Kevin wrote on Aug 27, 2008 4:28 AM:Randolfo,

As much as I don't like to discuss religion on any level other than perhaps with my own family, it is a relevant topic. As far back as the Reagan era religious fundamentalism in America began taking stage in certain issues. Issues like teaching evolution in public schools, managing our country's natural resources, stem cell research, our relationships with other countries, and even who can and cannot run for political office are all to a an extent impacted by organized religion. For instance, read how organized relgion has been attempting to impact teaching of evolution in public schools via passing out books like 'evolution exposed' to high school kids that are taking biology courses in public schools.

My point is that the issues are relevant. Organized (over zealous) religion will always have a negative impact on the greater society. What is overzealous? I say it is when religion creeps into variables of the decisions that say our President might make about things like stem cell research and relationships with other countries!

I'm thankful for people that stand up to the Irving Forbes of the world and try to hold a mirror up to them so they and others can see the sad reflection.

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 27, 2008 9:40 AM:to Kenneth Ray: Well said!

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 27, 2008 9:47 AM:to Randolfo Aragon, re Enough with the same old debate: I agree with you. I would like to see a Letters policy that rejects 1) arguments for or against evolution, 2)arguments for or against any specific religious belief, and 3) any argument for legislating morality.
Regards

Richard wrote on Aug 27, 2008 12:39 PM:It depends on what you mean by 'evolution'. Microevolution of wide varieties of organisms within a genus or species type of life has been observed almong all living things on earth and no one disputes that. But macroevoluiont from one genus to another has never been observed and instead is a belief, not an observed phenomenon in prospective experiments using the scentific method. Belief in Creation is no threat whatsoever to students learning all the science that now or will ever exist. The scientific method does not address what happened in the past. Unfortunately, belief in the idea that macroevolution theory is suddenly now a fact is a mistake that can indeed lead to deficient progress in scientific advances. Take for example the recent deaths from the snake venom agent that was thought might be useful as a drug to treat diabetics. If you subscribe to the theory that we are descended from animals, of course such use might seem reasonable. If however you understand that macro is not a proven fact and that Creation has never been disiproved, nor can ever be disproven, by scientific experiment, then much more caution would be logically taken, doing more extensive and longer chronic clinical trials, etc., before such a chemical would ever be authorized for human consumption. The FDA is now repealing its former authorization of the agent. And I can assure you that drugs are not the answer for treating type II diabetes mellitus in the first place. Most unnaturally stimulate the islets and slowly damage the cell membrane and have cardiovascular complications when taken longterm as stated in the New England Journal of Medicine recently for the new generation of diabetic drugs. The older generation of drugs wer banned by the FDA in the 1960's for causing heart attacks. My grandfather lost his life because of taking the original diabetic drugs.

Three D wrote on Aug 27, 2008 2:39 PM:Richard at 12:39 repeats the same error he has made before, saying that macroevolution has not been and cannot be observed. While it is true that the time frames involved are too long for individuals to observe within their limited lifetimes, objective measurable and quantifiable direct observation of evidence from the fossil record as well as from the unbroken chain of modifications of related DNA sequences in consistent change rates, provides more than adequate observable, empirical confirmation. While the fossil record is far from complete, in Darwin's time it was entirely non-existent. And we are continually unearthing new and better fossil samples, ever narrowing the gaps.
What is interesting is that, when Darwin published his theory, it was based solely on observations of environmental adaptation. He was not aware of the future science of DNA or the experiments in genetics by Gregor Mendel. Yet the subsequent observations have confirmed the deadly accuracy of his acute observations.
Blessings,
3D

Richard wrote on Aug 27, 2008 3:15 PM:The fossil record does not 'prove' any genera of life emanated from pre-existing ones. Trilobites in ancient Grand Canyon beds are nearly identical in form to varieties of horshoe crabs that live today (as described in my Aug 23 post); juravenator specimens have been reported as nearly identical matches with fossils of that speceis that are claimed to be vast eons in age; crocodiles and turtles like today's co-fossilized with dinosaurs. These fossil record forensics data are consistent with the fixity of genera as believed by Pasteur and Mendel. If modern genetics had been available to monk Mendel, there would be no reason to discard his faith in Creation or the fixity of genera. And Darwin based his 'speciation' comments partly on finches among 13 islands, but these we now know are varieties of finches that interbreed, not different species. Darwin had no lab facilites or the time to test this. His data are descriptive in nature and interesting but extrapolate not what was seen. The work of William Dampier at Galapagos prior to Darwin was less recklessly interpreted. Evidence cited in your post agrees just as well with microevolution of varieties of life within the fixity of a genus. Forensics data, as always, cannot prove either fixity or macroevolution. Sorry, but this is not a repeated error, but a repeated true statement.

