La la la la la la la la la la wrote on Aug 23, 2008 2:39 AM:

I can't hear you....I can't hear you....
I can't hear your childish ramblings over evolution and creationalism....
La la la la la la la la la la la la
We are all different, we all have different beliefs, faiths and values...
La la la la la la la la la la la la
It doesn't matter science or history, none of it is definitive... some people only have to hear things to believe, others have to see them and some have to live it...La La La La...I can't hear you...and your arguements no matter how strong you want to voice them, no matter how much "proof" you want to think someone has found on either side, not everyone will ever believe them so the battle will never end, so each and everyone who comments on it will always seem as childish as this is written.
....La la la la la.

Therefore...this belongs in FAITH AND VALUES my Dear Mr. Editor.

Shhhh Maybe if we ignore them they will go away!

To Randall T. Freeman wrote on Aug 23, 2008 2:56 AM:If you are that niave and thin skinned, pubic service, let alone pollitics is not your cup of tea. You might be doing yourself and your potential constituents at great service by abandoning your candidacy.

Welcome to Politics wrote on Aug 23, 2008 7:49 AM:Welcome to politics in Southwest County Mr. Freeman. If you want to run for an office in this part of the county, be prepared for the name calling, reputation smearing, misleading and just plain classless comments by anonymous bloggers and such, which are now a common part of the landscape. There used to be consequences for people like this, but our society has embraced this form of communication and now we will pay the price. Your question about who wants to run in an environment like this? Not many, and that's just the way some people like it. Good luck with your campaign. You don't need thick skin, you need a shark suit.

Richard wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:26 AM:And I might add, not only voting for getting out of Iraq but, after the voting, writing that candidate's staff if it doesn't lead to results. The GAO reports taxpayers paid two billion for this Iraq invasion and the borrowed funds to repay are expected to be one trillion. All to depose a guy who was a danger to only those around him, not to the U.S.
As far as the comments attempting to discredit Isaac Newton, please understand that Newton knew God had designed the Universe and wrote extensivley about it. After he discovered the calculus he used it and discovered the nature of gravity and proved that it was the same gravity that pulls an apple down that also holds the moon in its place, preventing its escape as it travels at a fast speed. The universal law of gravitation indeed belongs to Newton. Yes,k he also knew that there was no explanation as to why there is a particular arrangement of the planets we see and how the solar system came to be in the first place. But no one knows how it was Created in the first place. This is not a disagrace, nor is it abdicating 'responsibility' as a scientist. His responsibility as a scientist was not to lie, and also to report what he discovered, and that he most certainly did and did well.

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 23, 2008 12:45 PM:to Irvin Forbing: Once again, if evolution doesn't account for the diversity of life on earth, what mechanism does?
Regards

Richard wrote on Aug 23, 2008 2:04 PM:Butting in with apologies, in defense of Forbing. The question asked can't be answered as asked, since the word evolution has double meaning. If it's micro, then obviously this has been documented and observed as being responsible for the tremendous variety of forms of life through genetic mixing, rearrangements, crossing over, etc. so that vast varieties of dogs exist for example from a dog ancestor. If you are referring to macroevolution though, no one has observed that, so that cannot be answered scientifically. How all original genera came to exist in the first place either comes from Biblical historitics or else from guessing and opinion. If one believes they all came from one 'spontaneous generated' organism that macroevolved into every other genera later, that is an opinion. If one believes that original types of life were Created, which then microevolved into vast varieties, that is faith. Neither have been observed directly by anyone. Again, sorry for butting in.

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 23, 2008 3:23 PM:to Richard, re post of 8/23, 2:04 PM: I have to disagree with you: this is what scientific theories are all about. My question was all inclusive. If macroevolution doesn't account for the diversity that microevolution doesn't account for, then what does? Note that evolution theory does not incorporate "spontaneous generation", i.e. abiogenesis.

As an aside, I'm with you 100% on the first paragraph of your post at 9:26 AM:
Regards

The question remains wrote on Aug 23, 2008 3:39 PM:Over and over, people have asked Forbing and other creationists to put forth hypotheses that can be empirically tested. Whenever these have been offered in the past, e.g., the earth being several thousand years old, they have been thoroughly and totally defeated. But Forbing and his ilk simply refuse to offer any. This fact alone puts them outside the natural sciences. Since questions about life are matters of fact and not mere opinion, the creationists take themselves out of the discussion. That's why in the actual sciences, there is no debate on this matter whatsoever.

Observation wrote on Aug 23, 2008 4:12 PM:It's true that empirical (that is, observable) tests are the core of scientific activity. But one shouldn't mistake this as requiring that some actual event must be observed. For example, we cannot see the moment the earth came into existence. But we can make millions of observations of rocks and the like and from this we can know (from observation) that the earth did not arise a few thousand years ago even though we could not see that arising. We can't observe a species evolve, but we can make other observations that will tend to support or not support theories about how this happened. Forbing and his ilk pretend that if you can't observe an actual event, it's outside science. That's completely false, as is so much of what they assert.

