance — one is a billion-year-old ape fossil — that would convince me that evolution didn’t happen.”
    (Here’s a typo error, I believe, wiht the word “didn’t”). What intermediate life forms were found that stood up in the face of scrutiny? Yes, there were hoaxes: the fused Piltdown man skull believed as that of ape-man for 40 years by scientists who researched it thoroughly, the Nebraska man pig’s tooth thought to be that of an ape-man missing link, Haeckel’s diagram still found in textbooks today that fraudulently makes human embryos look like other animal embryos implying that humans go through a fish stage etc. The list goes on. There are no missing links found. Where are the millions of intermediate life forms (like the crocodile-duck) that Darwin predicted should be found all over the fossil record within 150 years that has now expired? The media is always ready to promote the initial “potential” find, as you called them, but no feedback once the research is done and the fossil is found to be just another ancient ape! People are not allowed to know that the find was not a missing link. This doesn’t sound like scientists who are rational and logical: its sounds like men and women who are eager and desperate to prove to the world that their faith (that of no Creator) is correct. How can we trust Jerry Coyne’s ‘rational and logical’ brain if it’s just a lump of jelly that formed by random processes with no direction whatsoever? How can such a brain know what truth is? A billion year old fossil? How can we trust dating methods if they cannot even date artifacts of known age correctly? Do geologists not date the same artifact differently based on their prior belief of evolution and it’s time periods (mesozoic, triassic, jurassic, etc.)? Are not dinosaurs very often found rapidly buried in sediment by some sudden cataclysmic event all around the world, along with modern day animals like turtles? The other modern day animals buried at the same time with the dinosaurs are not put together with it in museum displays.
    “Does religion work? … but does it better help us to understand our world or our universe?”
    Well, yes, Christianity does. It helps me understand where I came from, where I’m going and why I’m here. Whereas, according to Jerry Coyne’s atheism, he is purposeless and his existence is purposeless. He is a speck in the universe and not worth anything at all. His emotions mean nothing, his thoughts mean nothing and his beliefs mean nothing, because he was formed by a purposeless, directionless process of inorganic and organic chemical molecules. Basically, he is a ball of molecules. For him life should mean nothing and death too. Why does he even care what I believe?

    Like

  20. “Well, yes, Christianity does. It helps me understand where I came from, where I’m going and why I’m here.”

    Were you there when, as you claim, your god created the world? Were you there when Moses came down the mountain with the written 10 commandments? Did you inspect Mary to verify she gave virgin birth?

    What a stupid question – “were you there to verify things”.

    You say you have a degree in “Chemical Biology majoring in Chemistry, Microbiology and Biochemistry.” That means nothing to the Scientific Method. Read “The Eighth Day of Creation”, by Horace Freeland Judson to educate you how science is done, and especially in your field. And those scientists never saw any god in their research.

    Show me your god. You cannot. Until you do, their is not much of an argument in “were you there?

    Like

  21. Aijajai…where to begin. Tracy, may I ask if you were religous during your education? If this is the case, it cexplains your warped opinion on science and the method of science. It also illustrates clearly why religion is dangerous – I will bet my last penny that you, Tracy, equipped with a smart brain, would have zero problem with evolution had it not been for you religous background. I was where you are right now and understand the conflicts you are probably experiencing. Honesty is a difficut thing when faced with the likelyhood of removing a life-long comfort blanket. As I have stated so many tmes before – the mere fact that a need for the supernatural (who does not want to live forever?), does not prove the truth of the dogma. You make the sad but obvious error so typical of religous arguments – you first accept your god as the truth, and then look for proof. This is inherently unscientific, but even worse, it will “force” you to apply dishonesty in achieving your goal.

    A word on evlution – do yourself a favour and read Dawkins’ “Greatest Show on Earth”. Can’t harm, can it? I ask this of you, because most of the arguments you raise above gets hammered with the greatest of ease in this work. You should find it interesting since it touches on your study field on more than one occasion.

    One question Tracy: do you believe in a 6 000 – 10 000 year old earth?

    Like

  22. Tracy, you have a diatribe against Jerry Coyne and the theory of evolution. You are trained to be able to understand the theory of evolution, but your education has no chance to succeed against your Christian religion’s virus of the mind. This virus destroys any rational thinking. Critical analyses are flayed by the whip and sword of your religion. Where as a scientist, you should insist (and I’m sure you do) on verified experimentation to prove an idea, an hypothesis, a theory. Now why don’t you demand the same rigor demanded by your training in science, to prove your Christian religion’s claims? How could you believe the following stories from the Bible?

    The parting of the Dead Sea waters by Moses.
    The fall of the walls of Jericho due to the blowing of ram horns.
    Elijah’s ascension to heaven in a chariot of fire.
    The virgin birth.
    Jesus raises Lazarus who has been dead for four days.
    The resurrection of Jesus.
    The Ascension of Jesus.
    Joshua made the Sun stand still.

    Let me discuss only the last one. It must be fair to realise that Joshua thought he had stopped the Sun moving (everybody then thought the Sun revolved around the Earth), but he actually had stopped the Earth spinning on its axis. If the Earth had stopped spinning, the atmosphere would then still have been in motion. Winds at speeds of over 1500 kilometres per hour would have put a quick stop to Joshua and the Israelites fighting the Amorites. (Not to mention the waters of the oceans overflowing the coastlines of continents in mighty tidal waves and tsunamis travelling hundreds of kilometres per hour.)

    And you believe these stories? Or are you also wading in the murky waters of so many scientific Christians where they choose metaphor where the Bible story is just too ridiculously false to be taken as fact.

    Tracy, I think you have a great deal of critical thinking ahead of you. Good luck.

    Like

  23. Mr Coyne, evolutionists and atheists: How did the first cell form (by chemical evolution)? How did the first amino acid or protein form? From simple chemistry, one should know that an amino acid or protein unravels (denatures) in lots of water as the formation of an amino acid or proteins must produce water by a condensation reaction. Thus, by Le Chateliers Principle, which all should know from high school; the reaction of protein precursors tp protein will not occurr, but will go in the reverse direction, i.e. towards the reactanta and not the protein product. Thus it could not have formed in the ocean. So, if chemical evolution is impossible in the ocean, then where did it occur? In the atmosphere, in the sand? How is it that our bodies’ proteins fit together in a lock-and-key manner to form the molecules that are the building blocks of life. How clever non-intelligent Mother Nature is! (hehe, sarcasm)The WISTAR symposium (I think it’s called), held by mathematicians, calculated mathematically, that chance formation of the world we see today by Darwin’s theory of evolution is a MAJOR impossibility even in infinite time. The Big Bang theory is having so much problems in the face of astronomical evidence, based on planets being too young, having reverse spin and planets that are still cooling down, the absence antimatter, etc. The atheist’s Genesis: In the beginning … there was NOTHING, then the nothing EXPLODED into the immense intelligence, design, complexity and order that we see today.
    If the first step in the theory: chemical evolution cannot be explained along with 99% of the scientitific “how” of the theory of evolution, how can they even attempt to explain the rest of it?

    Like

  24. “Science operates by using evidence and reason”
    Yes, it should, but people (scientists and others) and their interpretations are not infallible. So where is the tangible evidence for the theory of evolution?
    Many Creationist scientists know the Bible, i.e. have read, studied and discussed it their whole lives; they also endured 15+ years of evolutionary indoctrination, questioning-intolerance and force-feeding at their academic institutions; they also most likely at some point believed in evolution and then began to study both sides of the arguments. You see, Creationist scientists very often have seen all sides of the story, the arguments for and against the theory of evolution. Yet, as this article proves, many evolutionists do not know the Bible, have not read it cover to cover and do not know the Christian or Creationist arguments against the theory of evolution. So who’s narrow and one-track minded? Many evolutionists only know the arguments for the theory and have not investigated counter arguments. This is a very unscientific method. Thus, we often see the regurgitation of the same moans and complaints against the Bible, theists and creationism over and over. Jerry Coyne did not do his homework before he typed this piece of unoriginal work.
    Atheists also seem to HATE Christians and the Bible? Why? Why do they hate a God that supposedly does not exist in their minds? They call Christians names (evident by some of these comments), they blaspheme against God, the Holy Spirit, the Lord Jesus, who all supposedly never existed. Now this is ironic and oxy-MORONIC, don’t you think? Why do they care what we believe, I mean, really? Please see an article based on this subject: http://creation.com/atheist-god-hate.
    “Indeed, a doubting-Thomas demand for evidence is often considered rude”
    Now you see; this is incorrect for Christianity. Perhaps Mr Coyne forgot the following verse from when he was a believer:
    “Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thess. 5:21, 22)
    Christians are encouraged to question and test things. I have never been shut up for asking questions about the Bible. I have experienced antagonism by lecturers though on the questioning of Darwin’s theory. It was almost in every biological class that the opening lecture would start with how the lecture hall would not be the place to question the theory of evolution. I have had lecturers and students insult me for questioning it. I wasn’t just seen as rude: I was seen as a menace that needed to be stopped. Yes, so much for impartial, truth-seeking scientists. I had red-faced, aggravated lecturers rush to their cars when I met them after class to discuss the shortcomings of the theory and the scientific evidence against it as well as the poor math, methods and applied bias behind some genetic evolutionary theory. Yes, it’s a mountain of “Don’t go there” that a questioning student receives from some scientists. Even Dr Van der Ventel (and you should see his impressive publication list on Nuclear Physics, from which Ecology is a mathematical far cry) had his colleagues dump the magazine in the bin. So much for maturity. The atheists go into a frenzy against the man for being a Creationist scientist. Who is really on the defence, with the world to win over, in order to feel better about their beliefs? Is it really the Christians? Or is it the atheists? As far as I know, Christians share the gospel for the sake of the souls of others. Within their belief system; without Jesus, the atheists will not make it to heaven, and for the sake of love, they don’t want to see that happen. Thus, for the sake of the gospel, some Christians endure mockery, torture, imprisonment and even horrific deaths. Not to be right, but to save the lost (as defined by the Bible that they believe in). Are they really such horrible creatures then?
    “Because pretending that faith and science are equally valid ways of finding truth not only weakens our concept of truth, it also gives religion an undeserved authority that does the world no good”
    I’m stumped: if Jerry’s brain (in his own view) is just inorganic chemicals randomly put together; how could it know what truth is? It amazes me how the evolutionists talk about morality, right and wrong, truth and reality when they are just inorganic chemicals put together. These things do not exist in the evolutionary framework. There is no right or wrong; only survival of the fittest. God introduced right and wrong. It is He who set up a law. A law upon which Western law was founded. The Western Law system was not founded out of evolutionary thinking people. Within the framework of evolution: murder is not bad as there is no special sanctity of life. Abortion makes absolute sense etc. etc.
    The early scientists were theists; believers in a Creator:
    “However, historians of science have pointed out that modern science first flourished under a Christian worldview while it was stillborn in other cultures.3 This is due mainly to two biblical teachings: (1) man had dominion over creation (Genesis 1:26–28), so had a duty to investigate it without praying to the ‘water spirit’ or ‘forest god’ or the like. (2) God is a lawgiving God of order, not confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). So the early scientists had faith that God’s upholding of His creation in an orderly way could be described in terms of ‘natural laws’” – http://creation.com/what-good-is-christianity

    Like

  25. “In this issue (pp. 12–15), we point out the strong Christian motivation behind William Wilberforce’s determined campaign against the slave trade. We also cite some pro-slavers who told Wilberforce to leave religion out of politics—sound familiar?
    Christianity has been at the forefront of other humanitarian causes, such as literacy, hospitals, orphanages and abolition of child labour. The biblical teaching that all humans come from ‘one man/blood’ (Acts 17:26) is the best antidote to racism, and science is catching up (see p. 18). It’s notable that Wilberforce was also an advocate of animal welfare. (Beware the confusion of animal welfare with animal rights. The former seeks to treat animals humanely, while the latter purports to give animals, e.g. the great apes, the same rights as humans—see Focus p. 8.)
    Even today, conservative Christians still give far more support to charities than do other people, as noted by a recent book, Who Really Cares, by Prof. Arthur Brooks. The data were a total surprise to Brooks, who had a socially liberal background. It showed that:
    ‘Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street.’” – http://creation.com/what-good-is-christianity

    What good has or does atheism do for this world?

