Search This Blog

Monday, July 26, 2010

Spotlight on the Insect Man!

It is my honor to introduce Karl Priest to the readers.   Karl is a great educator and an expert on insects who has taught all over the country to a wide variety of audiences as well as having been a guy who took on the Darwinists and defeated them!

Karl's blog has numerous articles that touch on evidence rather than myth.  Before I allow a compatriot to help me with the Darwinists who are rabble-rousing in the comment threads, allow me to present just one of Karl's numerous well-presented essays:  Let’s Squash Natural Selection 
By Karl C. Priest 11-8-2008 (revised 1-10-2010) 

(Originally titled “Let’s Select Out Natural Selection” on 23 October 2007)

“Natural selection” is a vital (perhaps the most vital) premise upon which evolution depends. In their own words: “Natural Selection: applies to all organisms but insects provide perhaps the best model.” (college science class lecture

The change in coloration of peppered moths, to use a phrase from Dr. Jonathan Wells, is an “icon of evolution”. That "icon" is just a stick figure with no substance. For comprehensive information about peppered moths see my article “Moth Marathon”.

The observable phenomenon of insect development of resistance to various chemicals was probably the first argument I heard supporting evolutionism. It was presented by an individual in an audience of intellectuals at the University of Charleston in one of the first engagements of my local creation group (the Kanawha Creation Science Group). The “intellectuals” were mostly evolutionists who thought the creationists would be humiliated if given an opportunity to present our case. The fellow who spouted this attempt to rebut us “ignorant” creationists probably had read something like this: “Insects become resistant to chemical insecticides very rapidly. This can happen in as few as five generations – natural selection at work.” (

It doesn’t take much to respond to this “major proof” of evolution. We start out with a particular insect (a grain beetle for example) and you end up with a grain beetle that is immune to the effects of a particular insecticide. Let me say this s-o-l-w-l-y for the benefit of evolutionists. beetle.

It works like this. A few of the original beetles have a gene that is resistant to the chemical. The next population of insects will have those individuals and some will be more resistant than others. The third population will have those that are the most resistant and so on.
Evolutionists preach the doctrine of “natural selection” in all kinds of scenarios. Following are two examples that could easily be placed in my article “BWAH HAH HAH HAAAA!”.
“By moving some insects from their customary host plant and protecting others from predators, Nosil found that colour pattern alone could initiate speciation, while natural selection on other traits (like the ability to detoxify host-plant chemicals) were needed to complete the creation of a new species.” (

“When a blood-sucking insect 'bites' a sensitized host it must, if it is to survive, depart before the host is alerted by the irritation that accompanies or precedes the 'immediate' reaction. There is a safety period between initial salivary injection by the insect and onset of irritation in the host during which the insect's meal must be completed; immunity from attack by the host must, therefore, depend partly on the speed at which the insect can tap the blood supply and complete its meal, and partly on an adequate delay in the onset of irritation in the host. In mosquitoes, and other insects that depend on a blood meal for egg production, only those that complete the meal within the safety period can lay a full complement of eggs; the others will either be killed or injured by the host before egg development begins, or they will be disturbed before completion of the meal and so lay fewer eggs. Thus, fast feeders and those producing a delay in the onset of irritation will tend to lay more eggs, and these two properties will be maintained by natural selection, with the onset of irritation in the host acting as the main selection force.” (

Poor old Charles Darwin used insects as a major explanation (using his immense imagination) of natural selection in the evolutionist bible, Origin of Species. In Chapter IV Darwin wrote, “Thus I can understand how a flower and a bee might slowly become, either simultaneously or one after the other, modified and adapted to each other in the most perfect manner, by the continued preservation of all the individuals which presented slight deviations of structure mutually favourable to each other…Natural selection acts only by the preservation and accumulation of small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being; and as modern geology has almost banished such views as the excavation of a great valley by a single diluvial wave, so will natural selection banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden modification in their structure.” 

Actually, the evidence supports a “diluvial wave” (i.e. Noachian flood) and there is no evidence for evolution—even by chanting the magic words “natural selection” three times while standing in the middle of a pentagram.

In Chapter VII Darwin is at his best at spinning yarns, but makes some telling admissions which I have placed in bold print in the following quotation. “I have now explained how, I believe, the wonderful fact of two distinctly defined castes of sterile workers existing in the same nest, both widely different from each other and from their parents, has originated. We can see how useful their production may have been to a social community of ants, on the same principle that the division of labour is useful to civilised man. Ants, however, work by inherited instincts and by inherited organs or tools, while man works by acquired knowledge and manufactured instruments. But I must confess, that, with all my faith in natural selection, I should never have anticipated that this principle could have been efficient in so high a degree, had not the case of these neuter insects led me to this conclusion. I have, therefore, discussed this case, at some little but wholly insufficient length, in order to show the power of natural selection, and likewise because this is by far the most serious special difficulty which my theory has encountered.” (See my article “Ants Make Evolutionism Sterile”.) 