Richard wrote on Aug 23, 2008 5:07 PM:You're phrasing the question a little better now but in the second one you again use the vague term. Yes macro is a theory not an observed fact as you state. There are no data that demonstrate the appearance of a new species of life from preexisting ones in all recorded human observational history (i.e. macro). Fruit flies for example for thousands of years have produced millions of generations and never once has even a gnat or a whitefly ever emanated as a result. These are hard and real observations, prospective,not theoretic. The scientific prospective data are boundless that are against the macro theory. My apple tree still produces many apple blossoms that are still apple blossoms as in years past and I fully expect this to hold for future trees from the seeds it produces, in the future, just as in the long past. The best scientists we've ever had include Christian men Pasteur [who disproved spontaneous generation under the best conditions arrangeable here on earth] and the monk Mendel who believed fully the concept of the fixity of species as did most biologists at that time. Peas inherited factors from its ancestors that limited them to being again peas.
The age of the earth comment has been much confused by many. Simply because an archbishop thought the Bible 'proved' the earth is thousands of years old does not absolute truth make. Creation belongs to God, not to man. We're simply regular people, not smart enough to know everything. And that's OK. Biblical scholars know full well that the age of the universe is not described in the Bible but it is easy to presume it does, no big deal if you do or don't. No mention is made about the time it took between formation of light, which was described as being day itself, and later when matter was made (was it billions of years, hours, we simply don't know) and then later still, when life was first made. I don't know nor does anyone. We cannot know from science experiments either. Newton knew full well that the scientific method is limited in the questions it can address. We can't go back in time and watch what happened, let alone how long it took to happen. We still don't even know how long bristlecones are capable of living though we still have them with us. Everything else about the past is unfortunately forensics type data and inference, not anything that is proven fact using the scientific method with rigorous controls for the variables tested. But we are all here now and we can study scientifically what now happens. Scientific experiments have not and cannot disprove nor prove Creation and cannot prove nor disprove macroevolution in the past when we haven't even observed it in the present. Macro is most certainly not 'established with no debate whatsoever'. Experiments do however prove beyond doubt microevolution within genera and also the complete absence of macroevolution for as long as this has been examined. I like focusing heavily on dinosaurology because I'm convinced that dinosaurs are not eons ancient creatures but indeed coexisted with mammals.
I've examined my last post and I stand by it and I don't think Forbing needs to be superhuman and to answer a question that no one can in lots of detail. Specific numbers come and go, but no ones' overall belief or theory has been disproven; it's strictly not possible with the scientific method which is prospective. Conclusions from forensics is always opinion and theory, like a court case, and is not proven fact. Go Newton.

Ricihard wrote on Aug 23, 2008 7:20 PM:Your own question merely proves there are still the same two hypotheses as always. Belief in macroevolution somehow where many genera came from one primordial one, or the opposite, that original Created organisms that first existed have retained their generic identity since that time. Why does he need to invent another one? Biologists, the best we've ever had, including Pasteur and Gregor Mendel believed in the fixity of genera. Forbing need not invent some new hypothesis that' any
different. All data to date observing organism in prospective experiments have been consistent with that view; millions of generations of fruit flies haven't even yielded a gnat or whitefly, just fruit flies for millennia.Microevolution is observed and is not refutable. Macro evolution has never been observed and is a construct or theory. This isn't Forbing's fault.
The age of the universe is not known with certainty to anyone, from either forensics type dating methods to attempt to delineate it, nor from Biblical scholars who know full well that the time required to Create light, which was called daytime, and then later to Create matter are simply not stated: a billion years between them, hours, we simply don't know from even the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest originals in existence. So there is belief in macro on the one hand, a theory, and there is faith in the fixity of genera on the other. Prospective data support the latter and detract from macro theory.

To Randall wrote on Aug 23, 2008 11:17 PM:First, thank you for putting your reputation on the line and your life on hold to serve others. Now for the sad truth. The anonymous cowards who post negative blogs filled with hate and lies are self-loathing folks who only feel good when they make others feel bad. Every city and campaign has a couple of them, and sadly, the press runs straight to them for that one negative comment for every article. My advice (ironic, I know) is don't read the blogs. I believe that 90% of the negative comments are posted by the same person anyway. Get out and work for your election. Talk to people face-to-face. It's very rewarding. Reading these blogs will only make you question your own self-worth. Remember, you and your desire to serve are worthy. Self-hating anonymous drive-by bloggers are merely to be pitied.

island wrote on Aug 24, 2008 2:36 AM:La La Land said:
" Therefore...this belongs in FAITH AND VALUES my Dear Mr. Editor. "

Nope, it is political on both sides, and regardless of what either side righteously claims via ideologically distorted science that is designed to either, willfully ignore evidence for higher purpose in nature, or leap to the conclusion that higher purpose in nature requires an intelligent agency.

So you are right for this reason... "the [culture war] will never end", and nobody ever changes their mind.

bobxxxx wrote on Aug 24, 2008 3:52 AM:Irvin Forbing of Escondido, it's obvious you're not a scientist, but you think you know more about molecular biology than any biologist. Please tell us why we shouldn't laugh at you.

bobxxxx wrote on Aug 24, 2008 3:58 AM:Richard wrote "If you are referring to macroevolution though, no one has observed that, so that cannot be answered scientifically."

When biologists compare DNA sequences of living animals they can determine evolutionary relationships with 100% accuracy. So when you say "cannot be answered scientifically" you are proving your total ignorance of science.

SlipStream wrote on Aug 24, 2008 1:07 PM:To Richard: You state "Newton knew God had designed the Universe" and yet you state that it was Newtons "responsibility as a scientist not to lie." If Newton stated he "knew" God created the Universe that would have been a lie, because there is no way Newton could have known there is a God, let alone that that God created the universe. It's curious that for you the great scientists appear to be those who didn't live long enough to learn of evolution. I honestly doubt these scientists you refer to would appreciate you speaking for them as to how they would have dealt with the knowledge of evolution. I suspect like the other 99% of professional biologists, they would have acknowledged evolution as being a biological fact (since it’s a fact we can measure it (observed gene pool changes) occurring today, it's a fact that the evidence (without exception) from all branches of biology support that evolution has occurred in the past (e.g. paleontology, biogeography, genomics….) and it's a fact that we know the basic mechanisms that cause evolution. In science it doesn’t get much better than that. It is critically important to point out here that evolution (unlike the creationist explanation for biological diversity) is used every day to make testable predictions (e.g. if tetrapods evolved from fish than there must be transitional fossil evidence demonstrating this – and then we test if this is in fact the case, etc.). Therefore, unlike the creationist model, evolution is falsifiable (which is a basic requirement in science). I suspect you or Forbing cannot offer a single testable prediction based on the creation model, yet you want to claim it is on par with evolution. Testable claims are not on par with nontestable claims. Forbing needs to present a testable model which better explains the immense body of evidence before us than does evolution. If someone claims they have a better explanation for plagues (e.g. demonic possession) than disease theory than they need to clearly present their explanation, because their claim itself does absolutely nothing to challenge the theory. Your hangup with macroevolution begs the questions what is expected to result from eons of microevolution (logic would dictate macroevolution, as is supported by all the evidence), and what biological mechanism(s) (needed to support your underlying claim of limited gene pool divergence) somehow limits the degree to which gene pools can diverge? I know of no such mechanism, and if one does not exist your claims against macroevolution are factless.