    Like

  26. It has been easy and probably traditional for some commentators here to mock, victimise and discredit the Nuclear Physicist, Dr van der Ventel: But here I challenge them to take on this list of Creationist Scientists and try the same trick with each of them starting at the top and working their way down. I guess the automatic response would be to call them all “loonies”, right? Please see the actual signed list at http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ and decide for yourself: A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” This was last publicly updated January 2010. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position. Philip Skell Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences Lyle H. Jensen Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish Academy of Sciences Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic K. Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India) Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia) Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine) Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel) Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK) Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University David W. Forslund Ph.D. Astrophysics, Princeton University Fellow of American Physical Society Robert W. Bass Ph.D. Mathematics (also: Rhodes Scholar; Post-Doc at Princeton) Johns Hopkins University John Hey Associate Clinical Prof. (also: Fellow, American Geriatrics Society) Dept. of Family Medicine, Univ. of Mississippi Daniel W. Heinze Ph.D. Geophysics (also: Post-Doc Fellow, Carnegie Inst. of Washington) Texas A&M University Richard Anderson Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy Duke University David Chapman* Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Giuseppe Sermonti Professor of Genetics, Ret. (Editor, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum) University of Perugia (Italy) Stanley Salthe Emeritus Professor Biological Sciences Brooklyn College of the City University of New York Marcos N. Eberlin Professor, The State University of Campinas (Brazil) Member, Brazilian Academy of Science A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—1 http://WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG Bernard d’Abrera Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology British Museum (Natural History) John C. Walton Professor of Reactive Chemistry (Ph.D. & D.Sc.) University of St. Andrews (UK) Fellow Royal Society of Chemistry Fellow Royal Society of Edinburgh Mae-Wan Ho Ph.D. Biochemistry The University of Hong Kong Donald Ewert Ph.D. Microbiology University of Georgia Russell Carlson Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of Georgia Scott Minnich Professor, Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochemistry University of Idaho Jeffrey Schwartz Assoc. Res. Psychiatrist, Dept. of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences University of California, Los Angeles Alexander F. Pugach Ph.D. Astrophysics Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Ukraine) Ralph Seelke Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology University of Wisconsin, Superior Annika Parantainen Ph.D. Biology University of Turku (Finland) Fred Schroeder Ph.D. Marine Geology Columbia University David Snoke Associate Professor of Physics & Astronomy University of Pittsburgh Frank Tipler Prof. of Mathematical Physics Tulane University John A. Davison Emeritus Associate Professor of Biology University of Vermont James Tour Chao Professor of Chemistry Rice University Pablo Yepes Research Associate Professor of Physics & Astronomy Rice University David Bolender Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Cell Biology, Neurobiology & Anatomy Medical College of Wisconsin Leo Zacharski Professor of Medicine Dartmouth Medical School Joel D. Hetzer Ph.D. Statistics Baylor University Michael Behe Professor of Biological Science Lehigh University Michael Atchison Professor of Biochemistry University of Pennsylvania, Vet School Thomas G. Guilliams Ph.D. Molecular Biology The Medical College of Wisconsin Arthur B. Robinson Professor of Chemistry Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine Joel Adams Professor of Computer Science Calvin College Abraham S. Feigenbaum Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry Rutgers University Yasuo Yoshida Ph.D. Physics Kyushu University (Japan) Domingo Aerden Professor of Geology Universidad de Granada (Spain) Kevin Farmer Adjunct Assistant Professor (Ph.D. Scientific Methodology) University of Oklahoma D.R. Eiras-Stofella Director, Electron Microscopy Center (Ph.D. Molecular Biology) Parana Federal University (Brazil) Neal Adrian Ph.D. Microbiology University of Oklahoma Kerry N. Jones Professor of Mathematical Sciences Ball State University Ge Wang Professor of Radiology & Biomedical Engineering University of Iowa Moorad Alexanian Professor of Physics University of North Carolina, Wilmington Richard Spencer Professor (Ph.D. Stanford) University of California, Davis, Solid-State Circuits Research Laboratory Mark Krejchi Ph.D. Polymer Science & Engineering (Post-docs, Stanford & Caltech) University of Massachusetts Braxton Alfred Emeritus Professor, Anthropology University of British Columbia (Canada) R. Craig Henderson Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering Tennessee Tech University Michael J. Kavaya Senior Scientist NASA Langley Research Center Wesley Allen Professor of Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia James Pierre Hauck Professor of Physics & Astronomy University of San Diego Olen R. Brown Former Professor of Molecular Microbiology & Immunology University of Missouri, Columbia A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—2 http://WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG Eshan Dias Ph.D. Chemical Engineering King’s College, Cambridge University (UK) Joseph Atkinson Ph.D. Organic Chemistry MIT Dennis Dean Rathman Staff Scientist MIT Lincoln Laboratory Richard Austin Assoc. Prof. & Chair, Biology & Natural Sciences Piedmont College Raymond C. Mjolsness Ph.D. Physics Princeton University John Baumgardner Ph.D. Geophysics & Space Physics University of California, Los Angeles Glenn R. Johnson Adjunct Professor of Medicine University of North Dakota School of Medicine George Bennett Associate Professor of Chemistry Millikin University Robert L. Waters Lecturer, College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology David Berlinski Ph.D. Philosophy Princeton University James Robert Dickens Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering Texas A&M University Phillip Bishop Professor of Kinesiology University of Alabama Jeffrey M. Jones Professor Emeritus in Medicine (Ph.D. Microbiology and M.D.) University of Wisconsin-Madison Donald R. Mull Ph.D. Physiology University of Pittsburgh John Bloom Ph.D. Physics Cornell University William Dembski Ph.D. Mathematics University of Chicago Ben J. Stuart Ph.D. Chemical & Biochemical Engineering Rutgers University Raymond Bohlin Ph.D. Molecular & Cell Biology University of Texas, Dallas Christa R. Koval Ph.D. Chemistry University of Colorado at Boulder John Bordelon Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology David Richard Carta Ph.D. Bio-Engineering University of California, San Diego Lydia G. Thebeau Ph.D. Cell & Molecular Biology Saint Louis University David Bossard Ph. D. Mathematics Dartmouth College Robert W. Kelley Ph.D. Entomology Clemson University David Bourell Professor Mechanical Engineering University of Texas, Austin Carlos M. Murillo Professor of Medicine (Neurosurgery) Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) Walter Bradley Distinguished Professor of Engineering Baylor University Sami Palonen Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry University of Helsinki (Finland) John Brejda Ph.D. Agronomy University of Nebraska, Lincoln Bradley R. Johnson Ph.D. Materials Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Rudolf Brits Ph.D. Nuclear Chemistry University of Stellenbosch (South Africa) Gary Kastello Ph.D. Biology University of Wisonsin-Milwaukee Karen Rispin Assistant Professor of Biology LeTourneau University Frederick Brooks Kenan Professor of Computer Science University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Omer Faruk Noyan Assistant Professor (Ph.D. Paleontology) Celal Bayar University (Turkey) Neil Broom Associate Professor, Chemical & Materials Engineering University of Auckland (New Zealand) Malcolm D. Chisholm Ph.D. Insect Ecology (M.A. Zoology, Oxford University) University of Bristol (UK) John Brown Research Meteorologist National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Joseph A. Kunicki Associate Professor of Mathematics The University of Findlay John Brumbaugh Emeritus Professor of Biological Sciences University of Nebraska, Lincoln Thomas M. Stackhouse Ph.D. Biochemistry University of California, Davis Nancy Bryson Associate Professor of Chemistry Mississippi University for Women Walter L. Starkey Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering The Ohio State University Donald Calbreath Professor, Department of Chemistry Whitworth College Pingnan Shi Ph.D. Electrical Engineering (Artificial Neural Networks) University of British Columbia (Canada) A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—3 http://WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG John B. Cannon Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Princeton University John L. Burba Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Baylor University Stephen J. Cheesman Ph.D. Geophysics University of Toronto Mike Forward Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (Chaos Theory) Imperial College, University of London (UK) Lowell D. White Industrial Hygiene Specialist (Ph.D. Epidemiology) University of New Mexico Brian Landrum Associate Professor of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering University of Alabama, Huntsville David Chambers Physicist Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Michael T. Goodrich Professor of Computer Science University of California, Irvine T. Timothy Chen Ph.D. Statistics University of Chicago Sarah M. Williams Ph.D. Environmental Engineering (emphasis in microbiology) Stanford University Donald Clark Ph.D. Physical Biochemistry Louisiana State University John Frederick Zino Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Shing-Yan Chiu Professor of Physiology University of Wisconsin, Madison Todd A. Anderson Ph.D. Computer Science University of Kentucky John Cimbala Professor of Mechanical Engineering Pennsylvania State University Chris Swanson Tutor (Ph.D. Physics, University of Oregon) Gutenberg College Kieran Clements Assistant Professor, Natural Sciences Toccoa Falls College John K. Herdklotz Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Rice University Jan Chatham Ph.D. Neurophysiology University of North Texas George A. Gates Emeritus Emeritus Professor of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery University of Washington John Cogdell Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering University of Texas, Austin David R. Beaucage Ph.D. Mathematics State University of New York at Stony Brook Leon Combs Professor & Chair, Chemistry & Biochemistry Kennesaw State University Laraba P. Kendig Ph.D. Materials Science & Engineering University of Michigan Nicholas Comninellis Associate Professor of Community and Family Medicine University of Missouri-Kansas City William J. Arion Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry Cornell University Stephen Crouse Professor of Kinesiology Texas A&M University Cham Dallas Professor, Pharmaceutics & Biomedical Science University of Georgia Charles N. Verheyden Professor of Surgery Texas A&M College of Medicine Melody Davis Ph.D. Chemistry Princeton University Thomas Deahl Ph.D. Radiation Biology The University of Iowa Shun Yan Cheung Associate Professor of Computer Science Emory University Robert DeHaan Ph.D. Human Development University of Chicago Gage Blackstone Doctor of Veterinary Medicine Texas A&M University Harold Delaney Professor of Psychology University of New Mexico Jonathan C. Boomgaarden Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering University of Wisconsin Greg Tate Ph.D. Plant Pathology University of California, Davis William Bordeaux Chair, Department of Natural & Mathematical Science Huntington College Michael Delp Professor of Physiology Texas A&M University Keith F. Conner Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Clemson University David DeWitt Associate Professor of Biology Liberty University Aaron J. Miller Ph.D. Physics Stanford University Gary Dilts Ph.D. Mathematical Physics University of Colorado Gerald Chubb Associate Professor of Aviation Ohio State University Robert DiSilvestro Ph.D. Biochemistry Texas A & M University A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—4 http://WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG Daniel Dix Associate Professor of Mathematics University of South Carolina Allison Dobson Assistant Professor, Chemistry Georgia Southern University David Prentice Professor, Department of Life Sciences Indiana State University Kenneth Dormer Ph.D. Biology & Physiology University of California, Los Angeles Ernest Prabhakar Ph.D. Experimental Particle Physics California Institute of Technology John Doughty Ph.D. Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering University of Arizona Jeanne Drisko Clinical Assistant Professor of Alternative Medicine University of Kansas, School of Medicine Robert Eckel Professor of Medicine, Physiology & Biophysics University of Colorado Health Sciences Center Seth Edwards Associate Professor of Geology University of Texas, El Paso Eduard F. Schmitter Ph.D. Astronomy University of Wisconsin Lee Eimers Professor of Physics & Mathematics Cedarville University William J. Hedden Ph.D. Geology Missouri University of Science & Technology Daniel Ely Professor, Biology University of Akron Pattle Pun Professor of Biology Wheaton College Thomas English Adjunct Professor of Physics & Engineering Palomar College Rosalind Picard Sc.D. Electrical Engineering & Computer Science MIT Danielle Dalafave Associate Professor of Physics The College of New Jersey Richard Erdlac Ph.D. Structural Geology University of Texas (Austin) Michael C. Reynolds Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering University of Arkansas-Fort Smith Bruce Evans Ph.D. Neurobiology Emory University Gary Achtemeier Ph.D. Meteorology Florida State University William Everson Ph.D. Human Physiology Penn State College of Medicine Susan L.M. Huck Ph.D. Geology/Geography Clark University James Florence Associate Professor, Department of Public Health East Tennessee State University Douglas R. Buck Ph.D. Nutrition and Food Sciences Utah State University Fellow, American College of Nutrition Margaret Flowers Professor of Biology Wells College Étienne Windisch Ph.D. Engineering McGill University (Canada) Mark Foster Ph.D. Chemical Engineering University of Minnesota Suzanne Sawyer Vincent Ph.D. Physiology & Biophysics University of Washington Clarence Fouche Professor of Biology Virginia Intermont College Robert Blomgren Ph.D. Mathematics University of Minnesota Kenneth French Chairman, Division of Natural Science Blinn College Richard N. Taylor Professor of Information & Computer Science University of California, Irvine Stephen C. Knowles Ph.D. Marine Science University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Marvin Fritzler Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of Calgary Medical School (Canada) Mark L. Psiaki Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (Ph.D., Princeton) Cornell University Walter E. Lillo Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Purdue University Mark Fuller Ph.D. Microbiology University of California, Davis Daniel Galassini Doctor of Veterinary Medicine Kansas State University Stanley E. Zager Professor Emeritus, Chemical Engineering Youngstown State University Andrew Fong Ph.D. Chemistry Indiana University John Garth Ph.D. Physics University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana John K. G. Kramer Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Human Biology & Nutrition Sciences University of Guelph (Canada) Glen O. Brindley Professor of Surgery, Director of Ophthalmology Scott & White Clinic, Texas A&M University H.S.C. A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—5 http://WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG Ann Gauger Ph.D. Zoology University of Washington Pamela Faith Fahey Ph.D. Physiology & Biophysics University of Illinois Paul Brown Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies Trinity Western University (Canada) Mark Geil Ph.D. Biomedical Engineering Ohio State University Ibrahim Barsoum Ph.D. Microbiology The George Washington University Jim Gibson Ph.D. Biology Loma Linda University John W. Balliet Ph.D. Molecular & Cellular Biology University of Pennsylvania, Post-doctoral Fellowship, Harvard Medical School William Gilbert Emeritus Professor of Biology Simpson College Joe R. Eagleman Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics & Astronomy University of Kansas Dexter F. Speck Associate Professor of Physiology University of Kentucky Medical Center Warren Gilson Associate Professor, Dairy Science University of Georgia Raul Leguizamon Professor of Medicine (Pathology) Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) Steven Gollmer Ph.D. Atmospheric Science Purdue University Sun Uk Kim Ph.D. Biochemical Engineering University of Delaware Gene B. Chase Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science (Ph.D. Cornell) Messiah College Chris Grace Associate Professor of Psychology Biola University James A. Ellard, Sr. Ph.D. Chemistry University of Kentucky Richard Gunasekera Ph.D. Biochemical Genetics Baylor University Jennifer M. Cohen Ph.D. Mathematical Physics New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Russel Peak Senior Researcher, Engineering Information Systems Georgia Institute of Technology Graham Gutsche Emeritus Professor of Physics U.S. Naval Academy Olivia A. Henderson Ph.D. Pharmaceutics University of Missouri, Kansas City Dan Hale Professor of Animal Science Texas A&M University Robert L. Jones Associate Professor, Department of Ophthalmology University of California, Irvine James Harbrecht Clinical Associate Professor, Division of Cardiology University of Kansas Medical Center George W. Benthien Ph.D. Mathematics Carnegie Mellon University James Harman Associate Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry Texas Tech University Frederick T. Zugibe Emeritus Adjunct Associate Professor of Pathology Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons William Harris Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry University of Minnesota Thomas H. Johnson Ph.D. Mathematics University of Maryland Paul Hausgen Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Gregory A. Snyder Ph.D. Geochemistry Colorado School of Mines Walter Hearn Ph.D. Biochemistry University of Illinois Janice Arion Ph.D. Animal Science Cornell University Howard Martin Whitcraft Ph.D. Mathematics University of St. Louis Nolan Hertel Professor, Nuclear & Radiological Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Joseph Francis Associate Professor of Biology Cedarville University Roland Hirsch Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry University of Michigan Todd Peterson Ph.D. Plant Physiology University of Rhode Island Charles Edward Norman Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Carleton University (Canada) Dewey Hodges Professor, Aerospace Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology James P. Russum Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Marko Horb Ph.D. Cell & Developmental Biology State University of New York A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—6 http://WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG Joe Watkins Military Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering United States Military Academy Barton Houseman Emeritus Professor of Chemistry Goucher College Mark Pritt Ph.D. Mathematics Yale University Edward Peltzer Ph.D. Oceanography University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute) Cornelius Hunter Ph.D. Biophysics University of Illinois Rodney Ice Principle Research Scientist, Nuclear & Radiological Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Malcolm W. MacArthur Ph.D. Molecular Biophysics University of London (UK) Rafe Payne Ph.D. Biology University of Nebraska Muzaffar Iqbal Ph.D. Chemistry University of Saskatchewan (Canada) Mark P. Bowman Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Pennsylvania State University David L. Elliott Chair, Division of Natural Sciences/Mathematics Louisiana College David Ives Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry Ohio State University Amiel G. Jarstfer Professor & Chair, Department of Biology LeTourneau University Stephan J. G. Gift Professor of Electrical Engineering The University of the West Indies Tony Jelsma Ph.D. Biochemistry McMaster University (Canada) George C. Wells Professor of Computer Science Rhodes University (South Africa) Fred Johnson Ph.D. Pathology Vanderbilt University Raleigh R. White, IV Professor of Surgery Texas A&M University, College of Medicine Jerry Johnson Ph.D. Pharmacology & Toxicology Purdue University Harold D. Cole Professor of Physiology Southwestern Oklahoma State University Yongsoon Park Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry Washington State University Richard Johnson Professor of Chemistry LeTourneau University David Hagen Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering University of Minnesota David Johnson Associate Professor of Pharmacology & Toxicology Duquesne University Jay Hollman Assistant Clinical Professor of Cardiology Louisiana State University Health Science Center Lawrence Johnston Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Idaho Albert J. Starshak Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Illinois Institute of Technology Robert Jones Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering University of Texas-Pan America Scott T. Dreher Ph.D. Geology (Royal Society USA Research Fellow) University of Alaska, Fairbanks David Jones Professor of Biochemistry & Chair of Chemistry Grove City College Robert Kaita Ph.D. Nuclear Physics Rutgers University Kenneth Demarest Professor of Electrical Engineering University of Kansas Edwin Karlow Chair, Department of Physics LaSierra University Francis M. Donahue Professor Emeritus, Chemical Engineering The University of Michigan James Keener Professor of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering University of Utah Shawn Wright Ph.D. Crop Science North Carolina State University Douglas Keil Ph.D. Plasma Physics University of Wisconsin, Madison Dave Finnegan Staff Member (Ph.D. Chemistry, University of Maryland) Los Alamos National Laboratory Micheal Kelleher Ph.D. Biophysical Chemistry University of Ibadan (Nigeria) Christine B. Beaucage Ph.D. Mathematics State University of New York at Stony Brook Rebecca Keller Research Professor, Department of Chemistry University of New Mexico Gerald E. Hoyer Retired Forrest Scientist (Ph.D. Silviculture, University of Washington) Washington State Department of Natural Resources Michael Kent Ph.D. Materials Science University of Minnesota Richard Kinch Ph.D. Computer Science Cornell University Irfan Yilmaz Professor of Biology (Ph.D. Systematic Zoology) Dokuz Eylul University (Turkey) A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—7 http://WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG Bretta King Assistant Professor of Chemistry Spelman College Mauricio Alcocer Director of Graduate Studies (Ph.D. Plant Science, University of Idaho) Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) R. Barry King Prof. of Environmental Safety & Health Albuquerque Technical Vocational Institute Hiroshi Ishii M.D., Ph.D. Behavioral Neurology Tohoku University (Japan) Michael Kinnaird Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Lasse Uotila M.D., Ph.D. Medicinal Biochemistry University of Helsinki (Finland) Donald Kobe Professor of Physics University of North Texas, Denton Martin Emery Ph.D. Chemistry University of Southampton (UK) Charles Koons Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Minnesota Miguel A. Rodriguez Undergraduate Lab. Coordinator for Biochemistry University of Ottawa (Canada) Carl Koval Full Professor, Chemistry & Biochemistry University of Colorado, Boulder Magda Narciso Leite Professor, College of Pharmacy & Biochemistry Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (Brazil) Bruce Krogh Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering Carnegie Mellon University Tetsuichi Takagi Senior Research Scientist Geological Survey of Japan Daniel Kuebler Ph.D. Molecular & Cellular Biology University of California, Berkeley William Notz Professor of Statistics Ohio State University Don Ranney Emeritus Professor of Anatomy and Kinesiology University of Waterloo (Canada) Wesley Nyborg Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Vermont Peter William Holyland Ph.D. Geology University of Queensland (Australia) Paul Kuld Associate Professor of Biological Science Biola University Douglas B. Matthews Associate Professor of Neuroscience Baylor University Heather Kuruvilla Ph.D. Biological Sciences State University of New York, Buffalo Nancy L. Swanson Ph.D. Physics Florida State University Martin LaBar Ph. D. Genetics & Zoology University of Wisconsin, Madison William B. Hart Assistant Professor of Mathematics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Teresa Larranaga Ph.D. Pharmacology University of New Mexico Yuri Zharikov Post-Doctoral Research Fellow (Ph.D. Zoology) Simon Fraser University (Canada) Ronald Larson Professor and Chair of Chemical Engineering University of Michigan Wolfgang Hutter Ph.D. Chemistry University of Ulm (Germany) Robert Lattimer Ph.D. Chemistry University of Kansas, Lawrence Robert J. Graham Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Iowa State University M. Harold Laughlin Professor & Chair, Department of Biomedical Sciences University of Missouri Samuel C. Winchester Klopman Distinguished Professor Emeritus (Ph.D. Princeton) North Carolina State University George Lebo Associate Professor of Astronomy University of Florida Kurt J. Henle Professor Emeritus (Ph.D. Biophysics, University of Pennsylvania) University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences J.B. Lee Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering University of Texas, Dallas James O. Dritt Ph.D. Civil Engineering & Environmental Science University of Oklahoma Matti Leisola Professor, Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering Helsinki University of Technology Manuel Garcia Ulloa Gomez Director of Marine Sciences Laboratory Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) E. Lennard Sc. D. Surgical Infections & Immunology University of Cincinnati Glen E. Deal Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Florida Institute of Technology Lane Lester Ph.D. Genetics Purdue University Paul Whitehead Ph.D. Chemical Thermodynamics University of Natal (South Africa) Catherine Lewis Ph.D. Geophysics Colorado School of Mines John R. Goltz Ph.D. Electrical Engineering University of Arizona A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—8 http://WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG Peter Line Ph.D. Neuroscience Swinburne University of Technology (Australia) Gerald P. Bodey Emeritus Professor of Medicine, Former Chairman Department of Medical Specialties, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Garrick Little Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Texas A & M University John Nichols Ph.D. Mathematics University of Tennessee Mark Bearden Ph.D. Electrical & Computer Engineering Carnegie Mellon University Harry Lubansky Ph.D. Biological Chemistry University of Illinois, Chicago Daniel L. Moran Ph.D. Molecular & Cellular Biology Ohio University Fulbright Scholar Ken Ludema Emeritus Professor of Mechanical Engineering University of Michigan Jed Macosko Ph.D. Chemistry University of California, Berkeley Nigel Surridge Ph.D. Electrochemistry & Photochemistry University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Christopher Macosko Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Princeton University David Keller Associate Professor of Chemistry University of New Mexico Allen Magnuson Ph. D. Theoretical & Applied Mechanics University of New Hampshire Amy Ward Ph.D. Mathematics Clemson University Donald Mahan Professor of Animal Nutrition Ohio State University Shane A. Kasten Post-Doctoral Fellow (Ph.D. Biochemistry, Kansas State University) Virginia Commonwealth University Robert Marks Professor, Signal & Image Processing University of Washington Chi-Deu Chang Ph.D. Medicinal Chemistry State University of New York, Buffalo Jesus Ambriz Professor of Medicine Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) Julie Marshall Ph.D. Chemistry Texas Tech University Jay L. Wile Ph.D. Nuclear Chemistry University of Rochester Manfredo Pansa Ph.D. Computer Science University of Turin (Italy) David McClellan Assistant Professor of Family & Community Medicine Texas A&M University College of Medicine Evgeny Shirokov Faculty Lecturer (Nuclear and Particle Physics) Moscow State University (Russia) Charles E. Hunt Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Professor of Design University of California, Davis Also, Visiting Professor of Physics University of Barcelona (Spain) Andy McIntosh Full Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory University of Leeds (UK) Mark A. Robinson Ph.D. Environmental Science Lacrosse University Hsin-Yi Lin Assistant Professor, Dept. of Chemical Engineering & Biotechnology National Taipei University of Technology (Taiwan) Tom McMullen Ph.D. History & Philosophy of Science Indiana University Martin Poenie Associate Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology University of Texas, Austin Haim Shore Professor of Quality and Reliability Engineering (Ph.D. Statistics) Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (Israel) Tony Mega Ph.D. Biochemistry Purdue University Carl Poppe Ph.D. Physics University of Wisconsin Keith P. Birch Ph.D. Atmospheric Physics University of Southampton (UK) James Menart Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering Wright State University Theodor Liss Ph.D. Chemistry MIT James Keesling Professor of Mathematics University of Florida Brian Miller Ph.D. Physics Duke University Christopher D. Beling Associate Professor of Physics The University of Hong Kong (China) Art Nitz Ph.D. Anatomy & Neurobiology University of Kentucky Thomas Milner Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering University of Texas, Austin David Ness Ph.D. Anthropology Temple University A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—9 http://WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG Christian W. Puritz Ph.D. Mathematics University of Glasgow (UK) Forrest Mims Atmospheric Researcher Geronimo Creek Observatory S. W. Pelletier* Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Chemistry University of Georgia, Athens Richard L. Carpenter, Jr. Ph.D. Meteorology University of Oklahoma Paul Missel Ph.D. Physics MIT Jeffrey Sabburg Ph.D. Physics Queensland University of Technology (Australia) Dónal O’Mathúna Ph.D. Pharmacognosy Ohio State University Steve D. Figard Ph.D. Biochemistry Florida State University Lennart Möller Professor, Center for Nutrition & Toxicology Karolinska Institute (Sweden) Victoriano Saenz Professor of Medicine Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) Takeo Nakagawa Chancellor (Ph.D. Physics, Monash University, Australia) White Mountains Academy (Japan) David Monson Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry Indiana University James T. Fowler Ph.D. Mathematics University of Durham (UK) Hugh Nutley* Professor Emeritus of Physics & Engineering Seattle Pacific University Terry Morrison Ph.D. Chemistry Syracuse University Bijan Nemati Ph.D. High Energy Physics University of Washington William Russell Belding Ph.D. Mathematics University of Notre Dame Bridget Ingham Ph.D. Physics Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand) Paul Nesselroade Associate Professor of Experimental Psychology Asbury College Kevin L. Kendig Ph.D. Materials Science & Engineering University of Michigan Marco Bernardes Professor & Chair, Department of Mechanical Engineering Federal Center of Technological Education, Minas Gerais (Brazil) Robert Newman Ph.D. Astrophysics Cornell University Angus Menuge Ph.D. Philosophy of Psychology University of Wisconsin-Madison Khawar Sohail Siddiqui Senior Research Associate (Protein Chemistry) University of New South Wales (Australia) Janet Parker Professor of Medical Physiology Texas A&M University, Health Science Center Scott Northrup Chair and Professor of Chemistry Tennessee Tech University John Omdahl* Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of New Mexico Matthew A. Jenks Professor of Horticultural Science Purdue University Fazale Rana Ph.D. Chemistry Ohio University Rebecca Orr Ph.D. Cell Biology University of Texas, Southwestern Cevat Babuna Professor Emeritus of Gynecology (Post-doc, University of Chicago) Istanbul University (Turkey) Bruce L. Gordon Ph.D. Philosophy of Physics Northwestern University Lawrence Overzet Professor of Engineering & Computer Science University of Texas, Dallas J. C. Meredith Assistant Professor, Chemical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Siddarth Pandey Assistant Professor of Chemistry New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Bruce Holman, III Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Northwestern University Gordon Mills Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry University of Texas, Medical Branch A. Clyde Hill Ph.D. Soil Chemistry Rutgers University Aric D. Blumer Ph.D. Computer Engineering Virginia Tech Stephen C. Meyer Ph.D. Philosophy of Science Cambridge University (UK) William Purcell Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Princeton University Paul Randolph Ph.D. Mathematical Statistics University of Minnesota Christopher Morbey Astronomer (Ret.) Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, National Research Council of Canada A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—10 http://WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG Stephen C. Tentarelli Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering Lehigh University David Reed Ph.D Entomology University of California, Riverside Charles D. Johnson Ph.D. Chemistry University of Minnesota J. Ishizaki Associate Professor of Neuropsychology (M.D., Ph.D. Medicine) Kobe Gakuin University (Japan) David Rogstad Ph.D. Physics California Institute of Technology Mark Shlapobersky Ph.D. Virology Bar-Ilan University (Israel) Arthur John Jones Ph.D. Zoology & Comparative Physiology Birmingham University (UK) Patricia Reiff Director, Rice Space Institute Rice University Oleh Havrysh Senior Research Assistant, Protein & Peptide Structure & Function Dept. Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry & Petrochemistry Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine) W. Christopher Schroeder Associate Professor of Mathematics Morehead State University Gail H. Allwine Professor of Electrical Engineering (retired) Gonzaga University Dan Reynolds Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Texas, Austin Gildo Magalhães Professor of the History of Science & Technology University of São Paulo (Brazil) Andrew Steckley Ph.D. Civil Engineering University of Western Ontario (Canada) Terry Rickard Ph.D. Engineering Physics University of California, San Diego Arlen W. Siert Ph.D. Environmental Health Colorado State University Mubashir Hanif Ph.D. Plant Biology University of Helsinki (Finland) Eliot Roberts Ph.D. Soil Chemistry Rutgers University Mario Beauregard Associate Researcher, Department of Psychology (Ph.D. Neuroscience) University of Montreal (Canada) Mehmet Pakdemirli Professor of Mechanical Engineering Celal Bayar University (Turkey) Quinton Rogers Prof. of Physiological Chemistry, Dept. of Molecular Biosciences Univ. of California, Davis, School of Vet. Medicine Liang Hong Associate Professor, Dept. of Dental Public Health & Behavioral Science University of Missouri, Kansas City Daniel Romo Professor of Chemistry Texas A&M University David Sabatini Professor Civil Engineering & Environmental Science University of Oklahoma Richard Buggs DPhil Plant Ecology & Evolution Oxford University (UK) Etienne Y. Vernaz Professor & Director of Research Director CEA (French Atomic Energy Agency) (France) Theodore Saito Ph.D. Physics Pennsylvania State University Jussi Meriluoto Professor, Department of Biochemistry & Pharmacy Abo Akademi University (Finland) Kay Roscoe Ph.D. High Energy Particle Physics University of Manchester (UK) Thomas Saleska Professor of Biology Concordia University James F. Drake Ph.D. Atmospheric Science University of California, Los Angeles Daniel M. Brown Ph.D. Physics Catholic University of America Fernando Saravi Professor, Department of Morphology and Physiology Med. Sciences School, Univ. Nacional de Cuyo (Argentina) Harold Toups Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Louisiana State University Raúl Erlando López Ph.D. Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Phillip Savage Professor of Chemical Engineering University of Michigan Seyyed Imran Husnain Ph.D. Bacterial Genetics University of Sheffield (UK) Gayle Livingston Birchfield Ph.D. Biology University of Missouri, Columbia Dale Schaefer Professor, Materials Science & Engineering University of Cincinnati Russell C. Healey Ph.D. Electrical Engineering University of Cambridge (UK) James Gilchrist Ph.D. Physics University of Texas, Austin Stuart C. Burgess Professor of Design & Nature, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Bristol University (UK) Charles W. Bell Professor Emeritus of Biological Sciences San Jose State University A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—11 http://WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG Norman Schmidt Professor of Chemistry Georgia Southern University Flemming Nyboe Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Technical University of Denmark (Denmark) Steve Maxwell Associate Professor of Molecular and Cellular Medicine Texas A&M University, H.S.C. Rowan Seymour Ph.D. Computer Science Queen’s University, Belfast (Northern Ireland) Leslie J. Wiemerslage Emeritus Professor (Ph.D. Cell Biology, Univ. of Pennsylvania) Southwestern Illinois College Andrew Schmitz Ph.D. Inorganic Chemistry University of Iowa Anne E. Vravick Ph.D. Environmental Toxicology University of Wisconsin, Madison Granville Sewell Professor of Mathematics University of Texas, El Paso Richard A. Strong Ph.D. Chemistry Northeastern University Marshall Adams Ph.D. Marine Sciences University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Stephen Sewell Assistant Professor of Family Medicine Texas A&M University Mark C. Biedebach Professor Emeritus of Physiology California State University, Long Beach Gregory Shearer Ph.D. Physiology University of California, Davis Douglas Nelson Rose Research Physicist United States Army David Shormann Ph.D. Limnology Texas A&M University Paul Lorenzini Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering Oregon State University Mark Apkarian Ph.D. Exercise Physiology University of New Mexico Dale Spence Emeritus Professor of Kinesiology Rice University Edson R. Rocha Research Assistant Professor, Microbiology East Carolina University David W. Dykstra Ph.D. Computer Science University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Arnold Sikkema Associate Professor of Physics Dordt College Larry S. Helmick Senior Professor of Chemistry Cedarville University Georgia Purdom Ph.D. Molecular Genetics Ohio State University John Silvius Ph.D. Plant Physiology West Virginia University Philip S. Taylor Research Fellow, Computer Science Queen’s University Belfast (UK) Fred Skiff Professor of Physics University of Iowa Giulio D. Guerra First Researcher of the Italian National Research Council (Chemistry) Istituto Materiali Compositi e Biomedici, CNR (Italy) Ken Smith Professor of Mathematics Central Michigan University Audris Zidermanis Ph.D. Nutrition & Molecular Biology Texas Woman’s University Jacquelyn W. McClelland Professor (Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry) North Carolina State University, NCCE Robert Smith Professor of Chemistry University of Nebraska, Omaha Fred Van Dyke Professor of Biology and Chair of the Biology Department Wheaton College (Illinois) Ian C. Fuller Senior Lecturer in Physical Geography Massey University (New Zealand) Wolfgang Smith Emeritus Professor of Mathematics Oregon State University Jorge Pimentel Cintra University Professor, Earth Sciences University of São Paulo (Brazil) Wayne L. Cook Ph.D. Inorganic Chemistry University of Kentucky John Stamper Research Physicist Naval Research Laboratory Alfred Tang Visiting Scholar (Ph.D. Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison) The Chinese University of Hong Kong (China) Jeffrey L. Vaughn Ph.D. Engineering University of California, Irvine Timothy Standish Ph.D. Environmental Biology George Mason University Robert W. Kopitzke Professor of Chemistry Winona State University William Hankley Professor of Computer Science Kansas State University Walt Stangl Associate Professor of Mathematics Biola University Karl Stephan Associate Professor, Dept. of Technology Texas State University, San Marcos Cahit Babuna Ph.D. Radiology Istanbul University (Turkey) A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—12 http://WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG Richard Sternberg Ph.D. Biology (Molecular Evolution) Florida International University Also: Ph.D. Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) Binghamton University Reid W. Castrodale P.E., Ph.D. Structural Engineering University of Texas, Austin Michael Strauss Associate Professor of Physics University of Oklahoma Jason David Ward Ph.D. Molecular Biology and Biochemistry Glasgow University (UK) Scott A. Renner Ph.D. Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign John Studenroth Ph.D. Plant Pathology Cornell University Peter M. Rowell D.Phil. Physics University of Oxford (UK) Mark Swanson Ph.D. Biochemistry University of Illinois Ricardo Bravo Méndez Professor of Zoology and Ichthyology Universidad de Valparaíso (Chile) João Jorge Ribeiro Soares Gonçalves de Araújo, Assistant Professor, Department of Mathematics Open University (Portugal) Rafi Ahmed Ph.D. Computer Science University of Florida James Swanson Professor of Biological Sciences Old Dominion University Wade Warren C.J. Cavanaugh Chair in Biology Louisiana College Justin Holl Ph.D. Animal Science University of Nebraska, Lincoln Bela Szilagyi Ph.D. Physics University of Pittsburgh Richard Mann Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Princeton University Daniel Tedder Associate Professor, Chemical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Derek Linkens Senior Research Fellow and Emeritus Professor (Biomedical Eng.) University of Sheffield (UK) Charles Thaxton Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Iowa State University Lee M. Spetner Ph.D. Physics MIT Christopher L. Thomas Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry University of South Carolina J. Benjamin Scripture Ph.D. Biochemistry University of Notre Dame Douglas C. Youvan Former Associate Professor of Chemistry (Ph.D., U.C., Berkeley) MIT Jeff W. Johnson Ph.D., Industrial, Organizational, & Cognitive Psychology University of Minnesota Sture Blomberg Associate Professor of Anesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine The Sahlgren University Hospital (Sweden) Pavithran Thomas Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering Ohio State University Leonard Loose Ph.D. Botany University of Leeds (UK) Richard Thompson Ph.D. Computer Science University of Connecticut D. Albrey Arrington Ph.D. Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences Texas A&M University Kjell Erik Wennberg Ph.D. Petroleum Engineering Norwegian University of Science & Technology (Norway) Orhan Kural Professor of Geology Technical University of Istanbul (Turkey) Stephen Lloyd Ph.D. Materials Science University of Cambridge (UK) James R. Thompson Noah Harding Professor of Statistics Rice University Denis M. Boyle Ph.D. Medical Biochemistry University of Witwatersrand (South Africa) Ide Trotter Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Princeton University Kevin E. Spaulding Ph.D. Optical Engineering University of Rochester Royal Truman Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Michigan State University Robert VanderVennen Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Michigan State University Tibor Tóth Professor of Product Information Engineering (D.Sc. Hungarian Academy) University of Miskolc (Hungary) Nigel E. Robinson Ph.D. Molecular Biology University of Nottingham (UK) Vincente Villa Emeritus Professor of Biology Southwestern University Margil Wadley Ph.D. Inorganic Chemistry Purdue University Clifton L. Kehr Ph.D. Chemistry University of Delaware A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—13 http://WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG Carston Wagner Associate Professor of Medicinal Chemistry University of Minnesota Karl Heinz Kienitz Professor, Department of Systems & Control Instituto Technologico de Aeronautica (Brazil) William F. Fechter Ph.D. Technology Arizona State University Linda Walkup Ph.D. Molecular Genetics University of New Mexico Medical School James Tumlin Associate Professor of Medicine Emory University David Van Dyke Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry University of Illinois, Urbana John Walkup Emeritus Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering Texas Tech University Tom Belanger Professor of Environmental Science Florida Institute of Technology Joel Lantz Ph.D. Chemistry University of Rhode Island Pieder Beeli Ph.D. Physics University of Notre Dame Robert Waltzer Associate Professor of Biology Belhaven College James R. Brawer Professor of Anatomy & Cell Biology (Ph.D., Harvard) McGill University (Canada) Todd Watson Assistant Professor of Urban & Community Forestry Texas A & M University Weimin Gao Microbiologist Brookhaven National Laboratory Woody Weed Mechanical Engineer, Science & Technology Division Sandia National Labs Heikki Martikka Professor of Machine Design Lappeenranta University of Technology (Finland) Gerald Wegner Ph.D. Entomology Loyola University Richard R. Neptune Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Texas, Austin Jonathan Wells Ph.D. Molecular & Cell Biology University of California, Berkeley Alexandre S. Soares Ph.D. Mathematics Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) Robert Wentworth Ph.D. Toxicology University of Georgia James Wanliss Associate Professor of Physics Embry-Riddle University Einar W. Palm Professor Emeritus, Department of Plant Pathology University of Missouri, Columbia Anthony Reynolds Ph.D. Philosophy of Science (thesis on the Argument for Design) University of London (UK) R. P. Wharton Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Lawrence Dickson Ph.D. Mathematics Princeton University Sandra Gade Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh Elden Whipple Affiliate Professor of Earth & Space Sciences University of Washington Chee K. Yap Professor of Computer Science (Ph.D., Yale University) Courant Institute, New York University Mark White Professor of Chemical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Charles Detwiler Ph.D. Genetics Cornell University Terrance Murphy Professor of Chemistry Weill Cornell Medical College Ed Neeland Professor of Chemistry Okanagan University Gregg Wilkerson Ph.D. Geologic Science University of Texas, El Paso Noel Funderburk Ph.D. Microbiology University of North Texas Joseph M. Marra Director, Interventional Radiology, & Adjunct Professor of Medicine Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center Ken Pascoe Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Air Force Institute of Technology John H. Whitmore Associate Professor of Geology Cedarville University Ernest L. Brannon Professor Emeritus, Distinguished Research Professor (Ph.D. Fisheries) University of Idaho Miroslav Hill Former Director of Research Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (France) Christopher Williams Ph.D. Biochemistry Ohio State University Georg A. Speck Ph.D. Biology, Molecular Pharmacology University of Heidelberg (Germany) J. Mitch Wolff Professor of Mechanical Engineering Wright State University Thomas D. Gillespie Research Professor Emeritus Transportation Research Institute, University of Michigan A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—14 http://WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG John Worraker Ph.D. Applied Mathematics University of Bristol (UK) Hans Degens Reader in Muscle Physiology Manchester Metropolitan University (UK) Alexander Yankovsky Assistant Professor of Physical Oceanography Nova Southeastern University Begona M. Bradham Ph.D. Molecular Biology University of South Carolina Christopher Scurlock Ph.D. Chemistry Arizona State University John C. Zink Former Assistant Professor of Engineering University of Oklahoma Patrick Young Ph.D. Chemistry Ohio University Bruno Lemaire Professor, Decision Science & Information Systems (Ph.D. Mathematics) HEC Paris (France) David Zartman Ph.D. Genetics & Animal Breeding Ohio State University Charles T. Rombough Ph.D. Engineering University of Texas Ingolf Kanestrøm Professor Emeritus, Department of Geoscience University of Oslo (Norway) Henry Zuill Emeritus Professor of Biology Union College Jane M. Orient Clinical Lecturer in Medicine University of Arizona College of Medicine John C. Sanford Courtesy Associate Professor of Horticultural Sciences Cornell University Frank Young Ph.D. Computer Engineering Air Force Institute of Technology Murray E. Moore Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering Texas A&M University William J. Powers Ph.D. Physics University California, San Diego William DeJong Ph.D. Computer Science University of Groningen (The Netherlands) Max G. Walter Associate Professor of Radiology Oklahoma University Health Science Center Rosa María Muñoz Head of Biopharmacy Department Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) Scott R. Fulton Ph.D. Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Don Olson Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry Purdue University Graham Marshall Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry University of Pretoria (South Africa) Ke-Wei Zhao Ph.D. Neuroscience University of California, San Diego Philip R. Page Ph.D. Theoretical Particle Physics University of Oxford (UK) Roger Wiens Ph.D. Physics University of Minnesota Mark Toleman Ph.D. Molecular Microbiology Bristol University (UK) Robert O. Kalbach Ph.D. Physical Chemistry University of South Florida Gregory J. Brewer Prof. of Neurology, Medical Microbiology, Immunology and Cell Biology Southern Illinois University School of Medicine Neil Huber Dr. rer. nat. (Ph.D. Anthropology) Tuebingen University Marc C. Daniels Associate Professor of Biology William Carey University J.D. Moolenburgh Ph.D. Epidemiology University of Rotterdam (The Netherlands) Roger Lien Ph.D. Physiology North Carolina State University Dean Schulz Ph.D. Computer Science Colorado State University John Millam Ph.D. Computational Chemistry Rice University Joseph Lary Epidemiologist and Research Biologist (retired) Centers for Disease Control Richard S. Beale, Jr. Ph.D. Entomology University of California, Berkeley Ernest M. Thiessen Ph.D. Civil & Environmental Engineering Cornell University Tianyou Wang Research Scientist Center for Advanced Studies in Measurement & Assessment, University of Iowa Øyvind A. Voie Ph.D. Biology University of Oslo (Norway) David K. Shortess Professor of Biology (Retired) New Mexico Tech A.D. Harrison* Emeritus Professor of Biology University of Waterloo William P. Shulaw Professor of Veterinary Preventive Medicine The Ohio State University Darrell R. Parnell Ph. D. University Level Science Education Kansas State University A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—15 http://WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG Daniel W. Barnette Ph. D. Aerospace Engineering Stanford University David William Jensen Professor of Biology Tomball College Edward M. Bohn Ph. D. Nuclear Engineering University of Illinois Robert G. Vos Ph.D. Civil/Structural Engineering Rice University Yvonne Boldt Ph. D. Microbiology University of Minnesota William B. Collier Ph. D. Physical Chemistry Oklahoma State University Edward Gade Professor Emeritus of Mathematics University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh James E. Nymann Emeritus Professor of Mathematics University of Texas at El Paso Malcolm A. Cutchins Ph. D. Engineering Mechanics Virginia Tech Lisanne D’Andrea-Winslow Ph. D. Cell Biology & Biochemistry Rutgers University Holger Daugaard Ph. D. Agronomy Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences (Denmark) Shieu-Hong Lin Assistant Professor of Computer Science (Ph.D., Brown University) Biola University W. John Durfee Assistant Professor of Pharmacology Case Western Reserve University Dominic M. Halsmer Ph. D. Mechanical Engineering UCLA Charles B. Lowrey Ph.D. Chemistry University of Houston Jeffrey H. Harwell Ph. D. Chemical Engineering University of Texas, Austin Frank Cheng Associate Professor of Chemistry University of Idaho David Heddle Ph. D. Physics Carnegie Mellon University Yoshiyuki Amemiya Professor of Advanced Materials Science & Applied Physics The University of Tokyo Barbara S. Helmkamp Ph.D. Theoretical Physics Louisiana State University David C. Kem Professor of Medicine University of Oklahoma College of Medicine C. Thomas Luiskutty Ph.D. Physics Univ. of Louisville Wusi Maki Research Asst. Professor, Dept. of Microbiology, Mol. Biology, & Biochem. University of Idaho A. Cordell Perkes Ph.D. Science Education Ohio State University John D. Cook Head of Software Development (Ph.D. Mathematics, U.T. Austin) Department of Biostatistics & Applied Mathematics, U. of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Tony Prato Prof. of Ecological Economics University of Missouri Charles G. Sanny Prof. of Biochemistry Oklahoma State University Ctr. for Health Sciences Jairam Vanamala Postdoctoral Research Associate, Faculty of Nutrition Faculty of Nutrition, TAMU, College Station Gordon L. Wilson Ph.D. Environmental Science and Public Policy George Mason University Robin D. Zimmer Ph.D. Environmental Sciences Rutgers University Karl Duff Sc.D. Mechanical Engineering MIT David Jansson Sc.D. Instrumentation and Automatic Control MIT C. Steven Murphree Professor of Biology Belmont University Alfred G. Ratz Ph.D. Engineering Physics University of Toronto (Canada) Chris Cellucci Associate Professor of Physics Ursinus College Gary Maki Director, Ctr. for Advanced Microelectronics and Biomolecular Research University of Idaho Ronald S. Carson Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering University of Washington Joseph A. Strada Ph.D. Aeronautical Engineering Naval Postgraduate School Olaf Karthaus Associate Professor, Chemistry Chitose Institute of Science & Technology (Japan) Arnold Eugene Carden Professor Emeritus of Engineering Science & Mechanics University of Alabama John B. Marshall Professor of Medicine University of Missouri School of Medicine Robert B. Sheldon Ph.D. Physics University of Maryland, College Park B. K. Nelson Research Toxicologist (retired) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Hansik Yoon Ph.D. Fiber Science Seoul National University (South Korea) A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—16 http://WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG David Conover Ph.D. Health Physics Purdue University Luis Paulo Franco de Barros D.Sc. Mechanical Engineering Pontificia Universidade Católica (Brazil) Richard W. Pooley Professor of Surgery (retired) New York Medical College Arthur Chadwick Ph.D. Molecular Biology University of Miami Lennart Saari Adjunct Professor, Wildlife Biology University of Helsinki (Finland) Douglas G. Frank Ph.D. Surface Electrochemistry University of Cincinnati James G. Tarrant Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Texas, Austin N. Ricky Byrn Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Jeffrey E. Lander Ph.D. Biomechanics University of Oregon Curtis Hawkins Asst. Clinical Professor of Dermatology Case Western Reserve Univ. School of Medicine Mary A. Brown DVM (Veterinary Medicine) Ohio State University Thomas H. Marshall Adjunct Professor, Food Agricultural and Biological Engineering Ohio State University Charles H. McGowen Assistant Professor of Medicine Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine Ronald R. Crawford Ed.D. Science Education Ball State University Matti Junnila DVM, Ph.D. Veterinary Pathology University of Helsinki (Finland) Dean Svoboda Ph.D. Electrical Engineering The Ohio State University Ruth C. Miles Professor of Chemistry Malone College Mark J. Lattery Associate Professor of Physics University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh William McVaugh Associate Professor of Biology Department of Natural Sciences, Malone College Jeffrey M. Goff Associate Professor of Chemistry Malone College Jarrod W. Carter Ph.D. Bioengineering University of Washington David B. Medved* Ph.D. Physics University of Pennsylvania Theodore W. Geier Ph.D. Forrest Hydrology University of Minnesota Christian Heiss Post-Doctoral Associate Complex Carbohydrate Res. Ctr., Univ. of Georgia G. Bradley Schaefer Professor of Pediatrics University of Nebraska Medical Center Bruce Simat Associate Professor of Biology Northwestern College Teresa Gonske Assistant Professor of Mathematics Northwestern College Thomas Mundie Dean of the School of Science & Technology Georgia Gwinnett College Scott S. Kinnes Professor of Biology Azusa Pacific University James A. Huggins Chair, Dept. of Biology & Dir., Hammons Center for Scientific Studies Union University Jonathan A. Zderad Assistant Professor of Mathematics Northwestern College Michael R. Egnor Professor and Vice-Chairman, Dept. of Neurological Surgery State University of New York at Stony Brook I. Caroline Crocker Ph.D. Immunopharmacology University of Southampton (UK) Donald J. Hanrahan Ph.D. Electrical Engineering University of Maryland Gintautas Jazbutis Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Paul S. Darby Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Georgia Changhyuk An Ph.D. Physics University of Tennessee L. Kirt Martin Professor of Biology Lubbock Christian University Gerald Schroeder Ph.D. Earth Sciences & Nuclear Physics MIT Rod Rogers Ph.D. Agronomy/Plant Breeding Iowa State University David W. Herrin Research Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering University of Kentucky Glen Needham Associate Professor of Entomology The Ohio State University E. Byron Rogers Professor of Chemistry; Chair, Dept. of Mathematics & Physical Sciences Lubbock Christian University Vladimir L. Voeikov Vice-Chairman, Chair of Bio-organic Chemistry, Faculty of Biology Lomonosov Moscow State University (Russia) Ricardo Leon Dean of School of Medicine Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—17 http://WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG Eugene C. Ashby Regents’ Professor and Distinguished Professor Emeritus Georgia Institute of Technology JoAnne Larsen Assistant Professor of Industrial Engineering University of South Florida, Lakeland Douglas Axe Director (Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology) Biologic Institute Joel Brind Professor of Biology Baruch College, City University of New York William F. Basener Associate Professor of Mathematics Rochester Institute of Technology L. Whit Marks Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Central Oklahoma Jan Peter Bengtson Associate Professor (M.D., Ph.D. Intensive Care Medicine) University of Gothenburg (Sweden) Perry Mason Professor of Mathematics and Physical Science Lubbock Christian University Timothy A. Mixon Assistant Professor of Medicine Texas A&M University Lawrence DeMejo Ph.D. Polymer Science and Engineering University of Massachusetts at Amherst Charles Garner Professor of Chemistry Baylor University Lynne Parker Professor of Computer Science (Ph.D. MIT) Distributed Intelligence Lab, University of Tennessee Ivan M. Lang Ph.D. Physiology and Biophysics Temple University David J. Lawrence Ph.D. Physics Washington University, St. Louis John G. Hoey Ph.D. Molecular and Cellular Biology City University of New York Graduate School Theodore J. Siek Ph.D. Biochemistry Oregon State University John P. Rickert Ph.D. Mathematics Vanderbilt University Christian M. Loch Ph.D. Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics University of Virginia David W. Rusch Sr. Research Scientist, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics University of Colorado Charles A. Signorino Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Pennsylvania Luke Randall Ph.D. Molecular Microbiology University of London (UK) Jan Frederic Dudt Associate Professor of Biology Grove City College Glenn A. Marsch Associate Professor of Physics Grove City College Eduardo Sahagun Professor of Botany Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) Mark A. Chambers Ph.D. Virology University of Cambridge (UK) Gary Hook Ph.D. Environmental Science Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Daniel Howell Ph.D. Biochemistry Virginia Tech Joel D. Hubbard Associate Professor, Dept. of Lab. Science and Primary Care Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center C. Roger Longbotham Ph.D. Statistics Florida State University Hugh L. Henry Lecturer (Ph.D. Physics, University of Virginia) Northern Kentucky University Jonathan D. Eisenback Professor of Plant Pathology Dept. of Plant Pathology and Weed Science Virginia Tech Eduardo Arroyo Professor of Forensics (Ph.D. Biology) Complutense University (Spain) Peter Silley Ph.D. Microbial Biochemistry University of Newcastle upon Tyne E. Norbert Smith Ph.D. Zoology Texas Tech University Peter C. Iwen Professor of Pathology and Microbiology University of Nebraska Medical Center Paul Roschke A.P. and Florence Wiley Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering Texas A&M University Luman R. Wing Associate Professor of Biology Azusa Pacific University Edward F. Blick Ph.D. Engineering Science University of Oklahoma Wesley M. Taylor Former Chairman of the Division of Primate Medicine & Surgery New England Regional Primate Research Center, Harvard Medical School Don England Professor Emeritus of Chemistry Harding University Wayne Linn Professor Emeritus of Biology Southern Oregon University James Gundlach Associate Professor of Physics John A. Logan College Guillermo Gonzalez Associate Professor of Astronomy Iowa State University Tim Droubay Ph.D. Physics University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—18 http://WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG Gregory D. Bossart Director and Head of Pathology Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution Barry Homer Ph.D. Mathematics Southampton University (UK) Jiøí Vácha Professor Emeritus of Pathological Physiology Institute of Pathophysiology, Masaryk University (Czech Republic) Richard J. Neves Professor of Fisheries, Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences Virginia Tech David Deming Associate Professor of Geosciences University of Oklahoma Gregory A. Ator Associate Professor, Department of Otolaryngology University of Kansas Medical Center Erkki Jokisalo Ph.D. Social Pharmacy University of Kuopio (Finland) John S. Roden Associate Professor of Biology Southern Oregon University Donald W. Russell Adjunct Assistant Clinical Professor University of North Carolina School of Medicine Neil Armitage Associate Professor of Civil Engineering University of Cape Town (South Africa ) Geoff Barnard Senior Research Scientist, Department of Veterinary Medicine University of Cambridge (UK) Richard Hassing Ph.D. Theoretical Physics Cornell University Olivia Torres Professor-Researcher (Human Genetics) Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) Donald A. Kangas Professor of Biology Truman State University Alvin Masarira Senior Lecturer for Structural Engineering and Mechanics University of Cape Town (South Africa) George A. Ekama Professor, Water Quality Engineering, Dept of Civil Engineering University of Cape Town (South Africa) Alistair Donald Ph.D. Environmental Science/Quaternary or Pleistocene Palynology University of Wales (UK) Thomas C. Majerus PharmD; FCCP University of Minnesota Ferenc Farkas Ph.D. Applied Chemical Sciences Technical University of Budapest (Hungary) Scott A. Chambers Affiliate Professor of Chemistry and Materials Science & Engineering University of Washington Cris Eberle Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering Purdue University Dennis M. Sullivan Professor of Biology and Bioethics Cedarville University Rodney M. Rutland Department Head & Associate Professor of Kinesiology Anderson University Alastair M. Noble Ph.D. Chemistry Unive LikeLike
  27. “I’ve never met a Christian, for instance, who has been able to tell me what observations about the universe would make him abandon his beliefs in God and Jesus”