To Richard wrote on Aug 27, 2008 3:17 PM:Micro evolution is a great indicator of the credence of marco evolotuion.

In the bio/pharma industry, or other manufacturing venues, we refer to "scale up"...what is possible on a research bench yielding nangrams of a product can be produced on a mass scale, netting Kilos of the same.

Richard wrote on Aug 27, 2008 3:26 PM:And to make myself clear, what you post as an acute observation by Darwin [that led to the conjecture that eventually organisms environmentally adapted will become a unique species] most certainly have not been confimed with subsequent observations. Indeed, those very finches on the islands remain now, as then, varieties of finches that can interbreed. The whole concept that observed microevolution might some day lead [and in the past led] to macroevolution between genera was mistaken in the first place. Subsequent observations obviously point to the fact of microevolution of varieties [of apples, dogs, humans, etcl.] that remain fixed within their genera. You can be confident that future seeds from apple trees will never be a differnt kind of fruit and that your descendants will never revert to being a different type of organism because the actual, real, hard data that demonstrate this as the correct choice between the two theories.

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 27, 2008 3:33 PM:Richard's post of 8/27, 12:39 PM is a perfect example of why the "debate" should be ended, as Randolfo Aragon proposes.
Regards

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 27, 2008 7:10 PM:to Richrd, re you post of 8/27, 12:39 PM: You say "Take for example the recent deaths from the snake venom agent that was thought might be useful as a drug to treat diabetics. If you subscribe to the theory that we are descended from animals, of course such use might seem reasonable."

Your anti-science view hinders your understanding of science and the pharmaceutical industry. I haven't been able to find the diabetes drug you mention. I did find a drug named Byetta, derived from lizard saliva, for which the FDA has required adding strong warnings of serious side effects. However, that's pales in comparison to Vioxx. Vioxx may have led to more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths according to MSNBC,6 Oct 2004. And that's not the only problem they've had

The problems aren't with the clinical protocol or the source of the medication, but with the CEO's and CFO's of the pharmaceutical companies who override their research and manufacturing staffs to rush products to the market prematurely.

Regarding the source of pharmaceuticals: Nature - animal, vegetable,and mineral - has long been a rich source of medications. For example belladonna and digitalis from plants, sulfur, mercury, and silver minerals, and insulin and heparin from animal tissue. A more recent development is Botox, derived from Botulinum toxin, one of the most poisonous naturally occurring substances.

Regards

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 27, 2008 7:18 PM:to Richard: I must have missed it. Say again what's the alternative to macroevolution?
Regards

I beg to differ Brother John wrote on Aug 27, 2008 9:27 PM:...with your comment, "The problems aren't with the clinical protocol or the source of the medication, but with the CEO's and CFO's of the pharmaceutical companies who override their research and manufacturing staffs to rush products to the market prematurely."

Being in the industry for nearly 2 decades, I can say with complete confidence that CEOs and CFOs of pharma and biotech companies may want to get products to market prematurely, but their desire is kept in check by the FDA.

Only the FDA (for products manufactured and distributed domestically) grants authorization for the commercial release of pharmaceuticals.

You can say what you want about corporate officers in the pharma industry, and what you accused them of may sound plausable to you, but the truth is selling product too early, or with insufficient data is not their doing.

Just trying to keep the record straight.

Regards

Three D wrote on Aug 27, 2008 9:54 PM:Richard at 3:15 p.m. again errs in stating that, "The fossil record does not 'prove' any genera of life emanated from pre-existing ones." Apparently the second half of my comment failed to appear on his screen, so I will apologize for not having been more clear. I did not talk about the fossil record by itself. I coupled it with the science of DNA (deoxyribo nucleic acid). The fossils provide not only the structural similarities of related specimens, but also provide DNA samples. The combination of fossil evidence coupled with DNA linkages does, in fact, provide extremely comprehensive evidence, and you simply missed that whole point.
And, by the way, what is your alternative to macroevolution, supported, of course, by observable and replicable empirical evidence. Not something written in a very old text filled with contradictions, failed prophecies, factual errors and other flaws, but the same standard of direct observation that he demands of macroevolution.
Blessings,
3D

