Dec 162005
 

I have found solid evidence of macroevolution. I can no longer contribute to this pro-ID blog with intellectual sincerity. This is indisputable evidence of macroevolution happening right before our eyes.


A Beautiful F1 LabraDoodle puppy in
chocolate possibly a result of allopatric speciation.


A first generation hybrid GoldenDoodle is the
product of a Golden Retriever and a Poodle.

What? What did you say fdocc? This is not evidence of macroevolution? This is not speciation? These are like Darwin’s finches and ring species of gulls? Oops, of course you are right. I’ve lost my mind for a minute there. I was reading Wilson’s compelling case for evolution. Imagine what would happen if I would have taken his class. 😀

  33 Responses to “This Blog is Shutting Down”

  1. Well,

    Intelligent Design offers the opportunity to preserve organisms by producing new biodiversity according to the plan of genetic compatibility, which is the interbreeding of compatible organisms (inter-fertile varieties currently misclassified as “different species” by the apostles of evolution and of “speciation”). By stressing the emphasis in the new organisms discovered, Intelligent Design is in sharp contrast with the yellow-tinted “competition and extinctionendangered and struggling for the survival of the fittest” colors of the current biology dominated by evolution and by neoDarwinism.”

    However, inunison declared that the evolutionists are so “plastic” and re-shapable that now are starting to include “variation” within compatible organisms as examples of their false “speciation

    The most outrageous statements are in the peer-reviewed literature that I have found are:

    several studies have demonstrated that speciation can occur in the absence of genetic incompatibilities [McKinnon and Rundle on Gasterosteus]”

    Hybridization is a valid manipulation [to “prove” “speciation“] because all previous crosses between closely related freshwater sticklebacks have not revealed any intrinsic reduction in offspring viability [Talking about the same Gaterosteus of the previous statement, Dolph Schluter, President of the Society for the Study of Evolution, which means that Schluter’s Lie will be “Protected” by a full “society” of which he is the “president“]

    “he frequency of the extreme forms of the two species was artificially increased, by hybridization [talking about the very same varieties of animals, Peter R. Grant, the “Darwin Myth Preserver” through his pack of lies related to the interbreeding compatible finches, that he, as an “expert Darwinist”, still considers as “different species” to keep up with the myth and with the lie of Darwin, “the origin of species“]”

    Another evolutionist, a more reasonable biologist still asks to them all:

    Are we going to say [that] those [interbreeding animals] aren’t [of the same] species?” asked evolutionary biologist James Mallet at University College in London.

    Then Ann Gibbons, the reporter (a most reasonable person compared to those “experts” previously quoted) declared:

    “” [evolutionary] scientists would still like to winnow the definitional diversity, so that when researchers such as Schluter [remember, he’s now “the President of evolution”] publish on stickleback speciation, others won’t voice doubts that he was looking at separate species in the first place.”

    Perhaps the best we can do is to agree to disagree in a rational manner” and agree on a limited set of concepts, says entomologist Stewart Berlocher of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaing”

    Well, I “agree to disagree” a thousand times with evolutionists that deliberately lie and lose their common sense and their rationality just to preserve the myth of evolution started by Darwin.

  2. Good one! Please post my ‘Got a thought’ article.

    Thank You,

    Benjii

  3. Dear Benjii,

    I really liked your previous posting on PeeZ ‘religion’. I’m looking forward to read your upcoming writings.

    Teleologist,

    Your posting inspired me to put together The Dog Variation!

  4. Well thank you, may I become a permanent blogger here. I’ve aspired to do this for a while. I am a christian, and I’m deeply embedded within the origins debate. Please teleologist, help me with this.

    Sincerely,
    Benjii

  5. Well my blog – prescribedevolution.blogspot.com/ – is also shutting down in a stony silence after I have established that no proponent of either faction in this mindless debate is willing to present his version of the MECHANISM of organic evolution. It has been both revealing yet gratifying for someone who has rejected both positions in a debate that never should have existed. The truth lies elsewhere nd I think I know where that is and always was. It had only to be discovered.