    Jerry Coyne, I’d think that after 200 years of searching; the lack of missing links in the fossil record might have caused you to abandon your belief in Darwin’s theory.

    I would encourage anyone, including Jerry Coyne, to investigate the evidence against this theory at CMI http://www.creation.com. There are a great many articles and media created by fantastic scientists and geniuses that may answer a wide range of troubling questions you may have. A serious scientist should always investigate the counter arguments.

    “I would have thought that the Holocaust could do it, but apparently not”
    Consider this video clip https://store.creation.com/za/product_info.php?sku=30-9-571:

    “How could such an advanced country descend to unspeakable brutality? Evolutionary ideas permeating Germany undermined the sanctity of innocent human life. See a chilling Nazi propaganda clip, “we have sinned against natural selection” by allowing the “unfit” to live. Learn how the abortion and euthanasia lobbies make the same mistake. (High School–Adult) 39min.”

    Hitler’s idea of a superior (i.e. more evolved) human race or the ‘ubermens’ is grounded in the theory of evolution and not in Christianty, Jerry.

    Please have a look at the many articles on this subject at http://creation.com/article/6399

    Like

  28. “For it is faith’s certainty that it has a grasp on truth, combined with its inability to actually find it, that produces things such as the oppression of women and gays, opposition to stem cell research and euthanasia, attacks on science, denial of contraception for birth control and AIDS prevention, sexual repression, and of course all those wars, suicide bombings and religious persecutions.”

    Wow! What a statement to make. It is the Christians who believe in the non-oppression of women. It was Jesus who crossed that boundary about 2000 years ago by showing that women were worthy of talking to and being considered and even worthy of being disciples to the great surprise of the culture of that day. It was Jesus who highlighted the importance of children when others pushed them away and told them to be quiet.

    It was Jesus who crossed unheard of cultural boundaries by talking to the Samaritan woman.
    The Bible says that “God so loved the world” even in its sin. God loves sinners, but he hates sin. It is not the embryonic stem cell that has to be researched. Other stem cells are just as valuable. It is the sanctity and respect for life that causes Christians to oppose abortion and euthanasia. I mean, what if Nelson Mandela was aborted, the great American Christian president, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jnr (American civil rights leader) or even Jerry Coyne here was aborted? What if Jerry was harvested as a stem cell? I don’t think he would have been too happy about that! But, the Christians would have fought, like they do today, to save Jerry, even if he still ended up writing this article that he has here, lol.

    Christians on the whole have never tried to stop AIDS cures or prevention. They have never tried to get rid of condoms. The problem with birth control pills is that a human being is still conceived like you and I were, except that the conceived human cannot embed itself in the uterine wall for nourishment and ends up dying; what is normally referred to as spontaneous abortion. Christians adopt AIDS orphans, research cures and generally are very involved in helping the individuals afflicted with this diease. They even pray for divine healing for these individuals. They love and care for them as the Lord did in example for the lepers of his day.

    Sexual repression? What Christian is repressing you sexually, Mr Coyne?
    Yes, Bible-believing Christians believe in abstinence until married and this generally is a prevention for sexually transmitted infections like AIDS.
    This world is sexually corrupt with babies, children, teenagers, boys and girls, men and women being raped by others and Mr Coyne is worried about sexual repression, haha. You know, with some more Biblical morality the world would have much less of the problems he states here.
    “all those wars”? What wars? The second world war? That was grounded in evolution. What wars? Please don’t be so broad, you need to be more specific. I know that Christians have fought (and still are) against injustice, slavery, oppression, for the sanctity of life, children and basically for human rights. Yes, those wars we have fought.

    See now we can’t take the credit for the suicide bombings, so don’t lump us in with that.
    Also remember that what some Christians do may often be outside of what the Bible teaches. Thus, Christians may sin and do wrong, but that does not invalidate the Bible, obviously!
    Religious persecutions? Well if you do some research, Mr Coyne, you’ll find that at the Salem Witch Trials, fewer than 25 were killed.
    Please compare this to: Deaths resulting from atheistic/evolutionary regimes: 77 million in communist China, 62 million in Soviet Gulag State, 21 million non-combatants killed by the Nazi’s and 2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge in killing fields.
    Note also: “There are no Christians as far as I know blowing up buildings; I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers; I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity” – Prof. Dawkins (Most popular atheistic scientist)

    What about the atrocities caused by evolutionists? Planned Parenthood (Abortion) by Margaret Sanger (more than 50 million killed in North America alone), the eugenics movement (founded by family members of Darwin), forced sterilizations of the ‘unfit’ in North America (60 000 US citizens against their will), etc.? What about the removal of the thyroid gland, because of the evolutionary belief that it was a vestigial organ, and the subsequent deaths of the patients?
    See http://creation.com/christian-vs-evolutionary-atrocities.

    Like

  29. The great scientist Isaac Newton said about atheism: “‘This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” Παντοκράτωρ[Pantokratōr cf. 2 Corinthians 6:18], or “Universal Ruler”. … The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect.’ ‘Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.’”
    I’m sure that even Jerry Coyne would agree that Isaac Newton (author of the laws of motion and gravitational interaction) was one of the greatest and honoured scientists that ever lived.