Darwin is dead and the concept of “natural selection” needs to die a natural death.
In "Going to Extremes: The Design Question" ( a leading apologist for evolutionism, Michael Ruse, attempts to debunk Paley's argument for design Ruse says, "So much for tradition. Darwin exploded a bomb right under it. Not so much thanks to evolution per se but rather because of the mechanism of natural selection." "Selection shows why it is that you have teleology (Ruse defines teleology as the "distinctive aspect of organisms — that they invite a form of forward-looking thought") in the living world without the need for recourse to supernatural origins."

Then he quotes Richard Dawkins, arguably the most prolific evolutionist propagandist, from The Blind Watchmaker: "Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker."

After sharing Dawkins' thoughts about adaptation ("the appearance of design"), Ruse states unequivocally, "You cannot get adaptive complexity without natural selection."

Ruse offers support for a theistic evolutionist (TE) position by claiming, "If you do not want to believe in the existence of God, then natural selection shows that you are not compelled to do so on grounds of design." Then he explains how Dawkins would counter a TE: "Natural selection is a mechanism dependent on the struggle for existence — and this means pain and despair. How then could it be that the Christian God — all loving and all powerful — makes the world in a way that necessarily causes evil?"

That opens up the always used atheist argument of "The Problem of Evil" to which Ruse uses Dawkins' conclusion (based upon natural selection) that "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

He says Dawkins has argued, "that adaptation is the mark of the living and that the only way to bring life about was through natural selection. In other words, since God cannot do the impossible, the only way in which God could have created the living world — including us humans — was through natural selection, that is to say through a process causing pain and misery."

In his concluding remarks Ruse clearly equates Natural Selection and Darwinism. "Natural selection (Darwinism) (bolds are mine-KCP) is pertinent, showing that (if anyone ever would claim this) you simply cannot say that such teleology in itself necessitates a belief in the Christian God (or a god with some of the Christian attributes). However, it does not make belief in such a god impossible, and there are Christian traditions (the Augustinian particularly) which might welcome the evolutionary approach." Ruse's thesis is wishy-washy, but that is not the subject of my argument.

In "Rebelling Against Our Selfish Genes" ( Dawkins adds weight to my argument that Christians should avoid using the term "Natural Selection". He says, "As Darwin clearly understood, blindness to suffering is an inherent consequence of natural selection..." Then goes on to elaborate, "A process of trial and error, completely unplanned and on the massive scale of natural selection, can be expected to be clumsy, wasteful and blundering." Dawkins stresses that "natural selection is the dominant force in biological evolution...As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian, believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature."

Even some evolutionists have taken issue with the concept of Natural Selection. In The Great Evolution Mystery (Gordon Rattray Taylor Harper & Row 1983) we find the following.

135: "In an earlier chapter we came across cases where new structures seemed to have appeared before they were needed. If this really happens it completely explodes the theory of natural selection and we need no further evidence to undermine it. What we need is a new theory."

142: "The word 'adaptation' is therefore ambiguous, since it is cheerfully used to mean fitting better into a niche and, on the other hand, modifying, to fill some different niche as when we say, for example, that the mole is adapted for a life underground."

182: "Such cases must mean one of two things, either fatal to the concept of a slow accumulation of variations. Either the same mutations occur repeatedly (in which case they can hardly be due to chance), or the genes are there all the time, but are unmasked in appropriate circumstances."

Pierre P-Grasse' (Evolution of Living Organisms-For A New Theory of Transformations, Academic Press. 1977)devoted an entire chapter to Natural Selection. From that chapter I found the following criticism of Natural Selection.

107 “Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshiped.”

109 “Natural selection remains the foundation of Darwinism, which postulates its universality and makes of it the agent responsible for the evolution of all living organisms.”

115 “In some environments and for some species it takes a great deal of imagination to discover selection at work”.

121 “Natural selection acts as a regulator of the genotype, performing a function of genetic hygiene. As to its role as effective agent of evolution, this is not certain. In fact, if it had the full power attributed to it, it would soon stop evolution.”

128 “Assigning to natural selection the effective execution of evolution means explicitly and implicitly attributing to it a meaning and end.

138 “If selection consciously oversees evolution, how is it possible that, through the ages, so many lines have taken paths which endangered them?”