Jiohn the Baptist wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:42 PM:to "I beg to differ Brother John" I appreciate your comments, but unfortunately, owing to the revolving door, FDA has been the lackey to BigPharma. Accordingly, products are brought to market to soon. There is always the trade-off between getting a useful product to the public, and keeping deleterious products off the market. My belief is that BigPharma has the upper hand. I would like to think I'm wrong, but there have been entirely too many deaths for me to think otherwise.
Regards

Richard is everywhere wrote on Aug 28, 2008 7:58 AM:Richard has been called on many of his false and strange claims near the end of the Aug 23 Californian letters. Anyone repsonding to him may want to look there first to judge if doing so is worth their time. In those posts he displays a very clear misunderstanding of basic science and the inability to learn from his mistakes. You may as well argue with a magic 8 ball.

Keep making my Lipitor wrote on Aug 28, 2008 8:28 AM:To beg to differ with JB (at 11:42): In partial defense of the pharmaceutical companies, any ingested product (from aspirin to Lipitor to peanut butter to coloring crayons to Wonder bread) will result in some individuals having adverse reactions, and with some of these individuals dying. This reality is not the fault of the Pharm industry or the food industry. Obviously there has to be very careful cost-benefit analyses and the industries have to be regulated, but if we want the benefits of these industries we have to accept the risks associated with them. As an example, so many children will die from a specific vaccination, yet 100 times more will not die because of the vaccination - so what do we do? In the great majority of cases where proper risk analysis and regulation have occurred it is my opinion unfair to blame these companies for the reality of the risks involved when they play out. Your chance of dying on the way home tonight is magnitudes higher than dying from prescription drugs in your home.

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 28, 2008 9:37 AM:to Keep making my Lipitor: You make a good point that BigPharma is not entirely to blame. All too many needless deaths occur because people fail to take their medications properly, overdosing or mixing incompatible drugs. Hospitals are also guilty of the same faults.
Regards

Richard wrote on Aug 28, 2008 10:16 AM:What? I've re-read all my posts from Aug 23 and I stand by each and every one of them. I'm a scientist, not a story teller, like so many in biology have become. Cut off the statements I make from your mind, go ahead, but cutting them off doesn't change their validity.
No alternative to macroevolution? Yet we're supposed to pay taxes to continue to research how 'it' worked. Macroevolution is not a proven fact, no matter how many proclaim that it 'must be so'. Just because there are many species aournd us does not mean they eveolvbed form each other or that we or anyting else will long from now be some differntr form of life.
Of course I read your post in its entirety. The fossil record and genetics data both require interpretation if you want to use them to determine whether genera in the past only lived because they macroevolved from pre-existing genera. The data do not consitute proof. Again, I don't subscribe to the notion that trilobites I have from the Grand Canyon are as old as biology texts profess, and if they were that old it only adds fuel to my argument, because there is no noticeable difference in morphology between them and modern young horseshoe crabs that live widely around the earth today. I can't change the data, but I most certainly can provide a better explanation than others do who proclaim this 'proves' 'speciation' and macroevolution. Genetic drift we measure and observe prospectively now among populaitons of many genera also does not 'prove' speciation of genera rather than microevolution of varieties within a genera. Darwin on the Galapagos Islands found varieties of finches that, yes huh, still interbreed today. What do you want me to do, change the data? When biology texts claim they are different 'species' what they are referring to is a term that is more like the more familiar one, race for example in the human. I use though the strict definition of species put out at the Smithsonian Institution Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. I took a picture of the definition on my visit just this summer. The Galapagos finches are NOT distinct species, because they are indeed capable of interbreeding. Galapagos finches, on the different Islands with grossly different food sources, require different functional abililty to survive, but I view them like I view races of people who also are very different, but like races the finches are also still the same species because, luke races of poeple, interbtreed when allowed to, producing viable progenyl. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Variation does not speciation make. We have no prospective evidence of speciation and never have. Combine together all the forensic data you can from genetics and the fossil record. It requires assumptions that cannot be proven to claim different genera arose from pre-existing ones.
Belief in the fixity of species does not hamper science developments. On the contrary. There are far fewer useful drugs that I would certify than are allowed on the market. There are some great ones, like nitroglycerin for angina, and many others, but again nonbelief in macroevolution doesn't interfere with their understanding, but in my opinion the same type of forensics-type thinking, where correlation is presumed to mean causation, leads people to certify a drug that should not be far too often. And certifying macroevolution as though it is an obsevable, proven fact is a mistake.