    Like

  30. “There is no horror, no amount of evil in the world that a true believer can’t rationalize as consistent with a loving God”

    The reason for the way the world is today is explained in the Bible. Basically in the first book of the Bible, Genesis. That’s why I thank Christ for his sacrifice that saves me from this world. Someone once said: “I don’t want to live in hell and then die and go to hell”. Please see the following links that summarises why the world is full of sin.

    http://creation.com/why-is-there-death-and-suffering

    http://creation.com/why-would-a-loving-god-allow-suffering

    Jerry Coyne has hashed up old arguments that are already dead for many Christians and Creationists and even for some evolutionists like Dawkins quoted in my previous comment.

    I hope that some day he will dare to investigate the arguments against the theory that his lecturers told him about when he was a student.

    Like

  31. Tracy, your diatribe against Jerry Coyne continues; why don’t you post them on his blog instead of spewing verbal diarrhoea here? Answer Malherbe and me – or didn’t you even bother to read what we wrote?

    By the way; Newton was also an alchemist and his law of gravity was only correct at low mass and speed – Einstein corrected Newton.

    And since when is a great scientist al of a sudden an authority on whether there is a god or not. Did Newton show god to the people of his time? Of course not, so why should we suddenly believe what he said 300 years ago? If you use these type of arguments in your scientific work, I can only fear for science.

    Like

  32. You are such an idoit, Savage!!!!! why must she argue about her faith with you & Malherbe? All she’s doing is proving a point that one shouldn’t take things at face value because some scientist said so.

    What I’ve realised is that everything that she mentioned, you didn’t even’s really read. You are more on a personal trip with regards to who & whether she believes in the events that took place in the Bible. And yes she does, else she would’ve been an athiest, not?

    Why are science only attacking Christianity, it’s weird!!! if it had to be a different faith eg, Islam, the Universities would’ve been scurtinised!!!!!!!!

    Like

  33. “What I’ve realised is that everything that she mentioned, you didn’t even’s really read.”

    I actually did read everything she wrote, SNJ, but just to mention the deaths caused by Christians (the crusades, to name only one), as well as that although Stalin and others were atheists, but didn’t kill for the sake of atheism, would take to much of my time. I’ve been through this too many times. So, I just extract snippets and comment on them.

    Like

  34. “Actually, many historians are recognizing that the Crusades were a justified response to centuries of Islamic aggression, e.g. Robert Spencer: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).

    We have often demonstrated that the occasional atrocities committed by professing Christians were completely contrary to the teachings of Christ, while the atrocities of 20th century Nazis and Communists were totally consistent with evolutionary teaching.

    The Muslims quickly conquered the Iberian Peninsula well before the Crusades. They probably would have almost certainly conquered Europe if the Frankish king Charles Martel’s infantry had not defeated the Muslim cavalry at the Battle of Tours/Poitiers in a brilliant defensive strategy.

    Also, just think about the historic centres of Christianity such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and the rest of north Africa—they are now Muslim lands, converted at the point of the sword. And after the crusades, the Muslim Turks conquered the ancient land of Asia Minor, the birthplace of the Apostle Paul, the site of many of his missionary journeys and home of the Seven Churches of the book of Revelation. Furthermore, when they conquered Constantinople (now Istanbul) in 1453, they turned Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom), the world’s biggest church of its day and centre of Eastern Orthodoxy, into a mosque.

    Note that a just war can still have atrocities without affecting the justness of the war itself. In the case of the Crusades, problems arose because many of the soldiers were biblically illiterate, and had justification-by-works mentality, thinking that they could earn salvation by going on the Crusade. However, biblical Christianity is not the cause but would have been a corrective if followed—salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, not by works, as shown by Paul’s citation of Genesis 15:6, ‘Abraham believed the LORD, and it was credited to him as righteousness’ (Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6, cf. Eph. 2:8–9)”

    Taken from http://creation.com/the-charles-darwin-adolf-hitler-connexion-correcting-misinformation-re-slavery-racism

    Like

  35. ” .. Nazis and Communists were totally consistent with evolutionary teaching.”

    What are evolutionary teachings? Where did Lysenko practice evolutionary biology? By refusing to believe the theory of evolution, he caused agricultural disaster in communist Russia. The Nazis practiced eugenics – not evolutionary biology.

    Tracy, you are trained in science – you should know the definition of evolution. Let me refresh your mind:

    Evolution is the change in the gene pool of a population (or species) over time. Genes mutate, individuals are selected, and a species evolve.

    Attributing the attrocities of the Nazis and Stalin to the theory of evolution, is ludicrous.

    Like

  36. Please do view the video clips and links to articles (wherever you see http etc.). I completed evolutionary genetics in my third year.

    http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end

    Mutations: evolution’s engine becomes evolution’s end!

    by Alex Williams

    In neo-Darwinian theory, mutations are uniquely biological events that provide the engine of natural variation for all the diversity of life. However, recent discoveries show that mutation is the purely physical result of the universal mechanical damage that interferes with all molecular machinery. Life’s error correction, avoidance and repair mechanisms themselves suffer the same damage and decay. The consequence is that all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay. Mutation rates are so high that they are clearly evident within a single human lifetime, and all individuals suffer, so natural selection is powerless to weed them out. The effects are mostly so small that natural selection cannot ‘see’them anyway, even if it could remove their carriers. Our reproductive cells are not immune, as previously thought, but are just as prone to damage as our body cells. Irrespective of whether creationists or evolutionists do the calculations, somewhere between a few thousand and a few million mutations are enough to drive a human lineage to extinction, and this is likely to occur over a time scale of only tens to hundreds of thousands of years. This is far short of the supposed evolutionary time scales.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Mutations destroy

    Ever since Hugo de Vries discovered mutations in the 1890s they have been given a central role in evolutionary theory. De Vries was so enamoured with mutations that he developed an anti-Darwinian saltationist theory of evolution via mutation alone.1 But as more became known, mutations of large effect were found to be universally lethal, so only mutations of small effect could be credibly considered as of value to evolution, and de Vries’ saltationist theory waned. When the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis emerged in the 1930s and 1940s, mutations were said to provide the natural variations that natural selection worked on to produce all new forms of life.

    However, directly contradicting mutation’s central role in life’s diversity, we have seen growing experimental evidence that mutations destroy life. In medical circles, mutations are universally regarded as deleterious. They are a fundamental cause of ageing,2,3 cancer4,5 and infectious diseases.6

    Even among evolutionary apologists who search for examples of mutations that are beneficial, the best they can do is to cite damaging mutations that have beneficial side effects (e.g. sickle-cell trait,7 a 32-base-pair deletion in a human chromosome that confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes,8 CCR5–delta32 mutation,9 animal melanism,10 and stickleback pelvic spine suppression11). Such results are not at all surprising in the light of the discovery that DNA undergoes up to a million damage and repair events per cell per day.12

    Mutation physics

    Neo-Darwinian theory represents mutations as uniquely biological events that constitute the ‘engine’ of biological variation. However, now that we can see life working in molecular detail, it becomes obvious that mutations are not uniquely biological events—they are purely physical events.

    All multi-cellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay because the deleterious mutation rates are so high … and natural selection is ineffective in removing the damage.

    Life works via the constant (often lightning-fast) movement of molecular machinery in cells. Cells are totally filled with solids and liquids—there are no free spaces. The molecular machines and the cell architecture and internal structures are made up of long-chain organic polymers (e.g. proteins, DNA, RNA, carbohydrates, lipids) while the liquid is mostly water. All forms of movement are subject to the laws of motion, yet the consequences of this simple physical fact have been almost universally ignored in biology.

    Newton’s first law of motion says that a physical body will remain at rest, or continue to move at a constant velocity, unless an external force acts upon it. Think of a message molecule that is sent from one part of a cell to another. Since the cell is full of other molecules, with no empty spaces, the message molecule will soon hit other molecules and either slow down or stop altogether. This is the universal problem known as friction.

    Friction events can result from many causes, but can be crudely divided into two types: one is referred to as ploughing and the other is shearing. Ploughing involves the physical displacement of materials to facilitate the motion of an object, while shearing arises from the disruption of adhesive interactions between adjacent surfaces.13

    Molecular machines in cells owe a great deal of their structure to hydrogen bonds, but these are rather weak and fairly easily broken. For example, most proteins are long, strongly-bonded chains of amino acids, but these long chains are coiled up into 3-dimensional machine components, and the 3-dimensional structures are held together by hydrogen bonds.14 When such structures suffer mechanical impacts, the transfer of momentum can distort or break the hydrogen bonds and critically damage the molecule’s function.

    The inside of a cell has a density and viscosity somewhat similar to yogurt (figure 1). The stewed fruit (dark colour) added to the yogurt during manufacture can be seen swirling out into the white yogurt. The fruit has not continued to disperse throughout the yogurt. It was completely stopped by the initial friction. This is like what happens in a cell—any movement is quickly dampened by friction forces of all kinds coming from all directions.

    Figure 1. A transparent carton of fruit yogurt illustrates how friction in the viscous fluid stopped the motion initiated by mixing the fruit (dark colour) with the yogurt (white colour).

    How do cells cope with this friction? In at least five different ways. First, there are motor proteins available all over the cell that attach to mobile molecules and carry them along the filaments and tubules that make up the cytoskeleton of the cell. Second, these motor proteins are continually re-energized after friction collisions by energy inputs packaged in the form of ATP molecules. Third, there are ‘address labels’ attached to mobile molecules to ensure they are delivered to the correct destination (friction effects continually divert mobile molecules from their course). Fourth, thin films of water cover all the molecular components of cells and provide both a protective layer and a lubricant that reduces the frequency and severity of friction collisions. Fifth, there is a wide range of maintenance and repair mechanisms available to repair the damage that friction causes.

    The friction problem—and the damage that results from it—is orders of magnitude greater in cells than it is in larger mechanical systems. Biomolecules are very spiky objects with extremely rough and highly adhesive surfaces. They cannot be manufactured and honed to the smoothness that we achieve in our vehicle engine components such as pistons and flywheel pivots, nor can ball-bearings be inserted to reduce the surface contact area, such as we do in wheel axles. As a biological example, consider the rotary motor that drives the bacterial flagellum. The major wear surfaces are on the rotor (attached to the flagellum) and the stator (the housing for the rotor, attached to the cell wall). The stator consists of 22 molecules, set in 11 pairs. The wear rate is so great that the average residence time for a stator molecule in the stator is only about 30 seconds.15 The cell’s maintenance system keeps a pool of about 200 stator molecules in reserve to cope with this huge turnover rate.

    Finding suitable lubricants to overcome friction is a major focus in the nanotechnology industry. A special technique called ‘friction force microscopy’ has been developed to quantitatively evaluate potential lubricants.16

    This shows that the laws of physics, operating among the viscous components of the cell, both predict and explain the high rate of molecular damage that we observe in DNA. Between 50% and 80% of the DNA in a cell is continually consulted for the information necessary for everyday metabolism. This consultation requires numerous steps that each involve physical deformation of the DNA—moving around within the nucleus, winding and unwinding of the chromatin structures, unzipping the double-helix, binding and unbinding of the transcription machinery, re-zipping the double-helix, rewinding the chromatin structures and shuffling around within the nucleus. Each step of motion is powered by ATP discharges and inevitably causes mechanical damage among the components. While most of this damage is repaired, the repair mechanisms are not 100% perfect because they suffer mechanical damage themselves.17

    Mutations rapidly destroy

    Within neo-Darwinian theory, natural selection is supposed to be the guardian of our genomes because it weeds out unwanted deleterious mutations and favours beneficial ones. Not so, according to genetics expert Professor John Sanford.18 Natural selection can only weed out mutations that have a significant negative effect upon fitness (number of offspring produced). But such ‘fitness’ is affected by a huge variety of factors, and the vast majority of mutations have too small an effect for natural selection to be able to detect and remove them.

    Furthermore, if the average mutation rate per person per generation is around 1 or more, then everyone is a mutant and no amount of selection can stop degeneration of the whole population. As it turns out, the mutation rate in the human population is very much greater than 1. Sanford estimates at least 100, probably about 300, and possibly more.

    All multicellular life suffers

    Two recent reviews of the mutation literature not only confirm Sanford’s claims, but extend them to all multi-cellular life.

    In a review of the distribution of fitness effects (DFE) of mutations,19 the authors are unable to give any examples of beneficial mutations for humans. In their calculations regarding the rate of deleterious mutations (MD) and neutral mutations (MN), they use the equalities MD = 1 – MN and MN = 1 – MD which both imply that the rate of beneficial mutations is zero. They do give a few non-zero values for beneficial mutation rates in some experimental organisms, but qualify these results by noting the interference of other variables.

    In a review of mutation rate variations in eukaryotes,20 the authors admit that all multicellular organisms are undergoing inexorable genome decay from mutations because natural selection cannot remove the damage.21 Their Box 2 and Table 1 list deleterious mutation rates for a wide range of multicellular organisms, noting they are all underestimates, with the possible exception of those for the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster with a value of 1.2. The value given for humans is ‘~3’.

    Thus, all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay because the deleterious mutation rates are so high, the effects of the most individual mutations are so small, there are no compensatory beneficial mutations, and natural selection is ineffective in removing the damage.

    The wheels have come off the neo-Darwinian juggernaut!

    How long to extinction?

    How long could multicellular life survive in the face of universal genetic degradation? This is a very important question, and I will attempt to answer it by using several different lines of evidence.

    Human ageing and cancer

    We have recently discovered that there is a common biology in cancer and ageing—both are the result of accumulating molecular damage in cells.22 This confirms the arguments outlined above, that for purely physical reasons molecular machinery suffers extremely high damage rates, clearly evident within the lifespan of a single human. Every cell has a built-in time clock to limit this damage and minimize the chance of it becoming cancerous. At every cell division, each telomere (the caps on both ends of a chromosome that stop the double-helix from unravelling) is shortened by a small amount, until they reach the Hayflick Limit—discovered in 1965 to be a little over 50 cell divisions. The cells then stop dividing and they are dismantled and their parts are recycled.

    By adding the enzyme telomerase, the telomere shortening problem can be circumvented, but that then exposes the cell to a greater risk of becoming cancerous because of accumulating damage elsewhere in the cell. The overall balance between protection from damage and the need for longevity determines fitness (reproductive success) and life span.23 The body’s normal reaction to increasing genome damage is to kill off the damaged cells via programmed senescence (of which the telomere clock with its Hayflick limit is but one part). But cells become malignant (cancerous) when mutation disables the senescence mechanism itself, which then enables the damaged cells to proliferate without limit.22 The Hayflick limit of around 50 cell divisions for humans seems to provide the optimum balance.

    Fifty human generations of 20 years each gives us only 1,000 years as a timescale over which a human lineage would begin to experience a significant mutation load in its genome. This is alarmingly rapid compared with the supposed evolutionary time scale of millions and billions of years.

    Reproductive cells

    Figure 2. Schematic representation of human life expectancy (—), male fertility (∙∙∙), and risk of fetal abnormality with mother’s age (—). Despite the protective Hayflick limit on cell divisions and life expectancy, very significant molecular damage accumulates in humans even during the most productive years of life. Mutations do even more damage than the Hayflick limit and associated cancer rates suggest.

    Ever since August Weismann published The Germ-Plasm: A Theory of Heredity24 in 1893, a discrete separation has been shown to exist between body cells (the soma) and germ-line cells (germplasm). Germ-line cells were thought to be more protected from mutation than other body cells. However, another recently discovered cause of ageing is that our stem cells grow old as a result of heritable DNA damage and degeneration of their supporting niches (the special ‘nest’ areas in most organs and tissues of the body where stem cells grow and are nurtured and protected). The telomere shortening mechanism—intended to reduce cancer incidence—appears to also induce the unwanted side-effect of a decline in the replicative capacity of certain stem-cell types with advancing age. This decreased regenerative capacity has led to a ‘stem-cell hypothesis’ for human age-associated degenerative conditions.25

    Human fertility problems suggest that the decline in niche protection of stem cells also applies to our gametes (eggs and sperm). For males, fertility—as measured by sperm count, sperm vigor and chance of conception—begins to decline significantly by age 40 and the rate of certain paternal-associated birth defects increases rapidly during the 30s (figure 2).26 For females, the chance of birth defects increases rapidly from around the mid-30s, particularly because of chromosome abnormalities (figure 2). In the middle of the most productive part of our lives, our bodies are therefore showing clear evidence of decline through accumulation of molecular damage in our genomes.

    Do germ-line cells really suffer less damage?

    When DNA was discovered to be the carrier of inheritance, Weissman’s germ-plasm theory gave rise to the ‘immortal strand hypothesis.’ When the DNA of an embryonic stem cell replicates itself, it was thought that the ‘old’ strand would remain with the self-renewing ‘mother’ stem cell, while the newly constructed daughter strand proceeds down the path of differentiation into a body cell. In this way, the ‘old’ strand would remain error free—because it has not suffered any copying errors—and thus becomes effectively immortal.

    However, a research team at the Howard Hughes Memorial Institute recently tested this theory using the stem cells that produce blood, and found that they segregate their chromosomes randomly.27 That is, the ‘immortal strand hypothesis’ is wrong. If stem cells are not given this kind of preferential treatment then it is reasonable to conclude that germ-line cells are also subject to the same molecular damage as somatic cells. This is confirmed by the observation that human fertility exhibits damage long before age-related diseases take over.

    A single human lifetime is enough to show very significant mutation damage, even in our reproductive cells.

    Haldane’s dilemma

    The severe contradictions that these findings pose for neo-Darwinian theory corroborate what has become known as Haldane’s dilemma. J.B.S. Haldane was one of the architects of neo-Darwinism who pioneered its application to population biology. He realized that it would take a long time for natural selection to fix an advantageous mutation in a population—fixation is when every member has two copies of an allele, having inherited it from both mother and father. He estimated that for vertebrates, about 300 generations would be required, on average, where the selective advantage is 10%. In humans, with a 20-year generation time and about 6 million years since our last common ancestor with the chimpanzee, only about 1,000 such advantageous mutations could have been fixed. Haldane believed that substitution of about 1,000 alleles would be enough to create a new species, but it is not nearly enough to explain the observed differences between us and our closest supposed relatives.

    The measured difference between the human and chimpanzee genomes amounts to about 125 million nucleotides, which are thought to have arisen from about 40 million mutation events.28 If only 1000 of these mutations could have been naturally selected to produce the new (human) species, it means the other 39,999,000 mutations were deleterious, which is completely consistent with the reviews showing that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious. Consequently, we must have degenerated from the apes, which is an absurd conclusion.

    According to Kirschner and Gerhart’s facilitated variation theory,29 life consists of two main components—conserved core processes (the structure and machinery in cells) and modular regulatory processes (the signalling circuits and switches that operate the machinery and provide a built-in source of natural variation). The 40 million ‘mutation’ differences between humans and chimps are therefore much more reasonably explained as 40 million modular differences between the design of chimps and the design of humans.

    Quantitative estimates of time to extinction

    There are a number of different ways to estimate the time it would take for relentlessly accumulating mutations to send our species to extinction.

    Binomial estimates

    Some very rough estimates can be derived from the Binomial distribution, which can predict the likelihood of multiple mutations accumulating in an essential genetic functional module. A binomial model of a mutating genome could consist of the cell’s DNA being divided into N functional modules, of which Ne are essential; that is, the lineage fails to reproduce if any of the essential modules are disabled. For any given mutational event, p = 1/N is the probability of being ‘hit’, q is the probability of being ‘missed’, and p q = 1.

    What is the likely value of N? We can derive two estimates from the knowledge that there are about 25,000 genes, plus the discovery from the pilot study report of the ENCODE project that virtually the whole human genome is functional.30

    For the first estimate, the average protein contains a few hundred amino acids and each amino acid requires three nucleotides of code, so the average gene would take up about 1,000 nucleotides of exon space (an exon is the protein-coding part of a gene). There are about 3 billion nucleotides in the whole human genome, so if we assume that the average protein represents an average functional unit then N = 3 million.

    The second estimate comes from the ENCODE report that gene regions produce on average 5 RNA transcripts per nucleotide, and the untranslated regions produce on average 7 RNA transcripts per nucleotide. There are about 33 times as many nucleotides in the untranslated regions as in the genic regions. Assuming that transcript size is approximately equal in each region, then there are 25,000 x 5 = 125,000 gene transcripts and 25,000 x 33 x 7 = 5,775,000 untranslated transcripts, making N= 5,900,000 in total. Our two estimates of N are therefore 3 to 6 million in round figures.

    What is the likely value of Ne? Experiments with mice indicate that 85% of genes can be knocked out one at a time without lethal effects.31 This is due to the robustness and failure-tolerance through fallback processes built into the genomic designs. That means any one of those remaining 15% genes will be fatal if disabled. Multiple mutations occur however, so the likely value of Ne when exposed to multiple mutations will be much higher than 15%. The maximum possible value is 100%. In a study of 2,823 human metabolic pathways, 96% produced disease conditions when disrupted by mutation,32 so if we take an average between this value and the minimum 15% then we get about 60% of functional units being essential.

    How many random mutations are required on average to disable an essential functional module? In rare cases, a single mutation is enough to disable a person’s ability to reproduce. A two-hit model is common in cancer. In a study of cell signalling networks, these two hits usually knocked out: (i) the programmed death system for dealing with damaged (cancerous) cells, and (ii) the normal controls on cell proliferation—so the damaged cancer cells can proliferate without limit. The proportion of cancer-associated genes was also found to increase with the number of linkages between genes. When a healthy gene is linked to more than 6 mutated genes, ~80% of all genes in the network are cancerous. Extrapolating from this, we find that by the time a normal gene is linked to about 10 mutated genes, then the whole network has become cancerous.33

    Almost 70% of known human genes can be causal agents of cancer when mutated.34 Cancers can result from as little as a single mutation in a stem cell, or multiple mutations in somatic cells.35 The minimum possible value of 1 is known to be rare, so the more common occurrence of the 2-hit model makes it a reasonable best-estimate minimum. But it may require 10 modules to receive two hits each for the whole network to become dysfunctional.

    The maximum number of hits required to disable a single module may be 100 or more, but if the average functional module only contains 1,000 nucleotides then this figure, at 10% of the whole, seems rather large. An order-of-magnitude average is perhaps more likely to be 10 random mutations per functional module.

    To provide some context for these estimates, recent work shows that the cell-cycle checkpoint damage repair system is activated when 10 to 20 double-strand breaks accumulate in a cell undergoing division.36 That is, life will tolerate only 10 to 20 DNA breaks per cell before it starts repair work, whereas we are examining scenarios in which there are thousands and millions of damage events per cell. Our numbers are clearly up in a region where the cell’s repair mechanisms are working at their hardest.

    What then is the likelihood of accumulating either 2 hits in 10 modules, or 10 hits in one module, in any one of either 15% or 60% of the 3 to 6 million functional modules? The binomial distribution in Microsoft Excel was used to make the following calculations, making the further assumption that the likelihood of the unit being a critical one must exceed 50% for extinction to be more likely than not in the next generation.

    Assuming 60% essentiality, only one functional module needs to be disabled for the probability of its essential status to exceed 50%. For the 2-hit model, about 6,000 to 12,000 mutations are required to disable ten of the 3 to 6 million functional modules. For the 10-hit model, 3 to 6 million mutations are required to disable one functional module.

    Assuming 15% essentiality, four modules need to be disabled before the probability of at least one of them being essential exceeds 50%. For the 2-hit model, 250,000 to 500,000 mutations are required to disable ten modules with four mutations each among the 3 to 6 million functional modules. For the 10-hit model, 3.7 to 7.5 million mutations are required to disable four functional modules.

    If every individual produces 100 new mutations every generation (assuming a generation time of 20 years) and these mutations are spread among 3 to 6 million functional modules across the whole genome, then the average time to extinction is:
    1,200 to 2,400 years for the 2-hits in 10 modules model and 60% essentiality
    50,000 to 100,000 years for the 2-hits in 10 modules model and 15% essentiality
    600,000 to 1,200,000 years for the 10-hit model and 60% essentiality
    740,000 to 1,500,000 years for the 10-hit model and 15% essentiality.