SlipStream wrote on Aug 24, 2008 1:50 PM:To Irvin: Using your creation model are you predicting there should be no fossil transitions from short to long necked giraffes? This is great, because if such a fossil is discovered it will falsify your creation model and we will have heard the last of you. Any other creation-based predictions so that we can speed this process up? Your mean-spirited statement that evolutionists probably can’t tell the difference between the DNA similarities and differences of mice and humans demonstrates how ignorant you are of the science that you love to degrade. The problem is if that if you researched the literature on the genomic comparisons of mice and humans you wouldn’t understand a single sentence being stated, because it is you who is fumbling in the dark, not the highly trained and dedicated scientists working in genomics who have made incredible advancements in these areas of science. I’d love to observe you argue the details of genomics with one of these “dumb” scientists. It would be the old “deer in the headlights” scenario for one of you. Perhaps in your next letter you’d like to make fun of the medical advancements stemming from these same genomic studies carried out by these clueless scientists. Given your very low opinion of these scientists I'd have to assume that you righteously refuse to use these new medical advancements.

Richard wrote on Aug 24, 2008 7:22 PM:I'm hoping that you will trust me on this. Many people at my University called me an 'expert' on Newton, although there is no such person on any subject in my view. I guarantee you that Newton did not lie. He had a temper when people accused him of that. There are many people who know God, but simply because one does, doesn't mean that others do, or that they will believe one who does. A lie is an intentional false statement and that Newton was incapable of. I believe the same is true for the Christian monk and fine scientist Gregor Mendel.

As far as DNA sequencing in determining ancestry, yes DNA sequences have been used within limits. For example, relatedness among the Jewish culture has been able to track migration of people and to determine nearness to Jewish ancestry to a significant degree with DNA sequencing. But also this is possible in part because people of a proud culture like that usually tend to marry within that culture. Inheritance, even among only the human species, when interbreeding of races of man occurs, is then much more messy, less definitive or useful. When it comes to trying to 'prove inheritance between genera' of animals, if one believes the macro model, then the difficulty shoots up exponentially, depending on the claim, because so many more assumptions are required to make claims of a given % homology. Even if there were 23 pairs of chromosomes in monkey as in man, AND even if all the 25,000 genes were in the same identical alignment, and in the same alignment on all the 46 strands, AND there were 95% identicality of bases on 100% of all those genes, the finding would not 'prove' that monkeys came from man, or the more popular reverse view either, or the third, that they shared a common ancestor. That is because the remaining 5% of bases were then the important supercritical region that is responsible for the infinite array of differences between monkeys and man which prevent viable progeny from any possible [disgusting theoretic] mating.
Moreover, fingerprints used by the police and the DMV are far superior to DNA sequencing for identification. Identical monozygotic twins have different fingerprints. DNA, even if the entire genome were sequenced for a sample could not positively ID the owner because it could have been his identical twin instead.
Finally, if a perturbation could be done in the wild somehow and it eventually led to the production of a human embryo, even that prospective experiment, not just a forensics one, would I'm sorry to say still not 'prove as fact' that man came from monkeys, because it doesn't mean that's how humans arose when they actually did first appear. It is impossible to use forensics data collected today, no matter how elegant, to 'prove' how life's species all first originated eons ago. The macro idea is as unprovable scientifically as any other theory on how life began.
DNA sequencing has been used to proclaim that whales macro'd from antelopes. This is in vogue, but I have never put any stock in it obviously because I know the assumptions that had to be made before the homologies could be declared. Again, mushfrooms and cactus share the same 4 types of bases, and have their matrix being water, etc etc, but this does not demonstrate anything definitive about ancestry, while certainly commenting on the relatedness of all living things. All living things come ultimately from elements found in the dust of the ground.

Richard wrote on Aug 24, 2008 8:59 PM:And I don't appreciate being referred to as being 'ignorant of science' In my 35 year research career it has been my experience that those who have bought into the idea that macroev. is a fact, that chose to suggest my 'deficiency' if they 'find out' my opinions about the subject, I preferred only limited conversations, not because I didn't like discussing data that they interpret differently than I, but because name calling wastes so much space and time and is frankly exhausting and not enjoyable. If science isn't fun, useful and productive, then I wasn't interested.
In many instances where I've been subjected to 'science by endorsement and authority', on many topics, not just macroevolution, I've often prevailed to the point where the initial attacker eventually capitulated and in fact asked to join and even to receive credit for helping! But at other times, irrational scoffing was never relinquished. I've found that the more one considers himself an expert, if data demonstrate otherwise, the less likely they are to believe the data. One of the absolute worst isn't macroevolution, it's the special theory of relativity. Once a world famous scientist and editor told me that it has been his "longstanding experience not to even read any submitted manuscript that contained data that detracted from the special theory."
Too many other cases in biology to possibly mention. That's life.

Richard wrote on Aug 24, 2008 9:19 PM:And predictions based on the idea of the fixity of genera are most certainly testable. I predicted that my apple tree would always produce only vast numbers each year of apple blossoms, and that none would be a blossom distinct from being apple in character rather than any other form of fruit or lifeform. This prediction has borne out for 20 spring seasons in a row, for all blossoms examined. I also predicted that microvolution would produce great variety within a genera as well in the living things around me and this has held true as well. All apples coming from the tree have had distinct individual characteristics, differing in weight, size and shape, water volume, etc. And my kids do not look like me, as predicted from the notion that microevolution of varieties of forms of offspring from a parental generation would hold true, and indeed it has. I'm not trying to be funny, it's the simplest basic reponse I can offer for the claim that only the macroevolution model is testable, not the fixity of species model. Well my time off is over so I don't know how many posts I'll be able to make coming up.

Richard wrote on Aug 24, 2008 9:36 PM:And just in case you miss the points, and focus on the idea of being "testable" or 'refutable rather than being "not testable", remember that for whatever reason you think the fixity of genera idea is "nontestable", then the macroevolution of genera idea is also nontestable because it can never be disproven. On the other hand, for whatever reason you claim macro IS testable, then the same is true for the fixity of species; it is also testable, as with the apple blossom data. The point is that it is all the same data. Macro has never been observed, so the fixity of genera theory is as valid as the macro theory when science alone is attempted to be used to either validate or disprove how species came to exist. Paraphrasing Newton, if a scientist thought his data meant God didn't Create the solar system, then that scientist needs to recheck his reasoning. Science cannot disprove such.
I think I've said enough for clarity now.