  6. John A. Davison,

    Do you accept ID?

  7. Beenjii

    Of course but I do. I amazed you would even ask, but I do not accept a guiding intervening God of any sort. I regard IntelligentDesign as a mandatory premise without which nothing in either ontogeny or phylogeny will ever make sense. To present it as a subject for debate is idiotic and counter productive because the Darwinians immediately presume that is has a Christian Fundamentalist basis. It is exactly those with that background that are doing all the debating. Witness this forum and Uncommon Descent as examples. The title alone of that forum is anathema to me. There is no place for a personal God in science of any sort and never has been. Don’t take my word for it.

    “The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God.”
    Albert Einstein

    I say a plague on both the atheist Darwinian and Protestant Fundamentalist houses. The truth lies elsewhere and I think I know where that is and have published as much.

  8. To question in any way that we had primate ancestors is utterly without foundation and can only lead to more conflict. Indeed, as far as I can see, that is precisely what the purpose is. It is pathetic to see presumably rational beings engaging in such behavior. It is no accident that not a single creationist would offer his version of our origins when he was offered that opportunity at my blog. Of course no chance-worshipping Darwinian did either. All in all I was not surprised. Ideologues are like that wherever one finds them. I am not one of them and neither were any of my sources.

  9. the Darwinians immediately presume that is has a Christian Fundamentalist basis. It is exactly those with that background that are doing all the debating. Witness this forum and Uncommon Descent as examples.

    John, I am very tolerant of your dissenting view regarding ID but please do not distort what this blog and I have said. I have never used a personal God as an argument or as support for ID. If you have evidence to the contrary show me the quote. Do not misrepresent what I’ve said again.

  10. Teleologist

    I don’t recall referring to you at all. There is nothing to debate which is my only point. Debate is for debating teams and there are certainly plenty of them. They may be identified as belonging to two separate and opposed factions, atheist Darwinians and theist Christian Fundamentalists. Since I am neither, I am only indicating that neither of these camps is able or willing to offer a rational explanation for organic evolution. If you personally have not introduced a personal God that is fine but please do not try to convince me that others posting here and on similar forums have not done just that.

    What I said was that those with Christain Fundamentalist backgrounds are the primary spokespersons for the ID view, notably William Dembski, Jonathan Wells and Phillip Johnson. If anyone is looking for an atheist evolutionist who does not support the Darwinian fairy tale, he can find one in myself. My God or Gods are dead but when alive, prescribed all that we now are finally able to discover, all of mathematics, all of chemistry and physics and all of both ontogeny and phylogeny as well.

    I have no dissent with respect to ID. Quite the contrary I will never understand with why anyone would think it worthy of discussion. I hope this makes my position clear.

  11. My apology John, I thought you meant something else.

    I agree with you that many ID proponents currently are Christians but you are not alone. Take a look at Telic Thoughts. They have at least a few agnostics there. Stephen Jones and Behe are theistic evolutionists. Again what is important is not one’s personal belief (theist, agnostic or atheist). The only thing that is important for a theory is its’ scientific merits. I don’t have a problem with you being an atheistic evolutionist and I don’t think you should have any problem with Dembski as a Christian supporting ID.

    I didn’t mean you dissent from ID. I was referring to your dissent with other IDists on the necessity to debate and detect Design. Can’t we just get along? I appreciate having you as an ally. I wish you could accept us as an ally too.

  12. I don’t think Steven Jones is a theistic evolutionist. Is MikeGene a christian?

  13. In my opinion it is even more true now than when Einstein presented his judgement a half century ago:

    “The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God.”

    Incidentally, if you want to witness the depths to which the worshippers of the Great God Chance are willing to go, please peruse the last several messages at my blog – prescribedevolution.blogspot.com/

    It is all so very revealing. I love it so!

  14. “The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God.”