    Truncation selection

    Evolutionary geneticist Dr James Crow argued that humans are probably protected by ‘truncation selection’.26 Truncation occurs when natural selection preferentially deletes individuals with the highest mutation loads. Plant geneticist John Sanford put Crow’s claims to the test by developing a computer simulation of truncation. His assumptions were: 100 individuals in the population, 100 mutations per person per generation, 4 offspring per female, 25% non-genetic random deaths per generation, and 50% selection against the most mutant offspring per generation. He assumed an average fitness loss per mutation of 1 in 10,000. His species became extinct in only 300 generations. With a generation time of 20 years this corresponds to 6,000 years.37

    Sanford’s assumptions are somewhat unrealistic, but there are other ways to approach the problem. Mutations are pure chance events that follow a Poisson distribution, and this behaves like the normal curve when the average expected value is greater than about 30.38 In a Poisson distribution, the variance is equal to the average expected value, and the standard deviation is the square root of the variance. When the expected average value is 100, the standard deviation will be 10. The normal curve now tells us the following:
    Half the people will suffer about 100 mutations or more, and half the people will suffer about 100 mutations or less.
    About 84% of people will suffer 110 mutations or less, and so the remaining 16% of people will suffer 110 or more mutations. Alternatively, about 16% of people will suffer 90 or less.
    About 97.7% of the population will experience 120 mutations or less, and the remaining 2.3% will suffer 120 mutations or more. Alternatively, 2.3% will suffer 80 or less.
    About 99.9% of the population will suffer 130 mutations or less, and the remaining 0.1% will suffer 130 or more mutations. Alternatively, 0.1% will suffer 70 or less.

    If we remove the most mutant—those above 130 mutations per person per generation—then we will only remove 0.1% of the population and it will make virtually no difference. If we removed the most mutant 50% of the population that would not solve the problem either, for two reasons. First, the great majority of the remaining people still suffer between 70 and 100 mutations per person per generation, far above the value of 1 that ensures inexorable decline. Second, removing half the population each generation would send it extinct in a few dozen generations.

    Table 1. Estimated number of generations and years to extinction for populations of various sizes, when fitness declines by 1.5% in each generation.

    Synergistic epistasis and population size

    None of the above models include the effect of synergistic epistasis (if one gene is mutated, its impact is ameliorated by the coordinated activity of other genes) or of population size. We can include these by using Crow’s estimate that the fitness of the human race is currently degenerating at a rate of about 1 to 2% per generation. If we use an average value of 1.5% then only 98.5% of the next generation will produce reproductively viable offspring. The next generation after that will only have 98.5% of those survivors able to produce reproductively viable offspring, and so on.

    For any given stable population size N, the size of the next generation that can produce reproductively viable offspring will be 98.5% of N , and for any given number of generations G, the number of survivors able to produce reproductively viable offspring will be (98.5%)G of N.

    Table 1 shows the approximate numbers of generations after which the population degenerates to extinction (only one individual is left, so breeding cannot continue). No population can sustain a continual loss of viability of 1.5%.

    Like rust eating away the steel in a bridge, mutations are eating away our genomes and there is nothing we can do to stop them.

    The above model assumes that right from the beginning there will be 1.5% loss of fitness each generation. However, the binomial simulations earlier showed that individuals can tolerate somewhere between a few thousand to a few million mutations before the damage critically interferes with their ability to reproduce. This means that synergistic epistasis is a real phenomenon—life is robust in the face of mutational assault. Instead of the immediate loss of 1.5% every generation, the general population would remain apparently healthy for a much longer time before the damage became apparent.

    However, the rate at which mutations accumulate will remain the same because the cause remains the same—mechanical damage. This means that most people will be apparently healthy, but then approach the threshold of dysfunction over a much shorter period, creating a population crash rather than a slow decline.

    Either way, however, the time scales will be approximately the same because the rate of damage accumulation remains approximately the same.

    Summary

    Mutations are not uniquely biological events that provide an engine of natural variation for natural selection to work upon and produce all the variety of life. Mutation is the purely physical result of the all-pervading mechanical damage that accompanies all molecular machinery. As a consequence, all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay because the deleterious mutation rates are so high, the effects of the individual mutations are so small, there are no compensatory beneficial mutations and natural selection is ineffective in removing the damage.

    So much damage occurs that it is clearly evident within a single human lifetime. Our reproductive cells are not immune, as previously thought, but are just as prone to mechanical damage as our body cells. Somewhere between a few thousand and a few million mutations are enough to drive a human lineage to extinction, and this is likely to occur over a time scale of only tens to hundreds of thousands of years. This is far short of the supposed evolutionary time scales. Like rust eating away the steel in a bridge, mutations are eating away our genomes and there is nothing we can do to stop them.

    Evolution’s engine, when properly understood, becomes evolution’s end.

    A reader’s comment:

    Tendekai M., South Africa, 11 August 2011

    I am carrying out my MSc research on using chemical mutagens to breed for disease resistant sugarcane. The underlying principle of breeding is that it generates variation as a result of mutations. Beneficial variations are collected through crossing and all the beneficial traits are packaged into one variety. These mutations can happen naturally over long periods or can be induced in the lab using physical mutagens e.g. x-rays or gamma rays and chemical mutagens. The former is utilised in conventional breeding by crossing varieties expressing different traits as a result of mutations over time, and the latter is utilised in rapid production of new varieties over short periods and is referred to as ‘mutation breeding’. The major difference between these two approaches is the mutation frequency involved to generate variation. Conventional breeding has low mutation frequency as result it takes 15 years to breed a new sugarcane variety. On the other hand, mutation breeding utilises high mutation frequencies but only takes 3–4 years to develop a new variety.

    In the mutation breeding studies, somatic embryos of sugarcane were exposed to different concentrations of a mutagen, EMS (ethyl methanesulfonate), which were then germinated in vitro. The results showed that the higher the concentration of the mutagen (meaning higher mutation frequency), the lower the number of plants germinated. Hardly any plants germinated at the highest concentration.

    This suggests that higher frequencies of mutations are destructive rather than beneficial. Mutations that might have occurred over millions of years will therefore cause extinction rather than speciation.

    Related articles
    An information-gaining mutation in HIV?
    Genetics: no friend of evolution
    Gain-of-function mutations: at a loss to explain molecules-to-man evolution
    Squirrel evolution?
    Bacterial mutations plus biblical geology
    The diminishing returns of beneficial mutations

    Further reading
    Mutations Questions and Answers

    References
    1.De Vries, H., The Mutation Theory, German edition 1900–03, English edition 1910–11; De Vries, H., Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, 1905, , 11 August 2007. Return to text.
    2.Niedernhofer, L.J. et al., A new progeroid syndrome reveals that genotoxic stress suppresses the somatotroph axis, Nature 444:1038–1043, 2006. Return to text.
    3.Kudlow, B.A., Kennedy, B.K. and Monnat, R.J. Jr, Werner and Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndromes: mechanistic basis of human progeroid diseases, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 8:394–404, 2007. Return to text.
    4.Eccleston, A. and Dhand, R., Signaling in cancer, Nature441(7092):423, 2006. Return to text.
    5.He, X.C. et al., PTEN-deficient intestinal stem cells initiate intestinal polyposis, Nature Genetics 39:189–198, 2007. Return to text.
    6.Casanova, J-L. and Abel, L., Human genetics of infectious diseases: a unified theory, The EMBO Journal 26:915–922, 2007. Return to text.
    7.Carroll, S.B., The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution, Norton, New York, pp. 174–179, 2006. Return to text.
    8.Guilherme, A. and Pacheco, F., CCR5 receptor gene and HIV infection, , 11 August 2007. Return to text.
    9.Lamb, A., CCR5–delta32: a very beneficial mutation, Journal of Creation20(1):15, 2006. Return to text.
    10.Carroll, S.B., Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The new science of evo devo, Norton, New York, Ch. 9, 2005. Return to text.
    11.Carroll, S.B., The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution, Norton, New York, Ch. 8, 2006. Return to text.
    12., January 29, 2008. Return to text.
    13.Leggett, G.J., Brewer, N.J and Chong, K.S.L., Friction force microscopy: towards quantitative analysis of molecular organisation with nanometre spatial resolution, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 7:1107–1120, 2005. Return to text.
    14.Most organic macromolecules contain numerous hydrogen atoms bonded to carbon atoms. Because hydrogen has only one (negative) electron and one (positive) proton, the ‘cloud’ of electron trajectories tends to be easily skewed towards the stronger electromagnetic fields in the core of the carbon chain, thus giving the hydrogen atom a small net positive force, which is then available to form a ‘hydrogen bond’ with electron-rich (negative) sites on other nearby molecules, or on adjacent folds in its own chain. Return to text.
    15.Leake, M.C. et. al., Stoichiometry and turnover in single functioning membrane protein complexes, Nature 443:355–358, 2006. Return to text.
    16.Leggett, G.J., Brewer, N.J. and Chong, K.S.L., Friction force microscopy: towards quantitative analysis of molecular organisation with nanometre spatial resolution, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 7:1107–1120, 2005. Return to text.
    17.Copy fidelity varies with the different DNA copying systems that are present in all eukaryote cells, with the different kinds of errors that can occur, and with the different stages at which errors can occur. A couple of errors in ten million is fairly typical, but mutant cells may produce a hundred to ten thousand times this value. E.g. Pursell, Z.F., Isoz, I., Landström, E-.L., Johansson, E. and Kunkel, T.A. Regulation of B family DNA polymerase fidelity by a conserved active site residue: characterization of M644W, M644L and M644F mutants of yeast DNA polymerase ε, Nucleic Acids Research 35(9):3076–3086, 2007. Return to text.
    18.Sanford, J.C., Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, Elim Publishing, New York, 2005. Return to text.
    19.Humans have lived on earth for about 6,000 years and about 250 generations. For a population size of 1 million people, an average rate of one mutation per 20 people per generation is sufficient to ensure that everyone today is a mutant. I.e. (0.054)250 x 1 million people < 1. If the supposed 300,000 generations since the split with apes is assumed, then a rate of only 1 mutation in 21,000 people per generation is enough to ensure that everyone today is a mutant. Return to text.
    20.Eyre.-Walker, A. and Keightley, P.D., The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations, Nature Reviews Genetics 8:610–618, 2007. Return to text.
    21.Baer, C.F., Miyamoto, M.M. and Denver, D.R., Mutation rate variation in multicellular eukaryotes: causes and consequences, Nature Reviews Genetics 8:619–631, 2007. Return to text.
    22.Two important difference between multicellular organisms and bacteria and viruses in this regard are: (a) effective population size (trillions in the latter); (b) the latter have higher tolerance for mutations and are able to actively use them to their own advantage when required. E.g. Wagner, J. and Nohmi, T., Escherichia coli DNA Polymerase IV mutator activity: genetic requirements and mutational specificity, Journal of Bacteriology 182(16): 4587–4595, 2000. Return to text.
    23.Finkel, T., Serrano, M. and Blasco, M.A., The common biology of cancer and ageing, Nature 448:767–774, 2007. Return to text.
    24.Serrano, M. and Blasco, M.A., Cancer and ageing: convergent and divergent mechanisms, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 8:715–722, 2007. Return to text.
    25.Weismann, A., The Germ-Plasm: A Theory of Heredity, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893. On-line version: .
    26.Sharpless, N.E. and DePinho, R.A., How stem cells age and why this makes us grow old, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 8:703–713, 2007. Return to text.
    27.Crow, J.F., The high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk? Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 94:8380–8386, 1997. Return to text.
    28.Kiel, M.J. et al., Haematopoietic stem cells do not asymmetrically segregate chromosomes or retain BrdU, Nature 449:238–242, 2007. Return to text.
    29.DeWitt, D.A., Chimp genome sequence very different from man, Journal of Creation19(3):4–5, 2005. Return to text.
    30.Kirschner, M.W. and Gerhart, J.C., The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2005. Return to text.
    31.Williams, A., Astonishing DNA complexity uncovered. Return to text.
    32., 14 August 2007. Return to text.
    33.Ma, H., et al., The Edinburgh human metabolic network reconstruction and its functional analysis, Molecular Systems Biology3, Article number 135; published online, 2007, . Return to text.
    34.Cui, O. et al., A map of human cancer signaling, Molecular Systems Biology 3, Article number 152, 2007. Return to text.
    35.Kim, L., Accumulation of mutations: cancer or molecule-to-man evolution? Journal of Creation21(2):77–81, 2007. Return to text.
    36.He, X.C. et al., PTEN-deficient intestinal stem cells initiate intestinal polyposis, Nature Genetics 39(2):189–198, 2007. Return to text.
    37.Löbrich, M. and Jeggo, P.A., The impact of a negligent G2/M checkpoint on genomic instability and cancer induction, Nature Reviews Cancer7:861–869, 2007. Return to text.
    38.Sanford, ref. 18, p. 113. Return to text.
    39.Arnold, S.F., Mathematical Statistics, Prentice Hall, NJ, Table 6, 1990. Return to text.

    Like

  37. Please do view the video clips and links to articles (wherever you see http etc.). I completed evolutionary genetics in my third year.

    http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end

    Mutations: evolution’s engine becomes evolution’s end!

    by Alex Williams

    “In neo-Darwinian theory, mutations are uniquely biological events that provide the engine of natural variation for all the diversity of life. However, recent discoveries show that mutation is the purely physical result of the universal mechanical damage that interferes with all molecular machinery. Life’s error correction, avoidance and repair mechanisms themselves suffer the same damage and decay. The consequence is that all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay. Mutation rates are so high that they are clearly evident within a single human lifetime, and all individuals suffer, so natural selection is powerless to weed them out. The effects are mostly so small that natural selection cannot ‘see’them anyway, even if it could remove their carriers. Our reproductive cells are not immune, as previously thought, but are just as prone to damage as our body cells. Irrespective of whether creationists or evolutionists do the calculations, somewhere between a few thousand and a few million mutations are enough to drive a human lineage to extinction, and this is likely to occur over a time scale of only tens to hundreds of thousands of years. This is far short of the supposed evolutionary time scales.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Mutations destroy

    Ever since Hugo de Vries discovered mutations in the 1890s they have been given a central role in evolutionary theory. De Vries was so enamoured with mutations that he developed an anti-Darwinian saltationist theory of evolution via mutation alone.1 But as more became known, mutations of large effect were found to be universally lethal, so only mutations of small effect could be credibly considered as of value to evolution, and de Vries’ saltationist theory waned. When the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis emerged in the 1930s and 1940s, mutations were said to provide the natural variations that natural selection worked on to produce all new forms of life.

    However, directly contradicting mutation’s central role in life’s diversity, we have seen growing experimental evidence that mutations destroy life. In medical circles, mutations are universally regarded as deleterious. They are a fundamental cause of ageing,2,3 cancer4,5 and infectious diseases.6

    Even among evolutionary apologists who search for examples of mutations that are beneficial, the best they can do is to cite damaging mutations that have beneficial side effects (e.g. sickle-cell trait,7 a 32-base-pair deletion in a human chromosome that confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes,8 CCR5–delta32 mutation,9 animal melanism,10 and stickleback pelvic spine suppression11). Such results are not at all surprising in the light of the discovery that DNA undergoes up to a million damage and repair events per cell per day.12

    Mutation physics

    Neo-Darwinian theory represents mutations as uniquely biological events that constitute the ‘engine’ of biological variation. However, now that we can see life working in molecular detail, it becomes obvious that mutations are not uniquely biological events—they are purely physical events.

    All multi-cellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay because the deleterious mutation rates are so high … and natural selection is ineffective in removing the damage.

    Life works via the constant (often lightning-fast) movement of molecular machinery in cells. Cells are totally filled with solids and liquids—there are no free spaces. The molecular machines and the cell architecture and internal structures are made up of long-chain organic polymers (e.g. proteins, DNA, RNA, carbohydrates, lipids) while the liquid is mostly water. All forms of movement are subject to the laws of motion, yet the consequences of this simple physical fact have been almost universally ignored in biology.

    Newton’s first law of motion says that a physical body will remain at rest, or continue to move at a constant velocity, unless an external force acts upon it. Think of a message molecule that is sent from one part of a cell to another. Since the cell is full of other molecules, with no empty spaces, the message molecule will soon hit other molecules and either slow down or stop altogether. This is the universal problem known as friction.

    Friction events can result from many causes, but can be crudely divided into two types: one is referred to as ploughing and the other is shearing. Ploughing involves the physical displacement of materials to facilitate the motion of an object, while shearing arises from the disruption of adhesive interactions between adjacent surfaces.13

    Molecular machines in cells owe a great deal of their structure to hydrogen bonds, but these are rather weak and fairly easily broken. For example, most proteins are long, strongly-bonded chains of amino acids, but these long chains are coiled up into 3-dimensional machine components, and the 3-dimensional structures are held together by hydrogen bonds.14 When such structures suffer mechanical impacts, the transfer of momentum can distort or break the hydrogen bonds and critically damage the molecule’s function.

    The inside of a cell has a density and viscosity somewhat similar to yogurt (figure 1). The stewed fruit (dark colour) added to the yogurt during manufacture can be seen swirling out into the white yogurt. The fruit has not continued to disperse throughout the yogurt. It was completely stopped by the initial friction. This is like what happens in a cell—any movement is quickly dampened by friction forces of all kinds coming from all directions.

    Figure 1. A transparent carton of fruit yogurt illustrates how friction in the viscous fluid stopped the motion initiated by mixing the fruit (dark colour) with the yogurt (white colour).

    How do cells cope with this friction? In at least five different ways. First, there are motor proteins available all over the cell that attach to mobile molecules and carry them along the filaments and tubules that make up the cytoskeleton of the cell. Second, these motor proteins are continually re-energized after friction collisions by energy inputs packaged in the form of ATP molecules. Third, there are ‘address labels’ attached to mobile molecules to ensure they are delivered to the correct destination (friction effects continually divert mobile molecules from their course). Fourth, thin films of water cover all the molecular components of cells and provide both a protective layer and a lubricant that reduces the frequency and severity of friction collisions. Fifth, there is a wide range of maintenance and repair mechanisms available to repair the damage that friction causes.

    The friction problem—and the damage that results from it—is orders of magnitude greater in cells than it is in larger mechanical systems. Biomolecules are very spiky objects with extremely rough and highly adhesive surfaces. They cannot be manufactured and honed to the smoothness that we achieve in our vehicle engine components such as pistons and flywheel pivots, nor can ball-bearings be inserted to reduce the surface contact area, such as we do in wheel axles. As a biological example, consider the rotary motor that drives the bacterial flagellum. The major wear surfaces are on the rotor (attached to the flagellum) and the stator (the housing for the rotor, attached to the cell wall). The stator consists of 22 molecules, set in 11 pairs. The wear rate is so great that the average residence time for a stator molecule in the stator is only about 30 seconds.15 The cell’s maintenance system keeps a pool of about 200 stator molecules in reserve to cope with this huge turnover rate.

    Finding suitable lubricants to overcome friction is a major focus in the nanotechnology industry. A special technique called ‘friction force microscopy’ has been developed to quantitatively evaluate potential lubricants.16

    This shows that the laws of physics, operating among the viscous components of the cell, both predict and explain the high rate of molecular damage that we observe in DNA. Between 50% and 80% of the DNA in a cell is continually consulted for the information necessary for everyday metabolism. This consultation requires numerous steps that each involve physical deformation of the DNA—moving around within the nucleus, winding and unwinding of the chromatin structures, unzipping the double-helix, binding and unbinding of the transcription machinery, re-zipping the double-helix, rewinding the chromatin structures and shuffling around within the nucleus. Each step of motion is powered by ATP discharges and inevitably causes mechanical damage among the components. While most of this damage is repaired, the repair mechanisms are not 100% perfect because they suffer mechanical damage themselves.17

    Mutations rapidly destroy

    Within neo-Darwinian theory, natural selection is supposed to be the guardian of our genomes because it weeds out unwanted deleterious mutations and favours beneficial ones. Not so, according to genetics expert Professor John Sanford.18 Natural selection can only weed out mutations that have a significant negative effect upon fitness (number of offspring produced). But such ‘fitness’ is affected by a huge variety of factors, and the vast majority of mutations have too small an effect for natural selection to be able to detect and remove them.

    Furthermore, if the average mutation rate per person per generation is around 1 or more, then everyone is a mutant and no amount of selection can stop degeneration of the whole population. As it turns out, the mutation rate in the human population is very much greater than 1. Sanford estimates at least 100, probably about 300, and possibly more.

    All multicellular life suffers

    Two recent reviews of the mutation literature not only confirm Sanford’s claims, but extend them to all multi-cellular life.

    In a review of the distribution of fitness effects (DFE) of mutations,19 the authors are unable to give any examples of beneficial mutations for humans. In their calculations regarding the rate of deleterious mutations (MD) and neutral mutations (MN), they use the equalities MD = 1 – MN and MN = 1 – MD which both imply that the rate of beneficial mutations is zero. They do give a few non-zero values for beneficial mutation rates in some experimental organisms, but qualify these results by noting the interference of other variables.

    In a review of mutation rate variations in eukaryotes,20 the authors admit that all multicellular organisms are undergoing inexorable genome decay from mutations because natural selection cannot remove the damage.21 Their Box 2 and Table 1 list deleterious mutation rates for a wide range of multicellular organisms, noting they are all underestimates, with the possible exception of those for the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster with a value of 1.2. The value given for humans is ‘~3’.

    Thus, all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay because the deleterious mutation rates are so high, the effects of the most individual mutations are so small, there are no compensatory beneficial mutations, and natural selection is ineffective in removing the damage.

    The wheels have come off the neo-Darwinian juggernaut!

    How long to extinction?

    How long could multicellular life survive in the face of universal genetic degradation? This is a very important question, and I will attempt to answer it by using several different lines of evidence.

    Human ageing and cancer

    We have recently discovered that there is a common biology in cancer and ageing—both are the result of accumulating molecular damage in cells.22 This confirms the arguments outlined above, that for purely physical reasons molecular machinery suffers extremely high damage rates, clearly evident within the lifespan of a single human. Every cell has a built-in time clock to limit this damage and minimize the chance of it becoming cancerous. At every cell division, each telomere (the caps on both ends of a chromosome that stop the double-helix from unravelling) is shortened by a small amount, until they reach the Hayflick Limit—discovered in 1965 to be a little over 50 cell divisions. The cells then stop dividing and they are dismantled and their parts are recycled.

    By adding the enzyme telomerase, the telomere shortening problem can be circumvented, but that then exposes the cell to a greater risk of becoming cancerous because of accumulating damage elsewhere in the cell. The overall balance between protection from damage and the need for longevity determines fitness (reproductive success) and life span.23 The body’s normal reaction to increasing genome damage is to kill off the damaged cells via programmed senescence (of which the telomere clock with its Hayflick limit is but one part). But cells become malignant (cancerous) when mutation disables the senescence mechanism itself, which then enables the damaged cells to proliferate without limit.22 The Hayflick limit of around 50 cell divisions for humans seems to provide the optimum balance.

    Fifty human generations of 20 years each gives us only 1,000 years as a timescale over which a human lineage would begin to experience a significant mutation load in its genome. This is alarmingly rapid compared with the supposed evolutionary time scale of millions and billions of years.

    Reproductive cells

    Figure 2. Schematic representation of human life expectancy (—), male fertility (∙∙∙), and risk of fetal abnormality with mother’s age (—). Despite the protective Hayflick limit on cell divisions and life expectancy, very significant molecular damage accumulates in humans even during the most productive years of life. Mutations do even more damage than the Hayflick limit and associated cancer rates suggest.

    Ever since August Weismann published The Germ-Plasm: A Theory of Heredity24 in 1893, a discrete separation has been shown to exist between body cells (the soma) and germ-line cells (germplasm). Germ-line cells were thought to be more protected from mutation than other body cells. However, another recently discovered cause of ageing is that our stem cells grow old as a result of heritable DNA damage and degeneration of their supporting niches (the special ‘nest’ areas in most organs and tissues of the body where stem cells grow and are nurtured and protected). The telomere shortening mechanism—intended to reduce cancer incidence—appears to also induce the unwanted side-effect of a decline in the replicative capacity of certain stem-cell types with advancing age. This decreased regenerative capacity has led to a ‘stem-cell hypothesis’ for human age-associated degenerative conditions.25

    Human fertility problems suggest that the decline in niche protection of stem cells also applies to our gametes (eggs and sperm). For males, fertility—as measured by sperm count, sperm vigor and chance of conception—begins to decline significantly by age 40 and the rate of certain paternal-associated birth defects increases rapidly during the 30s (figure 2).26 For females, the chance of birth defects increases rapidly from around the mid-30s, particularly because of chromosome abnormalities (figure 2). In the middle of the most productive part of our lives, our bodies are therefore showing clear evidence of decline through accumulation of molecular damage in our genomes.

    Do germ-line cells really suffer less damage?

    When DNA was discovered to be the carrier of inheritance, Weissman’s germ-plasm theory gave rise to the ‘immortal strand hypothesis.’ When the DNA of an embryonic stem cell replicates itself, it was thought that the ‘old’ strand would remain with the self-renewing ‘mother’ stem cell, while the newly constructed daughter strand proceeds down the path of differentiation into a body cell. In this way, the ‘old’ strand would remain error free—because it has not suffered any copying errors—and thus becomes effectively immortal.