Someone on the Creation Research Society listserv (CRSnet) once proposed that we avoid the use of the term "microevolution". A good summation of that argument is in the article "Avoid Using These Terms" ( under the theme). The author points out, "While either use of microevolution or macroevolution by creationists might be true for some specific examples, as a general rule, the use of these terms should be done with care. Many creationists caution against using either term on the grounds that they detract from the real issue, the gain or loss of information, and are misleading in talking about the size of the change instead of the direction of the change...many evolutionists argue that there is no real difference between the two terms." (There is much more on this subject at the aforementioned link and Answers in Genesis supports this strategy.)

I concur with the need to avoid the use of "microevolution" and add that we now should follow the same strategy with "Natural Selection". (Note: I capitalize "Natural Selection" because it is actually the deity of evolutionists.) But, using Natural Selection as an adjective, I propose that Natural Selection is to Supernatural Creation as atheism is to theism.

Two November 2005 Live Science articles reveal just how important Natural Selection is to evolutionism. Under the title "Behind the Controversy: How Evolution Works" ( Ker Than asserts “Darwin's theory of evolution by Natural Selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology.”

Mr. Than elaborates that in order to “understand the origin of whales, it's necessary to have a basic understanding of how natural selection works: It is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring.”

Mr. Than points out the obvious observation that organisms have variations (“Natural selection can change a species in small ways, causing a population to change color or size over the course of several generations. This is called "microevolution.") and provides support for my argument that “Natural Selection” should suffer the same fate as “microevolution”.

Not willing to stop with a semblance of scientific rationality, Mr. Than proceeds to make an incredible claim: “But natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species. It can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales.”

In a separate article ("Darwin's Natural Selection Still at Work in Humans" Mr. Than personifies the concept of Natural Selection by claiming “Darwin's natural selection is the process by which nature rewards those individuals better adapted to their environments with survival and reproductive success. It works at the level of genes, sections of DNA that encode for proteins serve as the software of life.” Finally Mr. Than attempts to bolster Natural Selection with a quote from a Cornell biologist who says, “"Our study suggests that natural selection has played an important role in patterning the human genome."

Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo
, in private correspondence with me, provides the fatal blow to the need to use the term Natural Selection. I provide Dr. Mastropaolo’s reasoning verbatim and heartedly say, "Amen!” to his final sentence.

“There is no natural selection because the environment has no effect on the hereditary material. The hereditary material produces vast variation, no two are the same, and that provides for some always surviving.”

“God designed the DNA (and other genetic material) to yield a population with vast variation for each life form. Each individual carries the blueprint for the whole population so that if even one breeding pair survives, the whole population may be reconstituted. It does not matter whether conditions favor big dogs for several decades, then small dogs for several decades, then repeated in any pattern whatsoever, because every dog carries the plan for the entire population.’ 

“There is no 'natural selection' that comes from what the environment does and supposedly directs the "evolution" of the life forms. The plan is in every life form and it could care less what the environment will do because some individuals will survive and from them the whole vastly variable population will survive.”

“This is proven by the definition of lethal, which is the demise of 50% of the population. It takes too long to try to kill 100%. Besides the vastness of the variation in the population, the reason is that each individual is dynamically designed. If the environment turns hot, then unmanifested heat shock proteins will be synthesized from built-in genetic reserves to permit survival in the heat. As the environment changes, the individual appropriately manifests new proteins from its genetic reserves because it is dynamically, not statically, designed."
“All of the above can be experimentally verified with commonplace observations and only God could even conceive of such engineering, let alone make one iota of it work."

"Natural selection is all evolutionist brainwashing." (See pp. 6-20, Biology for the 21st Century.)”

Let’s squash “natural selection”.

1. Sincere Young Earth Creationists and Intelligent Design Advocates fear they will be maligned by scientists if they (YEC’s and IDers) express doubt about the purported powers of Natural Selection (As stated above, I capitalize the term because Natural Selection is deified by Darwinists.) First of all, the two groups (who represent real science verses the anti-science of evolutionism) could hardly be mocked much more maliciously than they are already. Secondly, YEC’s and IDers need to realize that compromise leads to confusion and continues to collusion. For example, the original Methodists would never have imagined how far the denomination has slide since their first compromise with standing for truth. 

(Radar note:  We creationists view natural selection as a description of the speciation that is provided for by the design of the cell by a Creator, who allowed for both contingencies and redundancies to keep kinds able to reproduce and survive in varying circumstances.  Not a power.)