    John, I agree with you that Darwinians are guilty as charged. I disagree with you for lumping ID with the same charge. I say again I know of no ID theorists who would use a personal God as support for science. It would be unreasonable for Christians to deny a personal God, just to be acceptable for Darwinians, before we can practice science. Just as it would be unreasonable for you to deny ID before you are allowed to propose your PEH. The only people who are allowed to infuse their religion into science are the Darwinians.

    You are correct the Darwinians constantly trotting out the same tired untested fairytale of selection as fact. It is only a fact in their religious dogma not science.

  15. Hey Teleologist,

    Can you please post my new posting.

    Benjii

    P.S-Is MikeGene a christian?

  16. Benjii, Mike is a friend of this blog. It is obvious that he does not want to answer your question. It is inappropriate for you to harass him on TT and here to satisfy your curiosity. Personal belief is irrelevant for ID.

    I do not know what Mike’s position is on Christianity and if I did I certain would not tell you.

  17. That’s harsh bro, but I will accept your advice.

  18. Phillip Johnson, William Dembski and Jonathan Wells all have allowed their theology to color their interpretations. Intelligent Design should never have been offered as a subject for debate. As for tolerance to my views I have been banned from any dialogue with Dembski and ignored completely by all the other major proponents of intelligent design. You and fdocc are just about the only exceptions. It should not surprise anyone that I have denounced both camps.

    It doesn’t matter anyway as Darwinism is finished and ID has always been self-evident,

  19. John, can you give a specific example where they have ” allowed their theology to color their interpretations” ?

  20. Yeah, John. I don’t agree with your assessment at all.

  21. Hey teleologist, why haven’t you posted my new article?

    I’ve been asking for a while and you haven’t responded.

  22. For starters consider the title of Dembski’s forum

    UNCOMMON DESCENT

    A blatant denial of he heart of any evolutionary paradigm. To even suggest that Homo sapiens does not share ancestry with his fellow primates is anathema to this investigator and should be to all other serious students of evolution. ALL of primate evolution can be reconciled with nothing more necessary than the scrambling of a common block of prescribed chromosomal information. Man is, in my estimation, with very few if any exceptions, little more than a highly superstitious and relatively hairless ape. You may make of this what you want.

    This does not detract from the possibility of a directed and now completed plan. If it will make the Christians any happier, they may now cite Christ’s last words on earth – “It is finished.”

  23. John, as a non-scientist myself, there is no evidence for hominid-to-man evolution. The speculations are endless and the lacunas are enormous.

  24. Benjii

    Then present your version of our origin. That was the purpose of my blog. If you have no alternative explanation then of course you will not present it. No one else has so I will not be surprised if you do not either. It is really very simple isn’t it?

  25. The present evidence would indicate H. habilis to H. erectus to H. neanderthalensis to H. sapiens. I am especially convinced that Neanderthal was our immediate ancestor for the simplest of reasons. There were no other candidates available at the time we first appeared. What would be your sequence? I address that question to anyone who might be interested in presenting a response.

    Let’s get serious shall we? Does anyone seriously think we were produced de novo? That would seem to be the position implied by “Uncommon Descent.”

  26. Well, I don’t where you’ve been, but H. Neanderthalensis is no longer considered our ancestors. John, the evidence is so muddled up that it’s hard to tell who came from where and what not. Check out Jonathan Wells’ site, Icons of Evolution. I think his arguments are sound for the bankruptcy of the supposed ‘human evolution’ evidence.

  27. John, if you’re a biologist, what new theory best explains the origin of life and so forth in your opinion?

  28. “Then present your version of our origin. That was the purpose of my blog. If you have no alternative explanation then of course you will not present it. No one else has so I will not be surprised if you do not either. It is really very simple isn’t it?”

    I believe that humans have evolved, but not from another species. By this, I mean culturally, morally, and perhaps in some limited sense, biologically. Other than that, I can test the evidence to see what type of agent best renders human beings. For one, I certainly don’t think it’s some wayward, random process that didn’t have us in mind. With that eliminated, human beings appear suddenly and intelligently. From this, I can conclude that humans have, indeed, been intelligently designed. I think ID can make great predictions that can be tested against the evidence. Whichever makes better predictions is presumably the winner.