    However, a research team at the Howard Hughes Memorial Institute recently tested this theory using the stem cells that produce blood, and found that they segregate their chromosomes randomly.27 That is, the ‘immortal strand hypothesis’ is wrong. If stem cells are not given this kind of preferential treatment then it is reasonable to conclude that germ-line cells are also subject to the same molecular damage as somatic cells. This is confirmed by the observation that human fertility exhibits damage long before age-related diseases take over.

    A single human lifetime is enough to show very significant mutation damage, even in our reproductive cells.

    Haldane’s dilemma

    The severe contradictions that these findings pose for neo-Darwinian theory corroborate what has become known as Haldane’s dilemma. J.B.S. Haldane was one of the architects of neo-Darwinism who pioneered its application to population biology. He realized that it would take a long time for natural selection to fix an advantageous mutation in a population—fixation is when every member has two copies of an allele, having inherited it from both mother and father. He estimated that for vertebrates, about 300 generations would be required, on average, where the selective advantage is 10%. In humans, with a 20-year generation time and about 6 million years since our last common ancestor with the chimpanzee, only about 1,000 such advantageous mutations could have been fixed. Haldane believed that substitution of about 1,000 alleles would be enough to create a new species, but it is not nearly enough to explain the observed differences between us and our closest supposed relatives.

    The measured difference between the human and chimpanzee genomes amounts to about 125 million nucleotides, which are thought to have arisen from about 40 million mutation events.28 If only 1000 of these mutations could have been naturally selected to produce the new (human) species, it means the other 39,999,000 mutations were deleterious, which is completely consistent with the reviews showing that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious. Consequently, we must have degenerated from the apes, which is an absurd conclusion.

    According to Kirschner and Gerhart’s facilitated variation theory,29 life consists of two main components—conserved core processes (the structure and machinery in cells) and modular regulatory processes (the signalling circuits and switches that operate the machinery and provide a built-in source of natural variation). The 40 million ‘mutation’ differences between humans and chimps are therefore much more reasonably explained as 40 million modular differences between the design of chimps and the design of humans.

    Quantitative estimates of time to extinction

    There are a number of different ways to estimate the time it would take for relentlessly accumulating mutations to send our species to extinction.

    Binomial estimates

    Some very rough estimates can be derived from the Binomial distribution, which can predict the likelihood of multiple mutations accumulating in an essential genetic functional module. A binomial model of a mutating genome could consist of the cell’s DNA being divided into N functional modules, of which Ne are essential; that is, the lineage fails to reproduce if any of the essential modules are disabled. For any given mutational event, p = 1/N is the probability of being ‘hit’, q is the probability of being ‘missed’, and p q = 1.

    What is the likely value of N? We can derive two estimates from the knowledge that there are about 25,000 genes, plus the discovery from the pilot study report of the ENCODE project that virtually the whole human genome is functional.30

    For the first estimate, the average protein contains a few hundred amino acids and each amino acid requires three nucleotides of code, so the average gene would take up about 1,000 nucleotides of exon space (an exon is the protein-coding part of a gene). There are about 3 billion nucleotides in the whole human genome, so if we assume that the average protein represents an average functional unit then N = 3 million.

    The second estimate comes from the ENCODE report that gene regions produce on average 5 RNA transcripts per nucleotide, and the untranslated regions produce on average 7 RNA transcripts per nucleotide. There are about 33 times as many nucleotides in the untranslated regions as in the genic regions. Assuming that transcript size is approximately equal in each region, then there are 25,000 x 5 = 125,000 gene transcripts and 25,000 x 33 x 7 = 5,775,000 untranslated transcripts, making N= 5,900,000 in total. Our two estimates of N are therefore 3 to 6 million in round figures.

    What is the likely value of Ne? Experiments with mice indicate that 85% of genes can be knocked out one at a time without lethal effects.31 This is due to the robustness and failure-tolerance through fallback processes built into the genomic designs. That means any one of those remaining 15% genes will be fatal if disabled. Multiple mutations occur however, so the likely value of Ne when exposed to multiple mutations will be much higher than 15%. The maximum possible value is 100%. In a study of 2,823 human metabolic pathways, 96% produced disease conditions when disrupted by mutation,32 so if we take an average between this value and the minimum 15% then we get about 60% of functional units being essential.

    How many random mutations are required on average to disable an essential functional module? In rare cases, a single mutation is enough to disable a person’s ability to reproduce. A two-hit model is common in cancer. In a study of cell signalling networks, these two hits usually knocked out: (i) the programmed death system for dealing with damaged (cancerous) cells, and (ii) the normal controls on cell proliferation—so the damaged cancer cells can proliferate without limit. The proportion of cancer-associated genes was also found to increase with the number of linkages between genes. When a healthy gene is linked to more than 6 mutated genes, ~80% of all genes in the network are cancerous. Extrapolating from this, we find that by the time a normal gene is linked to about 10 mutated genes, then the whole network has become cancerous.33

    Almost 70% of known human genes can be causal agents of cancer when mutated.34 Cancers can result from as little as a single mutation in a stem cell, or multiple mutations in somatic cells.35 The minimum possible value of 1 is known to be rare, so the more common occurrence of the 2-hit model makes it a reasonable best-estimate minimum. But it may require 10 modules to receive two hits each for the whole network to become dysfunctional.

    The maximum number of hits required to disable a single module may be 100 or more, but if the average functional module only contains 1,000 nucleotides then this figure, at 10% of the whole, seems rather large. An order-of-magnitude average is perhaps more likely to be 10 random mutations per functional module.

    To provide some context for these estimates, recent work shows that the cell-cycle checkpoint damage repair system is activated when 10 to 20 double-strand breaks accumulate in a cell undergoing division.36 That is, life will tolerate only 10 to 20 DNA breaks per cell before it starts repair work, whereas we are examining scenarios in which there are thousands and millions of damage events per cell. Our numbers are clearly up in a region where the cell’s repair mechanisms are working at their hardest.

    What then is the likelihood of accumulating either 2 hits in 10 modules, or 10 hits in one module, in any one of either 15% or 60% of the 3 to 6 million functional modules? The binomial distribution in Microsoft Excel was used to make the following calculations, making the further assumption that the likelihood of the unit being a critical one must exceed 50% for extinction to be more likely than not in the next generation.

    Assuming 60% essentiality, only one functional module needs to be disabled for the probability of its essential status to exceed 50%. For the 2-hit model, about 6,000 to 12,000 mutations are required to disable ten of the 3 to 6 million functional modules. For the 10-hit model, 3 to 6 million mutations are required to disable one functional module.

    Assuming 15% essentiality, four modules need to be disabled before the probability of at least one of them being essential exceeds 50%. For the 2-hit model, 250,000 to 500,000 mutations are required to disable ten modules with four mutations each among the 3 to 6 million functional modules. For the 10-hit model, 3.7 to 7.5 million mutations are required to disable four functional modules.

    If every individual produces 100 new mutations every generation (assuming a generation time of 20 years) and these mutations are spread among 3 to 6 million functional modules across the whole genome, then the average time to extinction is:
    1,200 to 2,400 years for the 2-hits in 10 modules model and 60% essentiality
    50,000 to 100,000 years for the 2-hits in 10 modules model and 15% essentiality
    600,000 to 1,200,000 years for the 10-hit model and 60% essentiality
    740,000 to 1,500,000 years for the 10-hit model and 15% essentiality.

    Truncation selection

    Evolutionary geneticist Dr James Crow argued that humans are probably protected by ‘truncation selection’.26 Truncation occurs when natural selection preferentially deletes individuals with the highest mutation loads. Plant geneticist John Sanford put Crow’s claims to the test by developing a computer simulation of truncation. His assumptions were: 100 individuals in the population, 100 mutations per person per generation, 4 offspring per female, 25% non-genetic random deaths per generation, and 50% selection against the most mutant offspring per generation. He assumed an average fitness loss per mutation of 1 in 10,000. His species became extinct in only 300 generations. With a generation time of 20 years this corresponds to 6,000 years.37

    Sanford’s assumptions are somewhat unrealistic, but there are other ways to approach the problem. Mutations are pure chance events that follow a Poisson distribution, and this behaves like the normal curve when the average expected value is greater than about 30.38 In a Poisson distribution, the variance is equal to the average expected value, and the standard deviation is the square root of the variance. When the expected average value is 100, the standard deviation will be 10. The normal curve now tells us the following:
    Half the people will suffer about 100 mutations or more, and half the people will suffer about 100 mutations or less.
    About 84% of people will suffer 110 mutations or less, and so the remaining 16% of people will suffer 110 or more mutations. Alternatively, about 16% of people will suffer 90 or less.
    About 97.7% of the population will experience 120 mutations or less, and the remaining 2.3% will suffer 120 mutations or more. Alternatively, 2.3% will suffer 80 or less.
    About 99.9% of the population will suffer 130 mutations or less, and the remaining 0.1% will suffer 130 or more mutations. Alternatively, 0.1% will suffer 70 or less.

    If we remove the most mutant—those above 130 mutations per person per generation—then we will only remove 0.1% of the population and it will make virtually no difference. If we removed the most mutant 50% of the population that would not solve the problem either, for two reasons. First, the great majority of the remaining people still suffer between 70 and 100 mutations per person per generation, far above the value of 1 that ensures inexorable decline. Second, removing half the population each generation would send it extinct in a few dozen generations.

    Table 1. Estimated number of generations and years to extinction for populations of various sizes, when fitness declines by 1.5% in each generation.

    Synergistic epistasis and population size

    None of the above models include the effect of synergistic epistasis (if one gene is mutated, its impact is ameliorated by the coordinated activity of other genes) or of population size. We can include these by using Crow’s estimate that the fitness of the human race is currently degenerating at a rate of about 1 to 2% per generation. If we use an average value of 1.5% then only 98.5% of the next generation will produce reproductively viable offspring. The next generation after that will only have 98.5% of those survivors able to produce reproductively viable offspring, and so on.

    For any given stable population size N, the size of the next generation that can produce reproductively viable offspring will be 98.5% of N , and for any given number of generations G, the number of survivors able to produce reproductively viable offspring will be (98.5%)G of N.

    Table 1 shows the approximate numbers of generations after which the population degenerates to extinction (only one individual is left, so breeding cannot continue). No population can sustain a continual loss of viability of 1.5%.

    Like rust eating away the steel in a bridge, mutations are eating away our genomes and there is nothing we can do to stop them.

    The above model assumes that right from the beginning there will be 1.5% loss of fitness each generation. However, the binomial simulations earlier showed that individuals can tolerate somewhere between a few thousand to a few million mutations before the damage critically interferes with their ability to reproduce. This means that synergistic epistasis is a real phenomenon—life is robust in the face of mutational assault. Instead of the immediate loss of 1.5% every generation, the general population would remain apparently healthy for a much longer time before the damage became apparent.

    However, the rate at which mutations accumulate will remain the same because the cause remains the same—mechanical damage. This means that most people will be apparently healthy, but then approach the threshold of dysfunction over a much shorter period, creating a population crash rather than a slow decline.

    Either way, however, the time scales will be approximately the same because the rate of damage accumulation remains approximately the same.

    Summary

    Mutations are not uniquely biological events that provide an engine of natural variation for natural selection to work upon and produce all the variety of life. Mutation is the purely physical result of the all-pervading mechanical damage that accompanies all molecular machinery. As a consequence, all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay because the deleterious mutation rates are so high, the effects of the individual mutations are so small, there are no compensatory beneficial mutations and natural selection is ineffective in removing the damage.

    So much damage occurs that it is clearly evident within a single human lifetime. Our reproductive cells are not immune, as previously thought, but are just as prone to mechanical damage as our body cells. Somewhere between a few thousand and a few million mutations are enough to drive a human lineage to extinction, and this is likely to occur over a time scale of only tens to hundreds of thousands of years. This is far short of the supposed evolutionary time scales. Like rust eating away the steel in a bridge, mutations are eating away our genomes and there is nothing we can do to stop them.

    Evolution’s engine, when properly understood, becomes evolution’s end.

    A reader’s comment:

    Tendekai M., South Africa, 11 August 2011

    I am carrying out my MSc research on using chemical mutagens to breed for disease resistant sugarcane. The underlying principle of breeding is that it generates variation as a result of mutations. Beneficial variations are collected through crossing and all the beneficial traits are packaged into one variety. These mutations can happen naturally over long periods or can be induced in the lab using physical mutagens e.g. x-rays or gamma rays and chemical mutagens. The former is utilised in conventional breeding by crossing varieties expressing different traits as a result of mutations over time, and the latter is utilised in rapid production of new varieties over short periods and is referred to as ‘mutation breeding’. The major difference between these two approaches is the mutation frequency involved to generate variation. Conventional breeding has low mutation frequency as result it takes 15 years to breed a new sugarcane variety. On the other hand, mutation breeding utilises high mutation frequencies but only takes 3–4 years to develop a new variety.

    In the mutation breeding studies, somatic embryos of sugarcane were exposed to different concentrations of a mutagen, EMS (ethyl methanesulfonate), which were then germinated in vitro. The results showed that the higher the concentration of the mutagen (meaning higher mutation frequency), the lower the number of plants germinated. Hardly any plants germinated at the highest concentration.

    This suggests that higher frequencies of mutations are destructive rather than beneficial. Mutations that might have occurred over millions of years will therefore cause extinction rather than speciation. ”

    Related articles
    An information-gaining mutation in HIV?
    Genetics: no friend of evolution
    Gain-of-function mutations: at a loss to explain molecules-to-man evolution
    Squirrel evolution?
    Bacterial mutations plus biblical geology
    The diminishing returns of beneficial mutations

    Further reading
    Mutations Questions and Answers

    References
    1.De Vries, H., The Mutation Theory, German edition 1900–03, English edition 1910–11; De Vries, H., Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, 1905, , 11 August 2007. Return to text.
    2.Niedernhofer, L.J. et al., A new progeroid syndrome reveals that genotoxic stress suppresses the somatotroph axis, Nature 444:1038–1043, 2006. Return to text.
    3.Kudlow, B.A., Kennedy, B.K. and Monnat, R.J. Jr, Werner and Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndromes: mechanistic basis of human progeroid diseases, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 8:394–404, 2007. Return to text.
    4.Eccleston, A. and Dhand, R., Signaling in cancer, Nature441(7092):423, 2006. Return to text.
    5.He, X.C. et al., PTEN-deficient intestinal stem cells initiate intestinal polyposis, Nature Genetics 39:189–198, 2007. Return to text.
    6.Casanova, J-L. and Abel, L., Human genetics of infectious diseases: a unified theory, The EMBO Journal 26:915–922, 2007. Return to text.
    7.Carroll, S.B., The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution, Norton, New York, pp. 174–179, 2006. Return to text.
    8.Guilherme, A. and Pacheco, F., CCR5 receptor gene and HIV infection, , 11 August 2007. Return to text.
    9.Lamb, A., CCR5–delta32: a very beneficial mutation, Journal of Creation20(1):15, 2006. Return to text.
    10.Carroll, S.B., Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The new science of evo devo, Norton, New York, Ch. 9, 2005. Return to text.
    11.Carroll, S.B., The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution, Norton, New York, Ch. 8, 2006. Return to text.
    12., January 29, 2008. Return to text.
    13.Leggett, G.J., Brewer, N.J and Chong, K.S.L., Friction force microscopy: towards quantitative analysis of molecular organisation with nanometre spatial resolution, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 7:1107–1120, 2005. Return to text.
    14.Most organic macromolecules contain numerous hydrogen atoms bonded to carbon atoms. Because hydrogen has only one (negative) electron and one (positive) proton, the ‘cloud’ of electron trajectories tends to be easily skewed towards the stronger electromagnetic fields in the core of the carbon chain, thus giving the hydrogen atom a small net positive force, which is then available to form a ‘hydrogen bond’ with electron-rich (negative) sites on other nearby molecules, or on adjacent folds in its own chain. Return to text.
    15.Leake, M.C. et. al., Stoichiometry and turnover in single functioning membrane protein complexes, Nature 443:355–358, 2006. Return to text.
    16.Leggett, G.J., Brewer, N.J. and Chong, K.S.L., Friction force microscopy: towards quantitative analysis of molecular organisation with nanometre spatial resolution, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 7:1107–1120, 2005. Return to text.
    17.Copy fidelity varies with the different DNA copying systems that are present in all eukaryote cells, with the different kinds of errors that can occur, and with the different stages at which errors can occur. A couple of errors in ten million is fairly typical, but mutant cells may produce a hundred to ten thousand times this value. E.g. Pursell, Z.F., Isoz, I., Landström, E-.L., Johansson, E. and Kunkel, T.A. Regulation of B family DNA polymerase fidelity by a conserved active site residue: characterization of M644W, M644L and M644F mutants of yeast DNA polymerase ε, Nucleic Acids Research 35(9):3076–3086, 2007. Return to text.
    18.Sanford, J.C., Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, Elim Publishing, New York, 2005. Return to text.
    19.Humans have lived on earth for about 6,000 years and about 250 generations. For a population size of 1 million people, an average rate of one mutation per 20 people per generation is sufficient to ensure that everyone today is a mutant. I.e. (0.054)250 x 1 million people < 1. If the supposed 300,000 generations since the split with apes is assumed, then a rate of only 1 mutation in 21,000 people per generation is enough to ensure that everyone today is a mutant. Return to text.
    20.Eyre.-Walker, A. and Keightley, P.D., The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations, Nature Reviews Genetics 8:610–618, 2007. Return to text.
    21.Baer, C.F., Miyamoto, M.M. and Denver, D.R., Mutation rate variation in multicellular eukaryotes: causes and consequences, Nature Reviews Genetics 8:619–631, 2007. Return to text.
    22.Two important difference between multicellular organisms and bacteria and viruses in this regard are: (a) effective population size (trillions in the latter); (b) the latter have higher tolerance for mutations and are able to actively use them to their own advantage when required. E.g. Wagner, J. and Nohmi, T., Escherichia coli DNA Polymerase IV mutator activity: genetic requirements and mutational specificity, Journal of Bacteriology 182(16): 4587–4595, 2000. Return to text.
    23.Finkel, T., Serrano, M. and Blasco, M.A., The common biology of cancer and ageing, Nature 448:767–774, 2007. Return to text.
    24.Serrano, M. and Blasco, M.A., Cancer and ageing: convergent and divergent mechanisms, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 8:715–722, 2007. Return to text.
    25.Weismann, A., The Germ-Plasm: A Theory of Heredity, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893. On-line version: .
    26.Sharpless, N.E. and DePinho, R.A., How stem cells age and why this makes us grow old, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 8:703–713, 2007. Return to text.
    27.Crow, J.F., The high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk? Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 94:8380–8386, 1997. Return to text.
    28.Kiel, M.J. et al., Haematopoietic stem cells do not asymmetrically segregate chromosomes or retain BrdU, Nature 449:238–242, 2007. Return to text.
    29.DeWitt, D.A., Chimp genome sequence very different from man, Journal of Creation19(3):4–5, 2005. Return to text.
    30.Kirschner, M.W. and Gerhart, J.C., The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2005. Return to text.
    31.Williams, A., Astonishing DNA complexity uncovered. Return to text.
    32., 14 August 2007. Return to text.
    33.Ma, H., et al., The Edinburgh human metabolic network reconstruction and its functional analysis, Molecular Systems Biology3, Article number 135; published online, 2007, . Return to text.
    34.Cui, O. et al., A map of human cancer signaling, Molecular Systems Biology 3, Article number 152, 2007. Return to text.
    35.Kim, L., Accumulation of mutations: cancer or molecule-to-man evolution? Journal of Creation21(2):77–81, 2007. Return to text.
    36.He, X.C. et al., PTEN-deficient intestinal stem cells initiate intestinal polyposis, Nature Genetics 39(2):189–198, 2007. Return to text.
    37.Löbrich, M. and Jeggo, P.A., The impact of a negligent G2/M checkpoint on genomic instability and cancer induction, Nature Reviews Cancer7:861–869, 2007. Return to text.
    38.Sanford, ref. 18, p. 113. Return to text.
    39.Arnold, S.F., Mathematical Statistics, Prentice Hall, NJ, Table 6, 1990. Return to text.

    Like

  38. Tracy, there is a marked difference of opinion about the Crusades. You only mention the pro’s who justify the genocide because it does not meet their way of thinking. Dostoevsky, in his book, “The Brothers Karamazov”, wrote: “For the sake of common worship they’ve slain each other with the sword. They have set up gods and challenged one another, “Put away your gods and come and worship ours, or we will kill you and your gods!”” Isn’t this the reason so many Christian and other religious wars were fought throughout the centuries? Because the interpretation of their gods differed from one another?

    Look at the French Wars on Religion between Catholics and Protestants, the Thirty Years’ War, (1618-1648) again Catholics against Protestants, the Jewish-Arab religious conflicts, the Irish conflicts, to name but a few. Also, remember, no war has been fought just for the cause of atheism.

    Like

  39. “Wars—mostly non-religious

    Skeptics often raise the spectre of religious wars and other alleged ‘fundamentalist atrocities’, implying that if only humanity were to grow up and face life without God, we would finally attain some peaceful utopia. However, it’s important to note that religion had nothing to do with the vast majority of wars, e.g. the Hutu-Tutsi war in Rwanda, the Falklands War, the Vietnam and Korean Wars, WW2, WW1, the Gran Chaco War in South America, the Russo-Japanese War, the Spanish-American War, the Franco-Prussian War, the Crimean War, the US Civil War, the Napoleonic wars, the Wars of the Roses, the Mongol wars, the Gallic War, the Punic wars, the Assyrian wars … etc.2

    The number of deaths in the 20th century alone due to evolution-based philosophies such as Nazism and Communism far outweigh those caused by ‘religion’ in all centuries combined.

    It is true that some Christians have used their own swords instead of the counsel of ‘the sword of the Spirit’ (i.e. the Word of God) to combat what they saw to be evil. However, the number of deaths in the 20th century alone due to evolution-based philosophies such as Nazism and Communism far outweigh those caused by ‘religion’ in all centuries combined. Furthermore, any professing Christians who murdered others were acting inconsistently with their professed faith, while Hitler and Stalin were acting consistently with theirs. (See also What good is Christianity?—Creation 29(4):6, 2007.)”

    http://creation.com/genocide-evolution-and-the-bible

    Like

  40. CHAPTER 4:

    “What about carbon dating?

    • How does the carbon ‘clock’ work?
    • Is it reliable?
    • What does carbon dating really show?
    • What about other radiometric dating methods?
    • Is there evidence that the Earth is young?