SlipStream wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:55 PM:Richard: You don’t “appreciate being referred to as being 'ignorant of science' yet you naively explain a 20 year experiment you recently completed in which you observed whether or not your apple tree would evolve into a new species of tree. With a very basic understanding of biology you would have known that evolution occurs in populations not individuals (i.e. a single tree can’t evolve anymore than you or I can), and the flowers on your tree are not offspring anymore than my reproductive structures are my children. Your experiment demonstrates an obvious misunderstanding of basic biology and basic botany. You had no better success in my opinion describing more complex biological topics such as genomics/bioinformatics. Your arguments against genomics/bioinformatics suggest that you do not understand (or are up to date on) the advancements in these areas of sciences (which are extremely difficult to understand and to remain current with). These revolutionary areas of science are actually enjoying amazing success in unraveling genetic relationships between closely related and distantly related species. And the evidence these scientists use is much more involved than making simple comparison of DNA base sequences (as you suggest). Unfortunately for creationists, these diverse genomic studies continue to strongly confirm (and extend) all previously understood evolutionary patterns observed in the fossil record and in comparative studies of anatomy, physiology, embryology, behavior, disease, etc. I’m confused by your apparent assumption that we need absolute proof to understand natural phenomena. Perhaps I’m the one who is clueless here, but I’ve never read anywhere that science demands absolute evidence. Have you? And yet it appears you drop these unreasonable demands when it comes to determining the presences of a God (or special creation)? (continued)

SlipStream wrote on Aug 25, 2008 10:00 PM:Richard: Creationists like to cherry pick facts in order to distant themselves from describing how the creation model better integrates and explains all (as in all) the evidence (e.g. fossil record, biogeography, genomics, comparative studies, etc.) better than evolution. To make my point I’ll use your example of fingerprints in forensics. What should a rational person conclude about the guilt of a suspect as evidence mounts against them (e.g. fingerprints match, and then the murder weapon matches, and then DNA fingerprints match, and then shoe prints match, and then a motive is determined, and then an eye witnesses is found, etc etc). Like a defense lawyer creationists cherry pick out anything they can use to hopefully raise suspicion (even though the totality of evidence is overwhelming against them), such as arguing that the shoe fitting does not mean the suspect is guilty, after all, lots of people have size 9 shoes. This argument may impress those who don’t understand the totality of the evidence, but it is a mere game (trick) to those that do. I’d like to end by asking you a few simple questions if I may, because I’m sincerely interested in knowing how you believe your creation model can actually function in the world of science (let alone better than the theory of evolution). You correctly mention humans have 46 chromosomes and all other apes have 48 chromosomes. Using your creation model what would you predict to observe (as related to these different chromosome numbers) in a detailed analysis and comparison of human chromosomes and the chromosomes of chimps, if chimps and humans were in fact specially created? And what would you predict to observe if humans evolved from other apes? As a final question, what predictions (using the creation model, and then the evolution model) would you make as to whether or not modern birds (which do not have teeth) should carry genetic information for teeth. As a scientist you know this is how science works, you test your theory by making predictions and then testing to see if the predictions hold up to reality. If your creation model is correct you should be able to make accurate predictions for these questions and the endless other questions related to the diversity of life on planet earth. And if it can’t make predictions (let alone accurate ones) at which point do you discard it? And how many accurate predictions does the evolution model have to accurately make before you would conclude that it appears to do a very nice job of explaining the diversity of life on earth?

SlipStream wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:38 AM:Richard: I forgot one important point I wanted to make (sorry). You argue that the “fixity of species” model and macroevolution are both testable. I agree. If the fixity model is false, and the macroevolution model is correct here is what we would have to observe: Observable genetic changes occurring in populations today – known mechanisms that cause these genetic changes – fossil evidence that these observed patterns of genetic change have occurred throughout life’s 3.8 billion years history – clear genetic, anatomical, physiological, embryological homologies (including vestigial structures) that coincide with these historical relationships (as presented in the fossil record) – similarities in noncoding sections of DNA (e.g. viral inserts) - the fossils in each region of the earth lead up to the current species in that region – etc. If the fixity model is correct and the macroevolution model is false we should expect to see the complete opposite (e.g. a known mechanism which prevent (limits) genetic divergence in a “type” (you seem to discount the importance of identifying this mechanism for the fixity model), a fossil record showing all species appearing simultaneously and living together at the same time - no transitional changes over time (i.e. a static fossil record) – no patterns in specific noncoding sections of DNA (e.g. viral inserts), etc. It’s painfully obvious to me that the immense body of evidence (without exception) fits the macroevolution model, and the fixity model fails miserably. So I agree, both models are testable, but only one survives the test. This parallels arguments over mountain formation. Were mountains (e.g. Everest) always here in their present form (i.e. specially created), or are there mechanism which form mountains naturally (as there are mechanisms which change life naturally)? Using Everest as an example, geologist know precisely that it’s rising vertically today, they understand the mechanism that causes it to rise and they know the tectonic plates involved in its continuing formation, and all the evidence (e.g. marine sediments in its upper sediments, its vertical geological profile in comparison with profiles throughout that region, etc) shows it’s vertical rise today has also played out in the past. Rather than celebrate this great scientific achievement of acquired understanding (in geology, or biology) creationists want us to close our eyes and demand that without a video of Everest’s formation (or without direct observation of a mountain forming before our very eyes today) the evidence is no better than suggestions that God made Everest as we see it today. They would add that mountains change a little (micro) but not enough to make a new mountain (macro). Or worse yet they find one unusual example (geological folding, erosional removal of a sediment layer) in a specific area, and then ignoring the overall patterns observed across the planet they argue geologists are wrong. As they argue that there are no transitional fossil between fish and vertebrates, therefore, biologist are wrong. And then when such a transitional fossil is discovered they argue it’s not good enough for their shifting nonexpert standards. I suggest creationist quit hiding behind the time scales of nature (which are pathetically slow relative to our pathetically short lives) and take an honest look at all the evidence in its totality.