    Check out the ISCID’s posting on ID and the human record. I think Bill and Casey sum it up quite beautifully in my opinion.

  29. John, you will have to be more specific than that. For example does Dembski claim that because God said that humans did not evolve from apes therefore we do not have common ancestry? Frankly, from a ID perspective it is possible that we share a common descent with apes. As to his evidential skepticism of common descent is there anything specific in Reflections on Human Origins that you disagree with, and why?

    The fact to the matter is that he has presented his skepticism of common descent based on scientific analysis not his personal belief. You can disagree with his analysis and present your specific criticism for that disagreement, but you have not establish any basis for conflating his personal belief with his scientific views.

  30. Teleologist,

    Please post my writings from the ‘Got a thought’ section?

    “Frankly, from a ID perspective it is possible that we share a common descent with apes.”

    How so?

  31. Benjii, thanks for your submission for posting. There is no guarantee that any submission will be posted. I am very much aware of your submission. The fact that it has not been posted means that I am content to let it stay where it is. I have not deleted the comment so at least it still can be read. In the future please address any such requests or off-topic questions in the feedback page. This is how this blog operates for the time being, which is a lot more than any other blog that I know. Thank you for your cooperation. BTW, if you feel that you must originate some thoughts there are other venues that you can do that in, the ARN forum for instance.

    Now as to your question, ID is a big tent. ID allow for those who feel that there is sufficient evidence to infer common ancestry, just not through the Darwinian mechanism. There are many mechanisms that an intelligent design can employ to bring about the diversity of life. The common thread for IDists is that some form of intelligence is needed.

  32. John,

    Dr. Mark Stoneking, then an associate professor of anthropology at Pennsylvania State University, stated:

    “These results [based on mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthal bone] indicate that Neanderthals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans” Neanderthals are not our ancestors.”

    Subsequent investigation of a second source of Neanderthal DNA confirmed these findings.

    2. DNA Shows Neandertals Were Not Our Ancestors
    http://www.psu.edu/ur/NEWS/news/Neandertal.html
    3. Ovchinnikov, et al. “Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the Northern Caucasus.” Nature 404, 490 (2000).

  33. What we see when we anayze the genetic compostion of organisms is which genes are being activated (derepressed) and which genes are being silenced in those particular forms. Since we are 99% identical with chimpanzees at the DNA level are we to assume that the 1% difference is what makes us different? I say no. If we were 100% identical wth chips we could still be chimps and man respectively. In short, genes are not what are involved in evolution. Point mutation is not the mechanism for evolution. Neither is natural selection nor sexual reproduction. Evolution resulted ( past tense) from within the organism by the regulation of the expression of a common genetic composition by activating and silencing preprogramed patterns which were originally universal. That is exactly how ontogeny proceeds which remains the best model for phylogeny.

    We have got to get over the mistaken notion that particulate genes are evolutionary devices. They are not. Goldschmidt realized this more than a half century ago and was vilified for having upset the Darwinian apple cart with the truth.

    I will let him speak for me:

    “Subspecies are actually, therefore, neither incipient species nor models for the origin of species. They are more or less diversified blind alleys within the species. The decisive step in evolution, the first step toward macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires another evolutionary method than that of sheer accumulation of micromutations.”
    The Material Basis of Evolution, page 183.

    “The genetical process which is involved consists of a repatterning of the genes which results in a new gentic system. The theory of the genes and the accumulation of micromutants has to be ruled out of this picture.”
    ibid, page 396

    Goldschmidt continues to be ignored to this day as the Darwinians blindly continue to claim a mechanism for evolution in traditional genetic devices, devices that are involved only in the formation of varieties. It does not work. Evolution, like ontogeny resulted entirely from internal forces which have and had nothing to do with the environment beyond that of a releaser for latent endogenous information. That is the substance of the PEH and represents my current convictions concerning the mechanism of evolution.

    “The one thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.”
    Anonymous

    Blind ideology prevents us.

    .

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.