    PEOPLE who ask about carbon-14 (14C) dating usually want to
    know about the radiometric1 dating methods that are claimed to
    give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give
    thousands of years. People wonder how millions of years could be
    squeezed into the biblical account of history.
    Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without
    compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the
    origin of sin, death and suffering—the reason Jesus came into the world
    (see Chapter 2).
    Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously.
    He said, ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male
    1. Also known as isotope or radioisotope dating.
    68~Chapter 4
    and female’ (Mark 10:6). This only makes sense with a time line
    beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago. It makes no
    sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.
    We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating
    methods.
    How the carbon clock works
    Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on Earth. Familiar
    to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and as the
    graphite in ‘lead’ pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes.
    One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms:
    carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.
    Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic
    nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving
    fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into
    14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays,
    changing back into nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes
    it radioactive.
    Ordinary carbon (12C) is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
    air, which is taken up
    by plants, which in turn
    are eaten by animals.
    So a bone, or a leaf of
    a tree, or even a piece
    of wooden furniture,
    contains
    carbon. When
    14C has been formed,
    like ordinary carbon
    (12C), it combines with
    oxygen to give carbon
    dioxide (14CO2), and so it
    also gets cycled through
    the cells of plants and
    animals.
    We can take a sample
    of air, count how many
    12C atoms there are for
    every 14C atom, and
    calculate the 14C/12C
    Figure 1. 14C is gained by living things but lost after
    death.
    Upper
    atmosphere
    conversion
    of 14N to 14C
    14C in carbon
    dioxide taken
    up by plants
    14C regained as
    animals eat plants
    Some loss of
    14C by decay
    14N
    Loss of 14C by
    decay and no
    replacement
    from eating
    14N
    After death:
    14C
    What about carbon dating?~69
    ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that
    this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your
    body.
    In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back
    to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the
    mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as
    soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer
    replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as
    time goes on (Figure 1). In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller.
    So, we have a ‘clock’ which starts ticking the moment something
    dies
    (Figure 2).
    Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It
    cannot
    be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
    The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert
    back to 14N in 5,730 ± 40 years. This is the ‘half-life’. So, in two halflives,
    or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount
    of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms
    at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over
    about 50,000 years old should theoretically have no detectable 14C left.
    That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions
    of years. In fact,
    if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of
    years old.
    However, things are not quite so simple. Firstly,
    plants discriminate
    against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less
    than would be expected and so they test older than they really are.
    Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate
    differently. This also
    has to be corrected for.2
    2. Today, a stable carbon isotope, 13C, is measured as an indication of the level of discrimination
    against 14C.
    Figure 2. After death, the amount of 12C remains constant, but the amount of 14C decreases.
    12C
    Older
    14C
    Old
    (Decreases
    with time)
    (amount
    constant)
    12C
    Moment of death
    14C not
    measurable
    ‘Infinite’ age
       12C
    Total carbon-12 and -14 in
    specimen (e.g. wood)
    12C
    14C 14C
    70~Chapter 4
    Secondly, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been
    constant—for example it was higher before the industrial era when the
    massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was
    depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear
    older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with
    the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.3 This
    would make things carbon-
    dated from that time appear younger than
    their true age.
    Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g. seeds in
    the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the
    atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the
    ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items
    from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical
    calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because
    of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into
    historical records.
    Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C ‘clock’
    is not possible.4
    Other factors affecting carbon dating
    The amount of cosmic rays penetrating Earth’s atmosphere affects the
    amount of 14C produced and therefore the dating system. The amount
    of cosmic rays reaching the Earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with
    the Earth’s passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels
    around the Milky Way galaxy.
    The strength of the Earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of
    cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects
    more cosmic rays away from the Earth. Overall, the energy of the Earth’s
    magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now
    3. Radiation from atomic testing, like cosmic rays, causes the conversion of 14N to 14C.
    4. Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration
    of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal
    placement of fragments of wood (from long-dead trees) using carbon-14 dating, assuming
    straight-line extrapolation backwards. Then cross-matching of ring patterns is used
    to calibrate the carbon ‘clock’—a somewhat circular process which does not give an
    independent calibration of the carbon dating system.
    5. McDonald, K.L. and Gunst, R.H., 1965. An analysis of the earth’s magnetic field from
    1835 to 1965. ESSA Technical Report IER 46-IES, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    Washington, D.C., p. 14.
    What about carbon dating?~71
    than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really
    are.
    Also, the Genesis Flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance.
    The Flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc.,
    lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants
    regrowing after the Flood absorb CO2 which is not replaced by the decay
    of the buried vegetation).6 Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at
    this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C
    is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on
    carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore the 14C level relative
    to 12C increases after the Flood. So the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/
    the atmosphere before the Flood had to be lower than what it is now.
    Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic
    field issue
    just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the
    Flood would give ages much older than the true ages.
    Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000–45,000
    years should be recalibrated to the biblical date for the Flood.7 Such a
    recalibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for
    6. Taylor, B.J., 1994. Carbon dioxide in the antediluvian atmosphere. Creation Research
    Society Quarterly 30(4):193–197.
    7. Brown, R.H., 1992. Correlation of C-14 age with real time. Creation Research Society”

    Taken from:

    “Creation Answers Book, The

    Author: Dr Don Batten (with contributing editors Dr David Catchpoole, Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Carl Wieland)

    The Creation Answers Book provides biblical answers to over 60 important questions that everyone wants to know on creation/evolution and the Bible! Not only does it answer your own questions, but equips you to effectively respond to those that resist the Gospel due to worldly teaching on origins. This important work is a ‘must have’ for anyone’s library!”

    Like

  41. Jesus fuckin’ Christ, Tracy, but you are on a mission!

    First, lets talk about Alex Williams. He is a new earth creationist (NEC). You studied genetics and you don’t believe the millions of scientific experiments conducted by evolutionary biologists! Perhaps you should change courses. I notice Williams wrote an article with John Hartnett (an astronomer, also a NEC) refuting the Big Bang theory. Hartnett was in South Africa invited by the evangelical fruitcakes, but was taken apart by scientist at one of his “lectures”.

    It is no good posting pages on pages of NEC shit, I can post similar refutations by scientists destroying these assholes – not as a matter of their opinion, but by scientific research. What kind of peer reviewed research have Williams or Harnett published? Zilch.

    Like

  42. You tube video of leading atheist scientist Richard Dawkins – unable to answer as to whether there is any known example of mutations ADDING genetic information – Answer: no there is not. Yet it is critical for mutations to add genetic information as part of the evolutionary model.

    “Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists’ question (RAW FTGE) “

    Like

  43. ” .. evolution-based philosophies such as Nazism and Communism.”

    You creationists don’t read, do you? (Except from your book of fables, of course.) Nazism and communism were not based on the theory of evolution. Get that? You creationists just use it as a cheap shot at a well proven scientific theory which the virus of religion refuses you to accept.

    The carbon dating technique and the radiometric dating techniques are all attacked by creationists. But your critiques are well addressed by scientists (see http://www.origin.org (or.com)) to verify yourself of scientific answers to your nonsense. But, again, you people do not read.

    You are on a wrong career path, Tracy, you should join an evangelical bunsh of nuts – that will be more your line.

    Like

  44. Tracy, just a question – have you posted these nonsense on Jerry Coyne’s blog. If not, do that. There are very educated scientists paticipating who, I’m sure, will answer your questuins – and statements – much better than I could.

    Like

  45. No point Savage. She’s lost. But we need people like her – they actually do much more than me or you could achieve in showing the world how religion causes braindamage. The mere fact that she brings up the Richard Dawkins Youtube link where he is supposedly “stumped”, shows how far gone this poor woman is. All she needs to do is google “Richard Dawkins Stumped” to see how far creationists will go on the road of dishonesty in order to get their point across. Good grief, everybody knows that clip was doctored – not even a very good job at that. The mere fact that poor Tracy cannot spot this herself speaks volumes. Talk about egg on the face.

    Like

  46. You are right, Malherbe. My favourite loon is Kurt Wise; he got a PhD in geology from Harvard, but is a new earth creationist and explains (amongst other things) how the Grand Canyon was formed as a result of Noah’s flood. (This is a geologist speaking!) His science career was destroyed by religion, just as Tracy does not have a snowball’s hope to carve out a respectable scientific career for herself if she openly propagates her NEC nonsense. What stumps me from these people is that they cannot see the fact that scientific research results are published in peer-reviewed magazines, while NEC “research” is only published on their websites and creationist publications. And Tracy and her ilk never critically examine and judge both “sides of the issue”. No, the virus of the mind has rotted their brains to such an extent that whatever the Bible says, must be right. Can you imagine living in a wretched, warped world like that?

    Like

    • “Professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal

      First issue of 22nd volume now available

      Yes! Creationist scientists do publish in peer-reviewed science journals.

      Many have impressive publication records in secular scientific journals too. But creationists cannot publish their creationist ideas in secular journals because the evolutionary worldview has a stranglehold on scientific publishing. How did that happen? It’s a long story but it’s got to change.

      Some have quipped that the scientific establishment has developed immunity to new ideas. Certainly the symptoms are showing. They have a shocking history of censoring any hint of creation and intelligent design from the marketplace of ideas. Sir Isaac Newton would be locked out of publishing his thinking today.

      That’s why creationists set up their own scientific journals—to break free from these mind-forged manacles.

      Journal of Creation is a much respected creationist journal published internationally. It’s devoted to the presentation and discussion of the technical aspects of the sciences as they relate a recent creation and the global Flood. It’s all about worldview. The areas of interdisciplinary study are wide ranging, including geology, biology, astronomy as well as geography, archaeology, biblical history and philosophy.

      Journal of Creation has a high reputation as a professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal. It’s been published regularly for over 20 years and has just released the first issue of its volume 22.

      Its scientific writers always include outstanding international creationist researchers. Contributors to 22(1) include Royal Truman, Peter Borger, Emil Silvestru, Carl Wieland, Michael Oard, Andrew Snelling, Tas Walker, Alex Williams, Reinhard Junker, Lael Weinberger, Don Batten, Jean Lightner, Jonathan Sarfati, Jerry Bergman and Andrew Kulikovsky.

      Articles are peer-reviewed by international experts in each field, affirming the age-old biblical principle of safety in a multitude of counselors (Proverbs 11:14), and iron sharpening iron (Proverbs 27:17).

      Journal of Creation has over 120 glossy pages of in-depth material including research papers, perspectives, overviews, countering creationist critics, book reviews and letter exchanges. It’s professionally presented, well illustrated and highly readable.

      And because the articles are attractively bound together into a hard copy it’s much more useful than material solely available on the web. You can read the latest research comfortably in your lounge chair, flick back and forth through the pages, mark points of interest and keep it on your bookshelf for ready access.

      You can have the best of both worlds. Past articles of Journal of Creation are progressively being made available on creation.com: some in html but most in pdf format. Read the research in comfort, search back issues for key words, and email electronic copies to your friends.

      So if you are tired of the elite telling you what to think, then get Journal of Creation for yourself. Explore science and philosophy from outside the box. Break though the censorship barrier. Free yourself from the narrow-minded, self-serving, materialistic paradigm. Read Journal of Creation.

      Break though the censorship barrier.

      Make sure you have access to the latest research as it is made available. Have your own subscription. Journal of Creation is even popular with secular researchers, who want a soundly-based alternative view.

      In fact, it’s popular with people from all walks of life: with educators, theologians, home-schoolers, pastors, engineers, atheists, and families.

      Why not begin your subscription with issue 22(1), or give a gift subscription to someone who needs it? Subscribing also helps support quality creationist research and outreach.

      The latest issue of Journal of Creation 22(1) covers many vital topics. Have a look at these:
      Lampreys ‘older’ than thought. Jawless fish fossils are changing the way evolutionists tell their story.
      Gene regulation more complicated yet. All the mechanisms of variability must be in place before life can function.
      Resistance in the Australian sheep blowfly. Looks like it is due to designed mechanisms that allow for adaptation in created life.
      Facilitated variation. New molecular evidence shows the main components of neo-Darwinian theory are wrong.
      Geological pioneer. He was a biblical, six-day, young-earth creationist.
      Genome truncation. The impossibility of new genes arising via gene duplication. (Technical)
      The god-of-the-gaps. Why the argument is invalid against creationist science within the biblical paradigm.
      Book Reviews. They’ll keep you informed. This issue includes: 1.Deluded by Dawkins by Andrew Wilson—fights fire with fire;
      2.Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig—disappointing;
      3.The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe—clarity and confusion;
      4.The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma by Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart—very relevant; and
      5.Richard Dawkins in The Ancestor’s Tale—keeps feeding the public myth.

      Australian Ice Age animals. How did 90% of them go extinct?
      And lots more articles on all sorts of topics about the creation/evolution issue.

      I have had a very hard struggle over the years to see that God made everything, having had a dysfunctional upbringing which shut me down, but I thank Him that I am gradually beginning to see more of His handiwork, and the amazing level of programming and complexity blew me away.

      Philip D from the UK wrote recently:

      ‘I was awestruck by the article on the complexity of DNA by Alex Williams, in the Journal. I am not particularly intellectual, and regularly find papers above my head, but I did have a beginning of an understanding about molecular machines from Behe’s description of the transcription of RNA, like a tape recorder head.

      ‘I have had a very hard struggle over the years to see that God made everything, having had a dysfunctional upbringing which shut me down, but I thank Him that I am gradually beginning to see more of His handiwork, and the amazing level of programming and complexity blew me away.’

      You can be ‘awestruck’ each issue, too. Subscribe to Journal of Creation —it’s mailing now.

      Think too, a gift subscription could be the key that helps one of your friends ‘begin to see’ something of God’s handiwork.

      Related articles
      Creationism, Science and Peer Review”

      Like

  47. Tracy, writing stuff in NEC magazines is not science. Science describes the natural world, and is based on observation, postulation, experimentation, and verification. Proof is obtained by ongoing predictions how Nature works, verified by experiments. Religion is a spiritual process with absolutely no proof forthcoming. You can be a successful scientist and be religious, but as soon as you attempt to mix the two, doing science stops right there. And science has stopped for you, Tracy.

    The religiose claim there is a supernatural world but they cannot supply any proof thereof, and science has never observed such a world in all its endeavours. Perhaps it is time you supply proof of your supernatural world so we can all see it. That will stop all the arguments. But neither you, nor anybody else can show us this world you claim to exist. Science is based on facts and religion on superstition – that’s why they are incompatible.

    Like

  48. Tracy, you and your ilk are in the minority. From the web at http://www.au.answers.yahoo.com
    (Nice to see educated people use their brains – why don’t you use yours, Tracy?)
    Question: Does anyone know what percent of people with PhD’s in biology doubt that human beings evolved?
    Answer: An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that “99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution (1)

    A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists. (2)

    The 600 Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.054% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999. In addition, a large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters have specialties unrelated to research on evolution; of the dissenters, three-quarters are not biologists. (3)

    The roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999 (4)

    Source(s):
    (1) Finding the Evolution in Medicine, Cynthia Delgado, NIH Record, July 28, 2006.
    (2) Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83.
    (3) Chang, Kenneth. “Few Biologists But Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition” (php), The New York Times, 2006-03-21.
    (4) Crowther, Robert (2006-06-21). Dissent From Darwinism ‘Goes Global’ as Over 600 Scientists Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwinian Evolution

    Like

  49. “You seem to be strongly religious. I have always found that people like you want to force your doctrine, by penalty of law, down on everyone.”

    Strongly religious? See is a loon, McBrolloks. See all the verses from her book of fables se vomitted at “Haar ma gesteek… ” article. If she and her ilk were still in control as they were 400 years ago, we would be burned at the stake.

    As far as the religiose’s opinion of the theory of evolution is concerned; they are now with evolution where they were 400 years ago concerning a flat Earth.

    Like

  50. Tracy, the Nazis atrocities were not caused by Darwinism as you claim. Read this from talkorigins: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html

    “The Nazi Party in general rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity. In 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including:

    “Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). (Die Bücherei 1935, 279) “”

    Like

  51. Savage, McBrolloks. This poor woman is a total loon. I will not be surprised if she belongs to some kind of cult like Shofar. Many of my friends’ children ended up here – with tragic result. The other day, one of my (religous ) friends, referring to his son that has joined Shofar, made the comment that if he knew beforehand the risk of his boy ending up where he is now, he would never have brought him up with religion.

    Like

  52. I came across this story in “The thinking atheist” blogsite. Obviously it is one person’s encounter and view. I admit, I have not verified all of the statements he is making, but working on it. Still, it makes for interesting reading.

    Adolf Hitler: The World’s Most Infamous Creationist

    by FB fan – Meg

    If you haven’t heard the Hitler arguments from a theist yet, I think it’s safe to assume that you are in the minority. Here’s a brief rundown of the most common accusations that the faithful enjoy slinging about der Führer in case you’re not familiar with them:

    1) Hitler was an atheist

    2) Hitler was a faithful Darwinist

    3) It was Darwin’s ideals that drove Hitler to exterminate the Jews

    Most atheists are aware that Hitler considered himself a Christian, a Roman Catholic to be precise, and know that the accusation of him being an atheist are as patently false as they are absurd. What many do not know is that Hitler was also a Creationist.

    Yes, Hitler was a Creationist. And before the hypersensitive and pedantic among you get your fingers busy typing about how that doesn’t mean all Creationists are evil or that Creationism leads to Nazism; thanks, I’m well-aware of that fact and that’s not why I’m mentioning Hitler’s beliefs. So take a deep breath, calm down, and enjoy the rest of this post, which is going to give you some helpful ammunition for shooting down the Hitler-Atheism myths.

    Nearly a decade ago, I married a German and moved with him from America to Germany. And one of the first things I learned here, besides that there are people on this planet who consider beer an acceptable breakfast beverage, is that no matter how rotten and depraved the actions of the Third Reich appeared when we were taught about them in school and via the US media, the picture we get is still a sterilized version of Nazis’ barbarity and beliefs.

    As it turns out, the family I married into has a Nazi history, an unpleasant surprise as my (now ex) husband was anything but racist or antisemitic.

    My former father-in-law, a highly intelligent person, speaks nearly perfect English, which he learned after being taken prisoner by Allied Forces in France and then shipped off to a work camp in Colorado. He never spoke about his Nazi upbringing and the war with his children and, given that the man has all the warmth and compassion of an iceberg, to his family it was obvious that they were not to mention it.

    Then one Christmas when the old man had been hitting the schnapps, and shortly after I had been to visit a former concentration camp, Dachau, I couldn’t stand not knowing anymore how anyone could support Hitler, much less be willing to fight for him. So I took advantage of father-in-law’s inebriated state and asked.

    You could have heard the proverbial pin drop; everyone fell silent.

    The old man glared at me and stood up, growled at me to stay there in my seat, then left the room. I assumed he’d gone off to get something, and I knew it could take awhile for him to return. The home of my former parents-in-law is like a museum, complete with a basement full of archives.

    As one might expect from people raised during the reign of the Third Reich, which had the organization necessary to round up many millions of people and exterminate them with astonishing efficiency, everything my parents-in-law did was recorded and filed, the belongings not needed for their daily lives never thrown away, and instead neatly stored and organized.

    These people could tell you how much they spent on bread in April, 1952. That’s not an exaggeration. So I shouldn’t have been too surprised when the old man reappeared with large boxes and photo albums, and to find them stuffed with Nazi memorabilia, pamphlets, sew-on patches earned during father-in-law’s time with the Nazi version of the Boy Scouts, the Hitler Youth, booklets on how being a good Nazi and being a good Christian were one and the same and the virtues of the Nazi policy of “Positive Christianity”, photos of father-in-law in his Nazi uniform taken at Church…

    One got the impression that my father-in-law had been waiting his whole life for someone to finally ask him about his past, to give him reason to talk about it. And talk he did, for hours…

    I was still a Christian at the time, and I had never given any real thought to Hitler and his own religious beliefs, though if I had done so the last thing I would have considered him was Christian. And the last thing I wanted to admit to myself was that Hitler had been a devout Christian.

    But there was a pile of evidence staring me in the face and my father-in-law enthusiastically showing me through it. In his own words, Hitler believed…

    “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them.”

    -Hitler in a speech on April 12, 1922.

    Hitler made similar remarks in his book, “Mein Kampf”, which was written when he was young. So he must have changed his mind and lost sight of his faith later, right?

    “The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has

    been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life.”

    No, that isn’t from a modern day, Republican speech; that’s what Hitler said in a statement in 1933.

    And even more surprising was the Nazi banned book list; Darwin’s “On the Origins of Species” and any book deemed to support evolution it were on it.

    “The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.”

    “The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.”

    Nope, those aren’t quotes from Ray Comfort or Kent Hovind as one might understandably assume; Hitler said those things in his book, “Mein Kampf.”

    As a Christian, I still had no trouble incorporating evolution into my beliefs; I saw evolution as God’s method of producing all of the species we see on Earth.

    To me, Darwin’s book being on the banned list didn’t make any sense.

    What about the Nazi breeding programs? That’s about evolution, isn’t it?

    Well, no. Hitler’s program didn’t involve evolution. As my father-in-law explained, Hitler prescribed to a belief called Eugenics, which is breeding for a superior (Aryan) race.

    If you’re familiar with evolution and how it works, you realize that Eugenics is the exact opposite of evolution.

    In evolution, the larger and more dynamic the gene pool, the better.

    The more genetic diversity you have, the less likely a disease or a gene defect is going to wipe out the entire species. More genes = more likely to adapt and survive. And evolution is not a ladder; there is no end goal, no perfect being, only a being well-suited for its current living environment.

    In Eugenics, the aim is to breed a “superior” version of a species; to lessen genetic diversity in favor of traits deemed to be preferable.

    Purebred dogs are an example of why Eugenics is a really bad idea and how it runs contrary to evolution. The Rhodesian Ridgeback is thought to be superior when it has an especially large ridge on its back. Due to breeders selecting animals for their ridges, it’s not uncommon now for the dogs to be born with ridges so large that they develop open canals that lead from the surface of their skin straight to their spinal column, resulting in a horribly painful, open wound directly on their bare spine.

    “From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.”

    – Hitler in his book “Tischgespräche”

    “Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.”

    – from a speech Hitler gave on April 26, 1933.

    Did I mention that school prayer was mandatory under the Nazis? If I wanted to commit the logical fallacy of guilt by association comparing Hitler’s beliefs in a Christian nation, family values, creationism, and school prayer to America’s modern Religious Right, this would be an ideal opportunity for it. But that would bring me down to their level. Oops. Guess I already drew the parallels. Oh well.

    In his own words, Hitler was a devout Christian and he was a Creationist.

    “For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties.”

    – Hitler in his book “Mein Kampf”

    So the next time someone wants to equate you, as an atheist, with Hitler, I invite you to share Hitler’s actual beliefs with them. Then just sit back and relax as the faithful endure spastic mental gymnastics trying to spin it all.

    Looking back on that discussion with my father-in-law, considering the information I’ve gathered about Hitler myself since becoming fluent in German, and combined with my loss of faith, I’m actually not surprised anymore that Hitler was a Christian and a Creationist. If someone is delusional enough to think they’re on a mission from God to commit genocide, it isn’t much of a stretch for them to be delusional enough to believe that Adam and Eve probably saddled up a triceratops when they had to make long journeys, is it?

    So why aren’t we told about Hitler’s enthusiasm for Jesus in America? After all, it’s common knowledge in Europe. Funny how there’s little to no mention of Hitler’s religious beliefs in the average school curriculum or documentary, while we learn at length about Hitler’s other beliefs.

    Economics and politics played huge roles in the Nazis coming to power.

    But so did religion. Anyone who denies or ignores that fact is enabling a repeat.

    Finally, the faithful might argue that Hitler was not a real Christian. Although the average German, including my former father-in-law, himself a Christian, will readily tell you that Hitler was. And given Hitler’s statements, I think it’s safe to assume he would argue that he most certainly was a Christian, and that’s the important aspect. Because whether Hitler was a Christian in someone else’s view or according to their definition is beside the point; the point is that, as someone who believed in a god, Hitler was not an atheist.

    Like

  53. Very interesting, Malherbe. The lies for Jesus are plentiful:

    • Einstein was and Hawkins is religious.
    • Hitler was an atheist.
    • Darwin recanted his belief in evolution on his deathbed.
    • The lying for Jesus at the Kitzmiller – Dover creationists trial.

    To name a few.

    Look at Tracy here. She makes wild claims from creationist publications, but do not answer the refutations that follow. I am sure she could not be bothered to read real science, because the virus of religion has incapacitated her rational thinking and critical analyses. It is sad to read about the father who’s son joined the Sofar cult. I must say, my children regularly thank me and their mother for not bringing them up as godbots.

    Like

  54. From reading the Avro Manhattan writings, we can learn that Hitler considered his concordat with the church to be his greatest diplomatic triumph . A giant bloc of Catholic voters helped him gain power. The same with Mussolini. The religious radio stations are becoming more profuse now that the president of faith destroyed the economy in the US. I wish I owned a liquor store .

    Like

  55. “President Obama okays funding embryonic stem cell research (but removes adult stem cell funding)

    What are the issues involved?

    by Lita Cosner

    Published: 19 March 2009(GMT+10)

    Photo wikipedia.org

    President Barack Obama: signed decree to force taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cells, and removed funding for life-saving adult stem cells

    Earlier this month, President Barack Obama reversed a Bush executive order which limited federal funds for embryonic stem cell research to lines created before 9 August 2001 (see US Senate passes embryonic stem cell bill; President vetoes). Under Obama’s new executive order, federal funding will be available for new embryonic stem cell lines, created by the destruction of human embryos. Some in the media have hailed this as a step forward for science. Others try to garner support for the decision by enlisting the support of family members of individuals who suffer from illnesses like ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Syndrome) and diabetes, who hope that this form of stem-cell research might lead to cures of their conditions. But do the facts back up such hope?

    The Risks of ESC Treatment

    The recent case of an Israeli boy who was injected with embryonic stem cells by Russian doctors highlights the dangers of treatment with embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, which means they are able to change into more types of tissue than adult stem cells, but they are also less stable. In the case of the Israeli boy, the injections caused tumors in his spine and brain.

    Even U.S. News and World Report (by no means a conservative or Christian stronghold politically!) calls embryonic stem cell research ‘obsolete’. While the tumors caused by embryonic stem cells do not seem to be anomalous, adult stem cells, which are multipotent, do not cause these tumors; the worst that happens is that they might die off without producing the hoped-for cure, but they do not seem to have any ill effects. And unlike embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells have actually produced over 70 cures—see detailed documentation of some of them in Stem cells and Genesis.