Richard wrote on Aug 26, 2008 1:26 PM:The fixity model does not fail at all. It doesn't require the mechanism that you claim is required. No one is smart enough to understand everything. We don't know how certain genes become expressed in one tissue and blocked from expression in another in the same organism even though they are functionally still present. We label it differentiation and gene regulation as though we do, but details of why anbd how some cells turn into fat and others otherwise as far as we can tell do not are simply not known. But this lack of understanding fully doesn't "disprove" the existence of differentiation. Likewise, I cannot identify a mechanism by which a population stays within some limit that allows interbreeding; but this does not disprove the fixity of species. For example, there is no specific mechanism that exists for the purpose of preventing me from running with the speed of an antelope for the Olympics. But this lack of mechanism doesn't prove that one day I will will therefore run that fast. The absence of a mechanism to prevent "speciation" (i.e. to antelope speed from a human) does not disprove that genera are fixed, like you kkeep claiming.

Richard wrote on Aug 26, 2008 3:54 PM:This is not a very good way to communicate. I answered most of your questions over 4 hours ago but it hasn't been posted. Here's a different one: Yes huh. Macroevolution of stable varieties of living things appear from a single individual organism. There are about 1,000 stable known varieties [or 'races'] of apples (International Apple Variety List). Apple trees give rise to apples today as in thousands of years past. These living data, prospective, documented observations on living organisms, point directly to the fixity of species with vast microevolution at the same time. Some varieties have a known origin location. Cameo [white spots on red background that maintain texture over long term storage] was first discovered as a chance seedling in Dryden, Washington in a Wenatchee River Valley orchard. Cameo gene(s) that are unique and remain in descendants is an unknown mechanism occurring in a strand section that wasn’t serious enough to destroy the fruit but yet was significant enough to cause the functional changes found only in Cameo. Apples are fertilized embryos that ripen, where pollen from one blossom usually only fertilizes eggs from other blossoms, ensuring genetic mixing with vast variation in form. You believe micro leads to macro and yet observed micro has never led to observes macro, the creation of a new species that wasn't there before. That is my message.
Trilobites from the botom of the Grand Canyon are like today's young developing horseshoe crabs [both have no tails]. The fossil record most certainly validates fixity with micro as much as the idea of 'speciation' or macro.
Darwin’s finches are varieties, not species, because they can interbreed. Cichlid fishes, claimed to be many 'species', are varieties with genetic mixing of 5 key regulatory genes to get all the vast stable colorations and stripe patterns seen.
Most people don't define what they mean by 'species' in a given sentence so many of your questions I cannot answer without that.
And I don't give a free pass to peoples' ideas.
And as long as so many people choose now to proclaim macro is a certain, proven "scientific fact", then how can you ask me not to expect certain, scientific proof?

SlipStream wrote on Aug 26, 2008 4:02 PM:Richard: Is this really the best you can do? How do you know what mechanism you can and can’t find unless you actually look for one in the first place. Your lack of a mechanism is a giant problem (regardless of how you try to paint it) because it is a simple fact that gene pools change, so if your fixity model is correct than there has to be a mechanism (call it what you want) which limits gene pool divergence, otherwise gene pools will continue to diverge. It’s not that complex. And as a scientist, you should know that identifying such a mechanism (especially given what we know today in the biological sciences) is not that difficult. I’d think creationist would be working on this around the clock, but according to you they have just thrown up their arms in the air and say “ no one is smart enough to identify the mechanism.” How very convenient is that (and how perfectly unscientific is that). I don’t believe previous discoverers of natural mechanisms ( Mendel, Newton , Darwin) became famous by adopting your philosophy of “no one is smart enough to figure this out, so let’s just assume our beliefs are accurate” I believe you can’t find the mechanism (and none of the countless biologists studying molecular and population genetics have stumbled upon the mechanism) for the fixity of species because no such mechanism exists, because species fixity is a creationist wish, not a reality of nature. If you want to side step the mechanism problem, what about the other predictive tests I asked you about to test the fixity model (which do not match the predictions of the fixity model)? You have no mechanism, you have no successful predictive tests, you have no supporting evidence. What does this fixity model have other than a wish? As for other comments you made, you grossly misrepresent what is known about gene regulation and differentiation (and genomics). Are you working from a 1960s biology textbook, because nearly every one of your claims is incredibly out of date? And you can’t be serious that there is no known mechanism preventing you from running at the speed of an antelope. Read a book on biomechanics and you’ll see there are many well understood mechanisms which prevent you from running as fast as an antelope. You may as well state there is no known mechanism preventing you from flying home like a hummingbird. The absence of a mechanism to prevent speciation does not disprove fixity of species in itself, yet it does absolutely nothing to support it. Can you imagine if biologists didn’t know the mechanisms behind evolution, creationists would be ranting and raving all over the place (and rightfully so). Yet these same creationists fall perfectly silent on the fact that their creation model not only lacks known mechanisms, it lacks any supporting evidence as well. If you want to simply state that God did it (does it) that’s great. But at least be honest enough to call that religion (faith), not science. To do otherwise makes fun of both religion and science in my opinion.

Richard wrote on Aug 26, 2008 4:11 PM:Most accept the notion that the Himalayas crumpled up during plate collisions and also for Whitney and the Uintas, etc., but just because someone mistakenly claims God originally Created them in their present altered form, again, does not "disprove" Creation of the material. Creation cannot be 'disproven' with words and thoughts. Things change after first existing, including mountains, varieties of dogs, etc. Likewise, no one should claim macro's 'speciation' is "disproven" either, simply because we've never seen it while we observe vast constant microevolutionary change everywhere. People say false things all the time that neither 'proves' nor 'disproves' the past, or falsely extrapolated things too, like the common notion that since microevolution is fact, this 'proves' macro also is.

Richard wrote on Aug 26, 2008 4:12 PM:There are many morphologic similarities between monkeys and man that would not surprise me would be associated with many gene similarities, but no one on earth could logically predict or know ahead of time that they would have a different chromosome number. This was an observation resulting from the more useful question, 'what are the genome structures of monkeys and man?' The question “did monkeys come from man or did man come from monkeys or did they come from something in common?” cannot be answered with scientific experiments no matter how exhaustive the analysis of genome data might be.