Richard wrote on Aug 28, 2008 10:50 AM:I don't learn from my mistakes? What mistakes? When my students ask me if it has been proven that we emanated from monkeys or apes or a common ancestor I tell them the absolute truth. I don't lie to them. Of course it has not been proven. Big deal.
Then we go on from there. Interpretations go on and on, while the data expand and remain. Genetics data is incapable of proving that one genera existed only because it macroevolved from a pre-existing genera. Where is the mistake? Recent evidence suggested that Neanderthals and modern humans interbred, in spite of former claims that one macroevolved form the other, forming a 'new species'. Gene sequencing didn't "prove" or "disprove" that, let alone 'prove' that there was a time when humans macroevolved from monkeys or apes. These are ideas, but they do not have anything behind them that constitute proof. I tell people the truth, that macroevolution of any genera of life is a theory, not a proven fact.
And I tell the truth on the converse also. People who know or believe in Creation have not been "disproven" with scientific experimentation either. Again, such a question is not addressable with the scientific method. Someone else just complained to me that Creation is not scientifically testable or refutable and on that of course I agree. He's complaining to the choir.

Richard wrote on Aug 28, 2008 11:02 AM:And good grief, sorry about the details about Bayetta. I was using that as an illustration, that belief in macroevolution is not a requirement for good science. In my sphere I find indeed that such a presumptionk, that it's fact not theory, impairs peoples' judgment grossly. Look at the movie Expelled, where people at the Smithsonaian are fired for even mentioning that Creation has not been disproven. Or people in educational institutions who feel it is proper to expunge people for even thinking this. It's disgusting.
And by the way, I mistakenly thought the FDA already banned the reptile agent that's not a snake, sorry for that, but again it was for sake of argument. I find diabetic drugs very boring and it's hard for me to continue reading much about them because the alternative treatment of isocaloric eating is the only method I will ever approve for anyone who asks. Diabetes is an overeating condition, not something that is an intrinsic defect in peripheral tissues. Diabetologists at Mass General have always treated type II with cafeteria feeding and will never use oral agents and to me this has been a dead issue for decades. We don't need new drugs for it; instead we need education. But what can you do when people are fed the advertisements from drug companies that you can go ahead and eat all you want as long as you take this agent too. Sorry, I disagree totally and have fought against them for decades and will by grace keep doing so.

Richard wrote on Aug 28, 2008 12:33 PM:And just like Creation isn't testable with the scientific method, so too is the 'big bang' not testable with the scientific method. It is impossible to go back in time. The mistake Einstein made when he first proposed time dilation theory has been found and described. There is no such thing as time travel, so no one can go back in time to prove or disprove either the big bang or Creation. Perhaps it's time to get over yourselves.

Richard wrote on Aug 28, 2008 1:03 PM:Borrowing form an earlier post that someone complained about: Every seed from every apple has been an apple seed, just as they have been for thousands of years, for trillions of apples, and they will always be apples, not some other speciated plant in the future. All living genera ever watched have not been seen to behave any differently, that is, microevolution within the fixity of species. This has never been "disproven". People who claim "speciation" has been observed are mistraining students. I don't do that when they ask if it's been "proven" that we 'speciated' from another animal. The truth wins. It is a theory, not a proven fact. All prospective data we have, just like the apples, the fruit flies, everything, demonstrates it. I will not pretend that there are prospective observations that demonstrate "speciation" or "macroevolution" as fact, no matter how many people yell at me to do just that. My students are stronger, less judgmental, less bigoted, and the far better for it. This is as much my free speech society to help spread truth, as it is any other American's.

Richard Richard Richard wrote on Aug 28, 2008 1:07 PM:Your multiple posts just to defend yourself from the few who have taken issue with your comments make it apparent you are more concerned with seeing your name in print than in an honest discourse.

Enough, lad!

nd issue with John wrote on Aug 28, 2008 1:16 PM:I don't expect anything I say can change your opinion on the whole pharma issue, but just out of curiosity, have you ever been part of a FDA NDA (new drug application) audit?

I am in the industry, and a businessman who views the FDA as an impedence on commercial distribution of drug products, but when someone says something like, the "FDA has been the lackey to BigPharma," I can't help that is an opinion from a bystander and critic who has not seen the inner workings of the agency or the industry.

I would agree the FDA has faults, but talk to any industry insider and they will assure you that the FDA's approval of a drug product is not because they are in the pocket of the industry, but more likely because of mistakes made by them.

No, it doesn't resolve your legitimate concerns, but sir, your accuasations might be unfair.