    Why ESCs are unnecessary

    In 2007, scientists discovered a way to force adult stem cells to revert to a pluripotent state, making them like embryonic stem cells without the destruction of human life. What’s more, these induced-pluripotent cells are cheaper than embryonic stem cells while remaining relatively easy to produce, rendering embryonic stem cells inefficient and expensive, comparatively. (Note, however, these induced-pluripotent stem cells, like embryonic stem cells, can cause tumors.)

    The Ethical Issues

    Claudia Castillo, 30-year-old mother of two in Barcelona, whose life was saved by new adult stem cell treatment. She was given a new windpipe made from her own stem cells, not embryonic ones. See also this video explaining the procedure.

    Embryonic stem cells are the only variety which pose a moral problem for the Christian, because producing them necessarily ends the life of a human embryo. Because CMI takes the biblical position that innocent1 human life should not intentionally be destroyed, this poses an insurmountable ethical problem. Therefore, while the arguments of the ineffectiveness and dangers of embryonic stem cells are useful, even if scientists found solutions to these problems, and even if embryonic stem cells turned out to be more effective than adult stem cells (an absolute reversal of what the case actually is), CMI would still oppose embryonic stem cell research, because the end of possibly saving human lives does not justify killing others, in the same way that Dr Mengele’s medical experimentation on Jews during the Holocaust were inexcusable, and would be even if it had produced numerous medical breakthroughs.

    Unlike embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells have actually produced over 70 cures.

    Many have argued that the extra embryos in fertility clinics, left over from fertility treatments, are headed for the trash anyway, so if they are going to be killed in any case, it is better to derive some benefit from them. But those are not the only possible destinations for the extra embryos. Agencies like Snowflakes Frozen Embryo Adoption Program arrange for these embryos to be adopted by infertile people who will have them implanted. Already, babies have been adopted in this way (see some of them on the Snowflakes web site), and their very existence is a reminder that every embryo is already a baby; not simply ‘potential’ life, but life in limbo. Former president George W. Bush said, “Each of these children was still adopted while still an embryo and has been blessed with a chance to grow, to grow up in a loving family. These boys and girls are not spare parts. They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research. They remind us that we all begin our lives as a small collection of cells. And they remind us that in our zeal for new treatments and cures, America must never abandon our fundamental morals.”

    Indeed, many Americans from every side of the political spectrum oppose embryonic stem cell research. For instance, Democrats for Life of America, associated with Obama’s own political party, said that they stood “against President Obama’s decision, period. There are workable and successful options available to private sector research operations that use umbilical cord blood and non embryonic stem cells. To frame this decision as a necessity to cure finding medical research is not accurate. While we have zero confidence that a call for reversal of this Executive Order will prevail, we are hopeful that the President will heed our call for common ground solutions in dealing with pro-life Democrats.”

    This demonstrates that the stem cell debate is far from a political, “right-wing issue”. Their organization’s article about stem cells raises the same problems with embryonic stem cell research showing that this is primarily an ethical, not a political, debate.

    Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cells

    One issue that complicates embryonic stem cell research is that of tissue rejection. If the stem cells are genetically different from the patient’s own cells, for instance, if they came from an embryo who was discarded from a fertility center, there is a high risk of complications linked to tissue rejection. One way to circumvent this is to clone the patient, thereby gaining embryonic stem cells that are genetically identical to the patient. However, this compounds the immorality of embryonic stem cells by intentionally creating a life to be destroyed.

    President Obama has said:

    “I will oppose ideologically driven efforts by government to restrict certain types of medical research or to intervene in doctor-patient relationships. While I oppose human cloning, I also oppose federal restrictions on therapeutic stem cell research.”

    It is (perhaps intentionally) unclear whether the president would lift restrictions on human cloning for stem-cell research, his opposition to any restriction of embryonic stem cell research overriding his opposition to human cloning. However, his statement against cloning for reproductive purposes was much clearer: “we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our society, or any society.” So ironically, he seems to be categorically opposed to cloning only if it results in a live baby! In any case, the statement is absurd; human cloning is by definition a form of ‘human reproduction’, whether one is reproducing a human to implant in a uterus, or to rip it apart for its stem cells. (See Legalized Cloning in Australia: What are the issues? The basic arguments apply equally well to America.)

    Obama’s anti-life ideology

    The ‘Freedom of Choice Act’ would mean that Christian hospitals would likely have to close, and Christian doctors would have to give up their practices for their pro-life views.

    Apparently, however, Obama is not opposed to restricting adult stem cell research, because the same executive order which gives funding to embryonic stem cell research takes away funding from adult stem cell research. This is a senseless move on the part of the president; the only stem cell research he is interested in funding is precisely the most dangerous kind, the only kind that a large segment of the population is opposed to on moral grounds, and the only one that has consistently failed to produce the promised ‘miracle cure’ results. If he were really concerned about life-saving medical advances, as opposed to pro-abortion ideology, he would hardly have undermined the research with proven benefits. However, just as private donors and even states could fund embryonic stem cell research prior to Obama’s reversal of the Bush executive order, private donors and state governments can fund adult stem cell research if they wish. And given adult stem cell treatment’s track record of providing cures for many diseases, it almost certainly will not die out because of the lack of federal funds.

    There is one protection for human embryos still in place: the Dickey Wicker Amendment, included in spending bills each year since 1996, explicitly states that “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death” cannot receive federal funding. Yet pro-abortion politicians are trying to get this last protection overturned.

    Unfortunately, this is not the only anti-life action of the Obama administration. In fact, Obama from the very beginning of his term has acted consistently according to his extreme anti-life record in Congress and the Illinois state senate, which led NARAL2 to give him a 100% rating 3 years in a row. This extends even to support for infanticide (see my previous article Bioethicists and Obama agree: infanticide should be legal).

    Less than a week after his inauguration, he withdrew the ‘Mexico City Policy’ which withheld federal funds from organizations which provide abortions overseas. This means that American taxpayers are forced to fund overseas abortions whether or not they wish to do so. And less than three months into his presidency there are fears that he may pass the Freedom of Choice Act, which would not only overturn all restrictions states have put on abortion, such as partial-birth abortion bans, parental notification laws, and laws against transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of an abortion, but would also force doctors and nurses who are pro-life to either violate their conscience and perform abortions, or quit practicing medicine. This would mean that Christian hospitals would likely have to close, and Christian doctors would have to give up their practices for their pro-life views.

    Professor Alan Mackay-Sim: awarded 2003 Queenslander of the Year for his promising research into adult stem cells from the nose.

    Genesis and stem cells

    The arguments against embryonic stem cell research are very similar to those against abortion, the basis of which are found in texts throughout the Bible, starting in Genesis. While it is acceptable to do medical research using animals based on man’s God-given dominion over the rest of creation, man was not given the same authority over other human beings. This means that there is a distinction between what is permissible to do to an animal and what is permissible to do to a human being (recognizing, of course, that man’s dominion over animals is no excuse for cruelty).

    The reason human life is more valuable than animal life is also explained in Genesis: unlike animals, mankind is created in the image of God. This means that human life is intrinsically more valuable, and that an attack on life is in a sense an attack on the image of God. That is the basis for the death penalty that God imposed for murder in the covenant He made with Noah after the Flood (Genesis 9:6).

    Though it could hardly be a conscious move on the choice of the pro-abortion crowd, it is not surprising that many of the people who are most opposed to any sort of restriction of abortion, which has caused the largest mass-slaughter of human beings in history, or embryonic stem cell research, are also avowed atheists.3 Conversely, Norma McCorvey, better known as the Roe of Roe v. Wade, became pro-life after her conversion to Christianity in 1995.

    The basic issues

    Embryonic stem cell research treats a class of human beings not as individuals whose lives have intrinsic value, but as commodities to be used or disposed of for the convenience of others. Embryonic stem cell research has shown almost no promise, unlike adult stem cells which do not destroy a human life. Moreover, the risks involved with embryonic stem cell research make it a very risky form of treatment. But even if these obstacles could be removed, this would not make the act of sacrificing vulnerable human beings for medical advances acceptable, because the basic argument against the use of stem cells is that such research inevitably leads to the destruction of a human life.

    Related articles
    US Senate passes embryonic stem cell bill; President vetoes
    “Bioethicists” and Obama agree: infanticide should be legal
    Legalized Cloning in Australia: What are the issues?

    Further reading
    Stem cells and Genesis
    Cloning, Stem Cells and Reproductive Technology Questions and Answers

    Recommended Resources

    Fearfully & Wonderfully Made DVD

    by Dr Menton

    At a time when the sanctity and dignity of human life are daily being called into question on the world stage, Dr Menton powerfully, yet sensitively and respectfully, offers answers in this stunning presentation. Fearfully & Wonderfully Made guides us through the incredibly intricate design of the womb, fertilization, implantation, embryonic development and the miracle of birth itself. (High School–Adult) 63 mins

    Frankenstein Foods & Fetuses DVD

    by Don Batten

    Is the genetic modification (GM) of our foods ethical, safe, wise, biblical? What about cloning and stem cells? How have researchers been influenced by evolution? In this ultratopical presentation, plant physiologist Don Batten gives us plenty to chew on as he examines these hot topics. (High School–Adult) 52 mins. While the content of this popular, illustrated presentation DVD is the same as one you may have with the same title, it now includes extra features. Not only does it have a new cover design, it also has English sub-titles, has been ‘re-badged’ to feature the CMI logo and contact details and includes a 3-minute promotional segment.

    References
    1.In the sense of not having committed a crime deserving of death, not a denial of the sinful nature of the pre-born human being, from Latin in nocens = not harming. Return to text.
    2.NARAL was founded in 1968 by Bernard Nathanson, Larry Lader, and Betty Friedan, as an acronym for National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. After the US Supreme Court invented a hitherto unknown “constitutional” right to abortion in the infamous Roe v Wade case (1973), the name was changed to the National Abortion Rights Action League, then the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. In 2003 they dropped acronymy completely in favour of NARAL Pro-Choice America. Return to text.
    3.For example, Humanist Manifesto II (1973) states: ‘The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized.’ Its signatories include Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood, Betty Friedan of the National Organisation of Women — both leading pro-abortion organizations — and Henry Morgentaler who was at the forefront of the Canadian push for abortions. Etienne Baulieu, the developer of the abortion pill RU-486, properly known as a human pesticide, is a signatory to Humanist Manifesto 2000. And in New Zealand, a major leader in liberalizing the abortion law was the abortionist Jim Woolnough, who was a member of the NZ Humanist Society. As already documented, Peter Singer uses atheism to attack a sanctity-of-life ethic — not only for unborn babies, but also for newborn babies and elderly people with Alzheimer’s disease. Return to text”.

    http://creation.com/president-obama-okays-funding-embryonic-stem-cell-research-but-removes-adult-stem-cell-funding

    Like

  56. Aura casaba, bullshit malware, Jesus verdwala, merwe gesala.
    bullshit malware, Jesus verdwala, merwe gesala, Aura casaba
    Jesus verdwala, merwe gesala, Aura casaba, bullshit malware,
    merwe gesala, Aura casaba, bullshit malware, Jesus verdwala,
    Aura casaba, bullshit malware, Jesus verdwala, merwe gesala.
    bullshit malware, Jesus verdwala, merwe gesala, Aura casaba
    Jesus verdwala, merwe gesala, Aura casaba, bullshit malware,
    merwe gesala, Aura casaba, bullshit malware, Jesus verdwala,
    Aura casaba, bullshit malware, Jesus verdwala, merwe gesala.
    bullshit malware, Jesus verdwala, merwe gesala, Aura casaba,
    Jesus verdwala, merwe gesala, Aura casaba, bullshit malware,
    bullshit malware, Jesus verdwala, merwe gesala, Aura casaba,

    Ref: Bullshit baffles brains – 3 days after the resurrection – this proves Jebus casebus died for humankinds dreebus.

    Like

  57. Ek sit met ‘n afvlerk bosduif wat op een of ander manier hier aangekom het. Sy lyk verwilderd en verlore, die arme ding – ek het haar Tracy gedoop. Maar dit lyk asof sy begin tuis raak – selfs die hond aanvaar haar nou. Maar Tracy sal nooit weer vlieg nie, die skade is te groot. So ook sal Tracy hierbo nie van die juk van godsdiens ontslae kan raak nie, die skade wat as jong mens aan haar gedoen is, was te groot; arme meisie.

    Like

  58. Annerdag bestuur ek saam met ‘n vriend op ‘n obskure pad oppad na ‘n obskure bestemming. ‘n Mossie vlieg voor my voertuig in. Teen die voorruitvas, morsdoodvrek. Op slag. Ek en my vrind kyk na mekaar. “The randomness of life”, seg hy. Geen sinvolle rede hoegenaamd hoekom mossie-se-kind op daardie oomblik sy einde tegemoed moes gaan nie. Niemand het ‘n les hieruit geleer nie. Nie ek nie, en beslis nie Mossie nie. Op die verkeerde tyd op die verkeerde plek. Dis al. The randomness of life. Indien ‘n meteoriet die aarde more tref en mensekind word in die proses vernietig, is dit presies dit: “randomness”. Geen gode. Net die einde van ‘n georganiseerde klompie selle.

    Maar Tracy sal nie verstaan nie. So mal soos ‘n haas, die Tracy. Sy’s sekerlik ook deur iets getref….met permanente breinskade die uiteinde. Haar pa behoort die gode hof toe te vat vir mishandeling van sy kind.

    Like

  59. Did not Voltaire say , “Throw the chumps a church and a sports stadium and they are a lot easier to controll.” something like that in the mid-1800s.
    Religion goes hand in hand with politics too. Makes it easier to “have faith” that the politician jamming something up your ass is doing it for your own good. For example, telling you to get on a boat and shoot up south east Asia, or Iraq. US politicians jabbering about “Gawd” when they should be serving the American people. Why don’t they at least jabber about fun Roman gods? As an example of fun missionary work, Google, “the boxer rebellion”. Fast forward to the present. See “missionaries” sneeking into China as “NGO”s to disrupt Chinese success in many fields, such as , having some money in the bank.

    Like

  60. Tracy, I will ask you one more time: What do you think of organized religion interfering with basic human rights all around the globe because their holy books tells them to?

    You and your christian brothers and sisters are especially guilty of this.

    Then you go and cry about persecution.

    Come on, you have pasted thousands of words here about your doctorine and your views, lets take it all one step further.

    Like

  61. Good lck with that request McBrolloks. My bet is she is back in her cave and will only come out to spew the odd quote from her holy book, or to play christian martyr. Bunch of dishonest hypocrites, these fundies.

    Like

  62. Malherbe, ek sit nou hier en dink (met ‘n glas rooi wyn – dan is mens mos uiters slim), aan ons voorouer grotbewoners. Wat het die denkers uit die grot gedryf? Hier het ons nou vir Tracy, onder menige, wat terug hardloop grot toe as die vrae te warm raak. My postulaat is dat derduisende jare terug het die grotbewoners die mense wat vir hulle self gedink het, so verstreurd gemaak met hulle rituele dinge (grensende aan soos godsdiens vandag), dat hulle uit die grotte gedryf is. (Kon nie langer na hulle stront luister nie.) So, toe begin hulle die sterre se danse sien, vrae oor die ritme van die uitspansel vra, en oplossings daarvoor soek. Nou is van die oplossings bekend – die Heelal is nie 6000 jaar oud nie, daar bestaan sekerlik nie ‘n god nie (ons wag nog vir die bewyse wat so mildelik as vanselfsprekend aangebied word), en wat doen die godbots? Hardloop terug grot toe waar die bekrampte ruimtes en –leefwyse sulke vrae en antwoorde baie gerieflik ontduik kan word. Die mens is maar ‘n aap – evolusie het ons ‘n groter brein gegee, maar die kulturele meme van miljoene jare terug sit nog maar stewig in die Tracies en kie van vandag.

    Like

  63. Presies Savage – niks fout met daardie redenasie nie. Rooiwyn oftenot. Vir my is die vraagstuk nie of daar ‘n god is aldan nie, maar eerder hoekom die mens skynbaar nie sonder sy gode kan leef nie.

    Gooi die drie eienskappe van rasionaliteit, kennis en eerlikheid in ‘n pot, en die uiteinde is ongeloof. Meet maar gerus enige gelowige aan die hand van daardie drie eienskappe en jy sal vind hy skiet te kort met minstens een (en dikwels al drie). Baie gelowiges kan wel rasioneel optree in hul alledagse lewe. Hulle beskik dikwels ook oor die kennis. Maar dan kom ons by eerlikheid – dit is asof hul in ‘n ander wese verander. ‘n Mediese dokter wat 100% rasioneel optree voor sy/haar operasietafel, weier eenvoudig volsterk om dieselfde rasionaliteit deur te trek na na die kwessie van sy gode. Selfs met tonne kennis tot sy/haar beskikking. M.a.w. oneerlikheid.

    Like

  64. Maar terug by jou analogie van die grotbewoners, Savage….en ‘n moontlike rede hoekom mensekind vandag met die god-meem opgeskeep sit. Hieronder ‘n uittreksel uit iets wat ek tans aan die skryf is:
    ————–

    Die man droom van ‘n tyd lank gelede, toe die aarde ander gelyk het. ‘n Tyd toe die mens spesie nie volmag gehad het nie. ‘n Tyd toe oorlewing alles was….

    Die aapmense hou kajuitraad om die vuur. Hulle praat in ’n vreemde brabbeltaal wat meer klink na uitroepe wat gemoedstoestand oordra, as die woorde van ’n spesifieke taal. Die ouer garde mans vorm die binnekring, met die jongeres die volgende kring en die vroue die buitekring. Die kleintjies sit eenkant en probeer uitmaak wat daar gesê word. Daar is nege kleintjies, almal so tussen die ouderdom van 4 en 12. Die twee oudstes se name is Xi en Xou. Hulle is duidelik die leiers van die groep kleintjies.

    Die ou grysaard is nou aan die woord en dis duidelik dat hy baie respek afdwing, want dit is doodstil wanneer hy praat. Die onderwerp van bespreking is die insident wat vroeer vandag plaasgevind het. ’n Gedierte wat hulle nog nooit voorheen gesien het nie, het een van hul soort gevang en opgevreet. Die dier het lang slagtande gehad wat by sy bo-lip uitgesteek het. Hy het die jong vrou gegryp terwyl sy saam met die ander vroue bloedbessies versamel het. Met een haal van sy voorklou is haar nek gebreek en is sy weggesleep en ten aanskoue van die ander vroue verslind todat slegs haar kopskedel oorgebly het. Die grysaard stel dit dat hierdie ’n onbekende gevaar is en dat hulle in die toekoms maatreëls sal moet tref om soortgelyke insidente te verhoed. Die trop se voortbestaan hang af van die voorkoming van soortgelyke insidente. Hy stel dit duidelik dat die vroue van nou af altyd in groepe na bessies sal gaan soek en dat die kleintjies gedurende die dag nooit verder as 100 aapmenstreë vanaf die grot mag speel nie. Die kleintjies word nou nadergeroep en die reëls duidelik uitgespel. Die gevaar wat die groottandkat inhou word in erns verduidelik.

    Hoewel die kleintjies nie self die dag se slagting waargeneem het nie, bevraagteken die meeste van hulle nie ou Gryse se storie nie. Vrees vir die onbekende maak dat hul hul onderneming gee om die reëls getrou na te volg. Daar is egter ’n groepie kleintjies wat nie ’n woord van Gryse glo nie. Hierdie is net weer ’n plan om hulle in te perk en van vryheid te beroof. Xi is deel van die groepie afvalliges. Hulle speel egter saam en knik instemmend die koppe wanneer Gryse in hul rigting praat.

    Die vergadering word afgesluit met ’n ritueel waar offers aan Maangod gebring word. Die ritueel word met erns benader. Daar word ritmies met stokke op hol boomstompe gekap terwyl ’n sekere gedeelte van hul kosvoorraad op die offerklip geplaas word. Die vroue kerm met eentonige reelmaat terwyl na die volmaan gestaar word. Een vir een stap die aapmense by die offerklip verby. In die verbygaan lig hul die hande en hoofde na die maan terwyl daar iets onverstaanbaars geprewel word. Die kleintjies kom laaste aan die beurt. Meeste van hulle aap die groteres na, maar Xi se groepie bejeën die petalje as onsin en doen net mee omdat dit van hulle verwag word. Xou en sy volgelinge volg getrou die voorbeeld van die volwassenes. Laat daardie nag sluip die Xi bende uit die grot en smul lustig aan die offerandes op die offerklip. Die volgende oggend is Gryse en sy raadslede in ekstase omdat Maangod hul offers aanvaar het. Xi en sy onderdane verkneukel hulle oor die onnoselgeit van die wyses.

    Tyd gaan verby en Xi en sy vrinne oortree met reelmaat die kampreëls. Wanneer die ouer mans op jagekspidisies vertrek, betree hulle die vasgestelde verbode terreine. Een so ’n plek is die rivier wat ongeveer 700 aapmenstree vanaf die grot in die vallei vloei. Vandag speel hulle hier. Terwyl die wyfie dogtertjies eenkant sit en die petalje onder hulle vanuit ’n effense hoogte gade slaan, speel die mannetjies neffens die rivier. Die wete dat hulle betrag word inspireer Xi en sy makkers tot groter hoogtes met waaghalsige toertjies wat basies behels dat die een die ander in die water moet probeer instamp.

    Xou wou nie saamkom nie. Hy glo die storie van die groottand kat, en verkies om naby die veiligheid van die grot te bly. Xi het hom probeer oorreed maar sonder enige sukses.

    Vyf van hulle is in die vlak water toe dit gebeur. Vanuit nêrens doem twee reuse katte met glimmende tande uit die bosse op. ’n Derde een volg kort op hul hakke. Terwyl die vyf aapmensies vasgekeer in die water staan, hardloop die meisies gillend die bosse in, net om hul vas te loop in nog twee katte. Die Sabertand leeus is ongenaakbaar en werk metodies deur die groep. Wat volg is ’n toneel van rou dierlike geweld, bloed en aardskuddende gille. Alles is binne ’n paar minute oor met die gille van die aapmensies wat nou plek gemaak het vir die knarsende eetgeluide van die honger katte. Nie een van die Xi bende oorleef nie.

    Die aand om die kampvuur styg die weeklaag van ouers in die koue naglug op. Gryse spreek sy trop toe. Hy deel hul mee dat die voortbestaan van die trop bepaal sal word deur die mate van vertroue in dit wat hy wat Gryse is, aanbeveel. Blindelingse vertroue is wat nodig is. Dit word tyd vir offerandes aan Maangod, en hierdie keer is daar geen afvalliges en skeptici nie. Niemand let dit op nie.

    Die storie in die man se droom herhaal homself oor en oor, maar met elke herhaling is dit 100jaar later. Met die geboorte van nuwelinge in die trop, word die skeptici en afvalliges egter al hoe minder. Die skeptiese geen word uitgeteel. Soos Gryse duisende jare tevore genoem het, is die voortbestaan van die trop afhanklik van geloof in wat die ouer geslag aan die jongeres oordra. Blindelingse geloof. Die glo-geen is onontbeerlik vir die voortbestaan van die spesie. Die maangod word mettertyd vervang met ander gode. Deur die eeue word die gode met reelmaat vervang met nuwe gode. Sterker, slimmer, mooier gode. Beter gode. Almal aanbid die gode en niemand bevraagteken die aanbidding nie.

    Like

  65. Greetings I am so grateful I found your blog page,
    I really found you by error, while I was searching on Askjeeve for something else, Nonetheless I am here
    now and would just like to say thanks a lot for a remarkable post
    and a all round interesting blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to go through it all at the minute but I have bookmarked it and also added your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a great deal more, Please do keep up the excellent job.

    Like

  66. His or her sophisticated program joined with the substantial limits along with large dividends, you’ll be able to achieve your current Binary options tips occupation using Binary options tips. If you have a new well planned idea, you will not merely be profitable, but it is possible to line on your own upward to your retirement life as well. Binary options tips, a great internet inventor inside Binary options tips, is usually a excellent solution with regard to both equally not skilled professionals enthusiastic about stepping into the market industry, along with additional knowledgeable and also expert investors planning to strengthen their profits and also enjoy a successful and also revolutionary Binary options tips software. And and finally, your most up-to-date development is the sixty 2nd Binary options tips selection. Most of these agents may perhaps price somewhat more, yet eventually, you’ll remain on monitor, invest reliably, and also think safe acknowledge that this broker is in your favor.

    Like

  67. Howdy would you mind sharing which blog platform you’re using? I’m going to start
    my own blog in the near future but I’m having a difficult time choosing between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your design seems different then most blogs and I’m looking for something unique.
    P.S Sorry for getting off-topic but I had to ask!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s