Richard wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:44 PM:I am being honest and I've already said that people believing in Creation is faith, and people believing instead in macroevolution after some unknown 'spontaneous generation' event is belief. Why do I have to repeat that?
Thanks for finally agreeing that the absence of a mechanism to prevent 'speciation' does not disprove the fixity of species. Of course it doesn't.
Now, ancient trilobite fossils looking like today's horseshoe crabs isn't evidence for the fixity of genera? I don't know what exactly you want from me then. Sorry, but the textbook common belief is instead that this somehow 'proves' macroevolution when the correct interpretation is that it is consistent with the fixity of genera, particularly since so many claim the deep canyon layers to be so vastly old. If that doesn't support fixity, then what does?
Crocodiles and turtles, also like today's varieties, are fossilized together at Dinosaur Monument with dinosaurs. I saw many of the specimens at the Smithsonian. Still not good enough? How about the recent find of a juravenator that is indistinguishable from ancient fossilized ones that were thought by many to be millions of years old. Still not evidence to you of a fixity of genera? I don't think I can help you then.
And don't accuse me of throwing up my hands and saying we will never understand a certain thing that we can observe and study. I said no one is now smart enough to understand differentiation that we observe. I didn't say 'give up'. But what I do say is that it will always be forensic extrapolation when it comes to deciphering the past. I can't observe the past and on that I would say yes, give it up. But that's not 'giving up'; it's simply saying why would you spin around in circles when it isn't necessary or useful in the first place? Some things will not be understood ever by scientific experimentation and that is why Newton always said be careful to ask proper questions that can be answered, not ones that can't, with the scientific method. No big deal.
And I disagree again; there is no intrinsic function designed in a human specifically for the purpose of making his speed not exceed some limiting value. There are governors on cars designed to do that, but if there isn't one, then the car speed has virtually no limit if it weren't for other limiting factors, as you say, mechanical limits of spark temperature, fuel type, etc. When I say no mechanism for the purpose, I don't mean to say that our speed would be even worse if we didn't eat food or drink water or take steroids. You're missing my point I guess. Except you seem to be implying that genetic drift in a genus could indeed be self-limiting mechanistically without a specific mechanism in place for that purpose by what I read on your post. Indeed, monkeys can't breed with humans because of genetic pairing mismatches, rather than some specific function to prevent it. So the idea that there has to be 'a mechanism' to prevent it doesn't make sense to me. Bacteria don't mate with mushrooms, but why does there necessarily have to be a mechanism in place [in either the bug or in the mushroom or both] to prevent it, when they are, as you say, mechanistically prevented from breeding anyway?

Richard wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:55 PM:I don't think I'm the one who is out of date. There are all kinds of processes, both post-transcriptional and processes in the nucleus as well that are involved in gene regulation including inducible and repressible genes, and the agents that modulate them, etc., but after all is said and done there is no full explanation of differentiation of tissues from a fertilized zygote that is even remotely complete. how do fat cells end up with a miniscule droplet of cytoplasm inside their massive interior where the genome and all organelles reside, and no other cell is like it yet contains the same genes as all other cells? Out of data, how? What has suddenly changed that gives the impression that the mechanism for how tissues develop selectively from identical-in-appearance cells is now understood? Again, I don't even know how the Cameo genes took hold permanently in something simpler, the apple variety, spontaneously.

Richard wrote on Aug 27, 2008 10:02 AM:And some good evidence that is readily understood is of the human being. There are many billions of people on earth, all different in color, structural features, behavior, abilities, etc., but all these billions count for only one. One species, because Caucasians, Chinese, etc. can interbreed and produce viable progeny. This supports far better the idea of vast microevolution of traits in different environments around the globe [due to genetic mixing, rearrangements, mutations, duplications, inversions, deletions, etc., etc.] while maintaining the fixity of species. It does not support the idea of "macroevolution" or "speciation" from one species to another, as though the genetic drifts in populations that we see are somehow eventually going to produce something other than a human being. I don't buy it, and that includes the notion some profess, that some people might de-evolve back into apes or monkeys, or whatever the current vogue might be, based on the appearance for example of 'spine vestigial tail structures' which are presumed to be normalities, instead of the deformities they are, or based on genomic analyses of interspecies relatedness with apes, lemurs, monkeys, or the recent suggestion that humans are now 'closer' to chickens than previously thought, as though this somehow gives confirmation to the speciation or macro theory.

SlipStream wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:20 PM:Richard: You describe an experiment in which you observed your apple tree and its blossoms for 20 years to see if the tree or its flowers would evolve. Here you failed to understand the basic facts that evolution occurs in populations (not individuals) and flowers are not offspring. Rather than admit your misunderstanding you countered by claiming apples are fertilized embryos, and that you observed apples. Wrong again. Apples are modified ovaries of the parent, the apple is not an offspring, the offspring (embryos) are within the small seeds positioned deep within the apple (in seedless fruits the offspring are not even there at all). You can look at apples all day long and you know nothing about the offspring. Therefore, during your entire 20 year experiment you were observing the wrong thing the whole time. What area of science did you study, I hope it wasn't biology? If you don’t understand the most basic aspects of biology, how can you understand the more complex aspects (e.g. genomics, gene regulation)? I don't think that is possible to be honest. I believe my statments claiming that you have a poor understanding of biology is a matter of fact, not opinion. Because it is a fact that flowers and apples are not offspring, populations evolve (not individuals), recent discoveries have in fact revolutionized what we know about cell differentiation (e.g. the emergence of epigenetics and genomics), fossil deposits in river sediments are always suspect (for very obvious reasons), there are clearly understood anatomical and physiological parameters which do in fact limit human speed (e.g. as studied in biomechanics) as there are clearly understood anatomical and physiological parameters which prevent humans from flying like birds (of course these restrictions could be altered through evolution), historical events can in fact be studied reliably (thus the sciences of anthropology, paleontology, biology, astronomy, geology, forensics), there is no evolutionary requirement that a group (trilobites) has to evolve over time (although the great majority of groups do change over time, as is clearly evident in the fossil record). Your discussion of human “races” must have also been pulled from a 1960 biology textbook, because as far as I know genetic evidence (e.g. there is more genetic variation within a human population (“race”) than there are between human populations (“races”) has made it clear that there are no races of humans (assuming you are using this term in a genetic context). These postings have become a waste of my time so I think this will be my last response to your comments. Thanks for the discussion.

