| 25 March 2004 at 04.12.43 ZuluTime
|
Posted by Jurassosaurus [63.184.1.250 - sdn-ap-001caburbP0504.dialsprint.net] on 25 March 2004 at 04.12.43 ZuluTime:
Aw, what the hell. I figure as long as DJJ wants to insist on being the center of attention, we might as well continue looking through the rest of his "Evolution is a Lie" stuff. That, and I have nothing better to do. I decided to check the rest of his site to see what else he has to offer. With that in mind, I have a couple things to say before we start. 1) If DJJ's statements on beautiful women are to be believed, then does that mean that we get to call every porno from Playboy to Hustler, religious text, or does that only hold for the pictures? 2) For a guy who enjoys throwing around his self proclaimed "knowledge" in "science," he sure doesn't seem to mind taking a lot of speculation and stating it as an ad hoc fact.
For is this not what 'Continental Drift' is all about? The continents were together surely at one time according to their shapes that fit together perfectly, so why could NOT have the Lord divided them into what we see today. It didn't take millions and billions of years of them inching themselves apart which is evolutionary madness , but by the Lord of the whole Earth quickly floating them into new positions on the liquid below through the Lord's absolute POWER.
For together the Worldwide Flood and the Earth's division can solve the some of the mysteries of geography and biology f even though we don't know all the details.
3) This was from a separate link on the site, and is more of an observation (bold emphasis, is mine).
The only reason to doubt that people saw these creatures is that the geologic column shows they died out long before man evolved. So we must determine how reliable the geologic column is. Many people believe the conventional interpretation of the geologic column is rock solid. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.) But there is new evidence that casts doubt upon those interpretations. We will examine that evidence in next month's Disclosure. So, if you don't subscribe, you better send in your $15 to get next month's issue.
For a group of people who seem so intent on dispelling the "myth of evolution," they sure don't seem to mind charging their readers an arm and a leg for this tripe. Even Jehovah's witlesses don't try to extort money for their publications.
Oh, and as a brief aside to Do-While Jones in regards to the plesiosaur/basking shark story: Elastoidin is a unique collagen found in sharks, rays and teleosts. It is not found in reptiles.
As for part II, there's a few things I could say.
HYBRIDS BUT HAVEN'T THE SCIENTISTS WORKING WITH GENETICS PRODUCED NEW SPECIES OF HYBRID PLANTS AND ANIMALS? Doesn't this prove that entirely new species could have evolved from the interbreeding of different parent species? NO! The accepted definition among the scientific community of a species is, "A group of organisms that freely interbreed and produce fertile offspring." And the rare hybrids that can be produced by crossing two species are not "fertile offspring," but are sterile!
I really suggest doing a lot more research into this, as fertile hybrids do occur. Saltwater crocs and Siamese crocs are capable of fertile interbreeding (which is apparently happpening so often now, that wild Crocodylus siamensis are almost nonexistant). Humans created an entirely new species when they hybridized European honeybees with African honeybees. Fertile inter-genera cross breeds are actually common among plant species, and are one of the prime arguments against the biological species concept. Ligers (or Tigons. It's one of them) are apparently fertile on occasion. Domestic cats, and leopard cats (not leopards proper) can produce fertile offspring, so can various general of primates such as the baboons Papio & Theropithecus, as well as gibbons and siamang apes.
Interestingly, DNA studies of these primates have determined that a 2% base sequence divergence seems to be the upper limit to primate hybrid fertility. This seems to be true for carnivores as well.
The point, you ask? Humans, chimpanzees and gorillas all fall well under this upper limit. Thusly, it is possible that human-chimp, human-gorilla, or chimp-gorilla hybrids could be fertile. So now all we need is one of those wasted chicks from Girls Gone Wild, a horny gorilla and...well you see where I'm going. At the very least it would make for an interesting research experiment.
The reference for this, if you're interested, is:
Benveniste, Raoul E. 1986. "The Contribution of Retroviruses to the Study of Mammalian Evolution" Molecular Evolutionary Genetics (MacIntyre, R.J. ed) 359-417.
One other thing.
And as far as mutational changes being the "chief building blocks" of evolution, Hermann J. Muller, who won the 1946 Nobel prize for his contributions to the science of genetics, said, "IN MORE THAN 99 PERCENT OF CASES THE MUTATION OF A GENE PRODUCES SOME KIND OF HARMFUL EFFECT, SOME DISTURBANCE OF FUNCTION. ... Most mutations are bad; in fact, good ones are so rare that we may consider them ALL as BAD."
See, this is the problem with using really old quotes. While this statement may have held true in 1946, it is far from true today. Everyone has already heard of the mutation that causes sickle celled anemia, and the advantages against malaria that it has, but there are others. Most notably is a mutation in the CCR5 receptor gene on the T-Cells of humans. This mutation essentially deletes the CCR5 receptor. Ah, another bad mutation you say, but wait. It turns out that CCR5 is needed by HIV to gain entry into the cell and propagate itself (it uses it as a coreceptor). By deleting this receptor, the cell is immune to the virus. As such, people who are homozygous for CCR5, are immune to HIV infection, and those that are heterozygous for it show a much slower infection rate. Furthermore, the job of CCR5 is either not that important, or is done by other receptors/coreceptors as well, as its loss seems to have no ill effect. Id est: it is a beneficial mutation in the exaggerated, stereotypical sense of the phrase. DJJ has 8 pages of this stuff? Ooh, page 3 uses the word tommyrot. Oh well, maybe later.
As for the stuff about the fossil record, well that has been covered plenty of times before. It is an issue of the accusers continuously moving the goal post back.
.
.
.
Okay fine, just this last bit since I can't help myself.
29. THERE ARE NO MAN-APES AND NO APE-MEN, and all that baloney you read about and see pictures of in most of today's biology textbooks is just hellish, fiendish, tommyrot! All those half-ape, half-man ape-men and man-apes, screaming and grinning and groaning like a bunch of horrors from some nether-world down in the depths of hell are imaginary monsters created by the fiendish mind of the Devil and promulgated by men.
How is that scientific?