Richard wrote on Aug 28, 2008 2:49 PM:If you missed the alternative, it's called the fixity of species, a la our good biology heritage that was believed by Mendel, Pasteur, Linnaeus, etc.
My statements are "strange", don't "understand basic science" and should "stop"? If you paid any attention you'd see that the illogic has been on others, not me. In the last 24 hours I've been told that fixity of genera cannot be valid because there is "no mechanism to prevent" microevolution from extending to produce a new species, all while in the same 24 hours that fixity must be false anyway even though there are "many mechanisms" that prevent traits (running at animal speed) from appearing in a different species (human). In other words, mechanisms exist to block us from running fast like animals, but don't worry, these mechanisms will not prevent you from eventually having offspring long from from now that might be able to run like animals.
No macroevolution of trilobites for eons, no witnessed speciation ever in all recorded observational history, but don't worry, all genera of life somehow must have macroevolved anyway from something ancient, say like algea fossilized near the trilobites. Who said that it must be fact [rather than theory] that genera in higher strata must have descended from those found in lower strata and there is 'no alternative'? Of course there are alternatives. Animals only fossilize where they actually live. If land is underwater, obligate land animals can't fossilize there with things that do, even though they coexist at the same time. You guys crack me up.

Richard wrote on Aug 28, 2008 6:04 PM:Hold your horses. Who gets jollies seeing his common first name on a computer screen? Do you want me to use a nickname, what?
There is one reason and one reason only why I write these posts. And that's because I deplore when people are lied to, and not just on macroevolution theory but on any subject. This subject is pretty virulent when it leads to the attacks I've seen attack on peoples' faith, as though science "proves" this or that about it. I know of students who know the truth but leave biology because "it's just not worth it" with so many proclaiming that if you dont accept macro as a fact you don't understand science.
I was accused of not answering all the questions that were asked of me. Now I'm accused of posting too often to defend myself [rather than the truth that I'm defending]. What am I supposed to do? If I provide details in a post then it's too much space. If I don't provide details then I'm 'ignorant of science'.
The sooner people stop proclaiming in public news media that macroevolution is somehow now a proven scientific fact, when it most certainly is not, then maybe I'll stop trying to inject more posts. But not until then, or until my breath is gone, whichever's first.

What comes to mind wrote on Aug 28, 2008 6:05 PM:Give a man a shovel and he'll dig his own grave.

richard wrote on Aug 29, 2008 11:57 AM:Aand yet I'm still living for now.

Richard wrote on Aug 29, 2008 4:36 PM:When I go to my high school reunion tomorrow and see people I've not seen in many decades I'll freely tell them also the truth if they ask. That their belief in Creation has never been disproven by anything any scientist has ever discovered in all time. My peers and all my teachers expected me to do well in my science career and of course trust me and indeed demand the truth. And that's what they'll get from me if/when they ask. Why would I say otherwise?

What comes to mind wrote on Aug 30, 2008 7:30 PM:When I go to my high school reunion I don't force my religuous beliefs (or lack of) on anyone. But then I'm not a world reknown creation scientists like Richard, who appears to be the only person on the planet who believes we can prove or disprove a God. I was under the silly assumption we can't do this anymore than we can prove or disprove garden faries. Let us know how your teachers and your peers were on the edges of their seat in anxious anticipation of learning from the master whether there is or isn't a God. Sad they had to wait decades to find out Richard's truth.

Richard wrote on Sep 1, 2008 7:39 PM:Amusing to you perhaps, but you evidently haven't read anything I've written about it because of what you just said. Science experimentation cannot prove God nor disprove God, cannot prove Creation nor disprove Creation. My posts I stand by. Why you now are claiming that I think otherwise is a mystery to me and thus represents a total communication breakdown. And I went to the reunion and did not force anything on anyone. A long time friend I knew from third grade [we were on the same little league team], is who I talked most with the entire evening. And yes he asked about close calls I've
had since high school and he told me about his. The information I gave him was truthful about God and was at his questioning. And it is still true that no science data exist to disprove Creation. No one was waiting for me. And I don't "own" truth but I likewise fight against people who ridicule others based on false statements about the 'meaning of science'. My friend delightedly informed me of another alumnus who works now at Princeton, who used to live in Einstein's house there, and I'm writing to him about the error in time dilation theory. He's an astrophysicist who needs it. Why would you suggest I keep silent, because it's 'my truth' and I'm "forcing" my beliefs on others? No one needs to listen or believe me, but why do you object to me speaking?