Richard wrote on Aug 28, 2008 11:17 AM:Every apple I've eaten contains seeds from that tree. And I guarantee you that when an apple falls from the tree I have every right to loosely call them 'offspring' because when it germinates in the ground, another apple tree can grow form it. And the argument was only made to make a point. I didn't watch every apple grow. I'm not stupid as you profess. In fact, every seed from every apple I ate has been an apple seed, just as they have been for thousands of years and for trillions of apples. And you now what? They will always be apples, not some other speciated organism, and all living genera have never been seen to behave any differently, micro within the fixity of species is nothing new and has never been disproven. Sorry you don't want to admit it and would rather stop posting. But I don't lie to students when they ask me if there is scientific proof that we 'speciated' from monkeys or apes or some other life form. I tell them the truth, that there is no scientifici proof. It is a theory, not a proven fact. And IN FACT all prospective data we have, just like the apples, the fruit flies, everything, demonstrates it. I cannot, nor can you, change the observations.

Richard wrote on Aug 28, 2008 12:10 PM:I most certainly am a biologist but I never liked studying botany, so what? I focused on clinical chemistry, human physiology/histology, endocrinology, and medical research. That's not the point of the post.
And you are as wrong as you propose I am when you claim there are no races of people. Most sociologists, antrhopligists, and opoulaitn bidigls know full well that theare are recognized at least 5 major races of ancient human beings. Africans, Caucasians, Chinese, Polynesian, Australian aborigines.etc. I don't know what to tell you to help you there. Sorry.
I agrew ith yoyu. That is exactly waht I posted, that ther are mechiamcl and pyslcil entites that limit our speed, but there is no suvch thing as da mechism that is deisnge elcxifley for that purpose. That was the comalint that was brought up agianst the idaea of so iete. that thew is no speciation blocking function that exists and therefore the fixity of speidces has no meanieing. The poster was incorrect. the ficity of psoeces by your own words has proof wihtout reiajing a speical spedies blockign mehcds. You just ssadi inded there are 'meidonat to keep our sppeed topped off. Your own words prove my point, an dI thak you for htem.
Of course trilobites didn't macroevolve. Thanks for you mentioning that also. When did I claim any genera of life must macroevolve? I don't even believe in macroevolution. The point of the post was that textbook writers now use trilobites as evidence for macroevolution. I'm glad you disagree at least with those textbooks. Their take on it is that since no trilobite fossils exist in layers younger than "65 million" years old, this is evidence that they are a form that went extinct which is always prior to another species that was never found in a layer as deep as that. Again, at least we don't have to argue that apparently.

Richard wrote on Aug 28, 2008 6:24 PM:This post is to correct all the typos in the preceding one. I forgot to check it all. Sorry.
I most certainly am a biologist but I never liked studying botany, so what? I focused on clinical chemistry, human physiology/histology, endocrinology, and medical research. That's not the point of the post.
And you are as wrong as you propose I am, when you claim there are no races of people. Most sociologists, anthropologists, and population biologists know full well that there are recognized at least 5 major races of ancient human beings. Africans, Caucasians, Chinese, Polynesian, Australian aborigines, etc. I don't know what to tell you to help you there. Sorry.
I agree with you. That is exactly what I posted, that there are mechanical and physical entities that limit our speed, but there is no such thing as a specific mechanism that is designed exclusively for that purpose. That was the complaint that was brought up against the idea of species fixity: that there is no speciation-blocking function that exists , so therefore the fixity of species has no meaning. The poster was incorrect. The fixity of species by your own words has proof without requiring a special blocking method. You just said indeed there are 'mechanisms' to keep our speed topped off. Your own words prove my point, and I thank you for them.
Of course trilobites didn't macroevolve. Thanks for you mentioning that also. Why would I think that any genera of life has to macroevolve? I don't even believe in macroevolution in the first place. Your idea is that some do during the times that others do, I realize that. The point of the post was that textbook writers now use trilobites as evidence for macroevolution. I'm glad you disagree at least with those textbooks. Their take on it is that since no trilobite fossils exist in layers younger than "65 million" years old, this is evidence that they are a form that must have went extinct, which is always prior to another species that was never found in a layer as deep as that. Again, at least we don't have to argue that apparently.

SlipStream wrote on Aug 29, 2008 9:57 AM:Richard: You stated in no polite terms that I am flat wrong when I claimed your notion of human races is outdated, after I responded to your claim that "inheritance, even among only the human species, when interbreeding of races of man occurs." Your reply was “most sociologists, anthropologists, and population biologists know full well that there are recognized at least 5 major races of ancient human beings.” The only thing I could find that supports your argument about a majority opinion on this issue was from the ill-informed Answers in Genesis website, which states “Most anthropologists recognize 3 or 4 basic races of man in existence today.” However, the majority opinion of scientists states completley the opposite. The following represent the majority of scientists from each branch of science you referred to:
Anthropology: From the American Anthropological Association: “race” has no scientific justification in human biology"
Biology/Human Biology: “the abandonment of “race” as a biological category during the last quarter of the twentieth century, an abandonment that spread into anthropology and human biology. However, that abandonment was never complete in the case of the human species. There has been a constant pressure from social and political practice and the coincidence of racial, cultural and social class divisions reinforcing the social reality of race, to maintain “race” as a human classification. If it were admitted that the category of “race” is a purely social construct, however, it would have a weakened legitimacy. Thus, there have been repeated attempts to reassert the objective biological reality of human racial categories despite the evidence to the contrary.”
Human Genetics: “it has been repeatedly demonstrated that the great majority of genetic variation occurs within "racial groups", with only 5 to 15% of total variation occurring between racial groups.” “Genetic surveys and the analyses of DNA haplotype trees show that human "races" are not distinct lineages, and that this is not due to recent admixture; human "races" are not and never were "pure." Instead, human evolution has been and is characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common evolutionary fate."
Population Biology: "Scientists have long suspected that the racial categories society recognizes are nonexistent on the genetic level. The more closely they examine the human genome, the more most of them are convinced that the standard labels used to distinguish people by “race” have little or no biological meaning.
Sociology: “Most sociologists believe race is a social construct, meaning it does not have a basis in the natural world but is simply an artificial distinction created by humans.”
I’m sorry but I am content to stand by what I originally stated, regardless of how loud your shout and demand that you are correct and I, along with everyone else who dare mention the "E" word is wrong. I suspect your response here (if you have one) will parallel your trilobite and turtle-crocodile fossil examples, where you’ll ignore the majority and zero in on fringe opinions about human races to support your opinion that the majority of scientists acknowledge human races. In my opinion, up to this point, each of your arguments have been either factually wrong (e.g. apples and race), misleading (e.g. turtle-dinosaur fossils) or in complete indiffeence to the totality of evidence (e.g. trilobites, in indifference to the immense fossil record showing biological diveregens over billions of years on planet earth).

Eroica wrote on Aug 29, 2008 11:35 AM:"Richard" misses the point or perhaps deliberatly mistates the point about Newton. There *is* an explanation for why the planets remain in their orbits, but Newton gave up rather than continue his research. This is at the heart of ID arguments: you can't explain it right now, so you say God did it. That's what Newton did. This works only until someone provides the explanation that was there all along but undiscovered. Laplace claimed the triumph that should have been Newton's, if only he hadn't been so eager to surrender to the supernatural. Newton also pursued alchemy for years. What a foolish waste of a great mind.

richard wrote on Aug 29, 2008 12:38 PM:Thanks for all your responses. First off, I'm not shouting, as you imagine. Second, your own answer is just fine with me. I don't see anything wrong with my post's use of the term race, from your own words, because most people in our culture understand exactly what the post's use of the word means. Whether you use the word race, or culture of people, to refer to a group having a common trait that is not shared by another group with its traits, is irrelevant to my point. And if you feel genetics cannot delineate race, so be it. I never said anything to suggest that human DNA sequence analysis is worth very much on that issue, partly because gene function is determined not just by sequences alone but also by rearrangements, posttranscriptional processing, etc., for explaining or even confirming or detecting varieties.I mentioned the Jewish culture becaue it genetics indeed distinguishes this culture from other ones, partly because that culture so much remainss faithful to itself, which makes the genetics analyses more straighforward. So whatever, my point stands, and again I'm not shouting.
Second, I never said Newton didn't make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. But the alcehmy idea, as foolish as it was practically, was nevertheless based on truth. Elements all are made of the same type of building blocks, subatomic particles, and indeed today gold can be made from another element by nuclear bombardment, but of course at great expense and effort. It isn't anything that was that mentally thoeretically 'wrong', but yes with tools available in the 17th century it was pretty silly to be so desperate to pursue.
As far as the explanation for why planets remain in their orbits, I don't know what I'm missing about your argument. Newton understood the universal law of gravitation, that the centripetal force of gravity fights and balances out the centrifugal force due to circular motion of an orbitng body. He also knew full well that planets orbiting a large body would follow an elliptic orbit because of his knowledge about universal gravitation. So I don't get your complaint. He didn't 'give up' on understanding why planets remain in stable orbits; in fact he described why they indeed do. Why you want to take that away from him is beyond me.
The one thing I know that Newton did not understand, nor does anyone on earth then or since, is why for example mercury is the size it is and travels at the speed it does so that its orbit must be fixed [from Newton's laws] to be where it is. There was and still is no explanation as to why the sizes and velocities of the planets are arranged in the order they are in. Mercury could have been where pluto is if it traveled at an appropriate speed for that radius, but no, its the closest to the sun instead. No one knows why this is and never will know, and this is not something that takes anything away from Newton in the slightest. He didn't "give up" and I don't know why you claim it. No one can answer that. Newton knew God Created the universe in the arrangement it's in and also that science can't address such a question as to why. No big deal.

Eroica wrote on Aug 29, 2008 5:45 PM:Yes, Newton gave up. Too soon. The problem he couldn't explain was why the planets, pulling on each other in infinitely varying combinations, did not hurl each other either into the Sun or out of the Solar System. Gravity kept them bound to the Sun, but why did the other planets not upset the arrangement?

"The six primary planets are revolv'd about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed toward the same parts, and almost in the same plane...But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions...This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the councel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

Laplace explained it, inventing a new branch of mathematics in the process. When Laplace gave a copy of his Mecanique Celeste to Napoleon, the Napolean asked him what role God played. Laplace replied, "Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis."

Richard wrote on Aug 29, 2008 8:35 PM:Thanks. It's comforting to actually have a discussion where we can possibly learn something now, instead of this vague
"you have a complete lack of understanding of science, genetics, biology etc." without even identifying specifically how so, or apologizing later either after I provide clarification on a point.
Well, I've not read Mecanique Celeste but I get the gist now of what you refer to. Yes the planets also all pull on each other and this contributes to motional effects that would otherwise not be there if one were orbiting in isolation. I still don't feel it was Newton's responsibility to explain the solar system to that level of detail, since he at least was the first to discover and describe the universal law of gravity. The first time is always the hardest. Confirmation and extension, after the first scientist begins solving an issue, is not as grossly difficult, at least usually. So I hardly think again that he 'gave up', even on that, when there might be a vast number of reasons why he chose not to invest more time on it.
In my view it is the motion of the other planets outside mercury that is a better candidate for the precession of mercury's perihelion, than the explanation that is currently offered, that it is due to general relativity's relativistic mass, etc., because even that only would explain a fraction of the magnitude of the precession yearly anyway. I throw that in because of the data we have that disproves many extrapolations that have come out of special and general relativity theory, that by the way were also refuted by Arthur Otis when he was chairman of the Stanford Physics Dept. in 1960. His text is online "Light Velocity and Relativity" that obliterates the false parts, which are vast, of the Einstein theories. There is no such thing as dilation of real time, and we did work of a different nature with laser pulses that separately also demonstrated that.
Anyway, just because Laplace need not have a hypothesis to explain the stability that was due to God, I suspect he meant that it is not necessary for God currently to keep the planets operating smoothly. I don't recall Newton ever disagreeing with such a claim because he knew that God originally set the Universe in motion. I suspect he also knew that whatever stable system first existed did not need regular maintenance to continue. So again I think it's not appropriate to attempt to discredit Newton on this. I would feel dished if the important things I discovered after all t