2. The rationale for believing in Natural Selection is that a great Christian scientist, Edward Blyth, is the one who first proposed the concept. But, did he? If he did, does it help the creationist cause? 

The evolutionists could easily embrace Blyth as having first described the basis of Darwinism. One already has, as reported in the Institute for Creation Science article “ Natural Selection - A Creationist's Idea” ( “According to Loren C. Eiseley, Benjamin Franklin Professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania before his death, ‘the leading tenets of Darwin's work — the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection, and sexual selection — are all fully expressed’ in a paper written by creationist Edward Blyth…Eiseley, not a creationist, wrote that ‘Blyth is more than a Darwinian precursor, he is, instead, a direct intellectual forebear. . . ." In Eiseley's estimation, Blyth ‘belongs in the royal line . . . one of the forgotten parents of a great classic’…Darwin for some reason chose not to credit creationist Blyth with the key element in his theory — natural selection.”
Blyth “never actually used the term ‘natural selection’” (Dobzhansky, Theodosius 1959. "Blyth, Darwin, and natural selection". The American Naturalist 93 (870):204-206). Other evolutionists try to separate Blyth’s view of selection from Darwin’s. "Blyth's theory was clearly one of elimination rather than selection. His principal concern is the maintenance of the perfection of the type. Blyth's thinking is decidedly that of a natural theologian..." One prominent evolutionist claimes that Blyth “became a strong friend and supporter of Darwinian evolution”. (John Wilkins (2003). "Darwin's precursors and influences: 

4. Natural selection" Even if the last claim is false, there is still no reason for creationists to compromise with a tenet so vital to evolutionism. 

Then there is the argument that “William Wells had actually written of natural selection in 1813…(but), the basic concept of natural selection had been around since ancient Greek time.”
It is unfair to saddle scientist Blyth with laying the foundation upon which anti-scientist Darwin built. 

Blyth was talking about the same thing as Dr. Mastropaolo was quoted at the conclusion of the above article. Consider how Blyth referred to the Creator.
Blyth’s concept of what he observed was the antithesis of Darwin’s. What Blyth saw pointed to “design , which so clearly and forcibly attest the existence of an omniscient great First Cause”. 

(Bold and italics are mine. KCP)


3. I propose that creationists quit playing into the hands of evolutionists. We need not prop up the false science that props up the anti-science of evolutionism.
Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo coined (To the best of my knowledge he is the originator.) “omniscient originality”. That is the correct creationist and scientific term to describe the observations of the survival of living things. 

The following are some snips from Dr. Mastopaolo’s explanation of “omniscient originality”.
“The law of omniscient originality states that each living organism is an original. No living organism was identical to it in the past and no living organism will be identical to it in the future.  Further, each of its parts is an original. Furthermore, each entity in the nonviable universe is an original and each of its parts is an original. 

“The only question remaining may be the source of the omnipresent bounded omniscient originality fact. Evolution cannot do it. It has no brain and omniscient originality requires mega-intelligence. Nature can't do it because it has no brain either and every event devolves, degenerates, the opposite of what is wanted. What is wanted is continual unlimited novelty that is constrained and functional not only for the individual but also for its population and for the byproduct sharing requirements for the survival of the interdependent biosphere.
“There is only one candidate omnipresent omniscient originator.”
4. More evolutionists see problems with Natural Selection.
Dr Pagel said that the research shows speciation is the result of rare events in the environment, such as genetic mutations, a shift in climate, or a mountain range rising up. Over the long term new species are formed at a constant rate, rather than the variable rate Pagel's team expected, but the constant rates are different for different groups of species.
The work suggests that natural selection may not be the cause of speciation, which Pagel said "really goes against the grain" for scientists who have a Darwinian view of evolution. The model that provided the best fit for the data is surprisingly incompatible with the idea that speciation is a result of many small small events, Pagel said.

The Insectman

Exterminate Evolutionism


Anonymous said...

"Let me say this s-o-l-w-l-y for the benefit of evolutionists. beetle."

Which is an excellent point in this article for any intelligent reader to quit reading, safe in the knowledge that the author in question lacks the basic education needed to avoid falling for such an obvious strawman argument and therefore has nothing of any substance to contribute on the subject of evolution.

Better creationists please.

Jon Woolf said...

Priest typed, and Radar block-copied: "s-o-l-w-l-y"

Something delightfully telling in a typo of that sort... even when doing something simple, fully focused and picking every key with care, creationists can still screw it up. How much worse are they on complicated topics, hey?

"Better creationists please."

Seconded. I mean, come on. Do these guys really think they've found something new here? Do they think they're actually serving their god well by glorying in this kind of distortion and deception?

Anonymous said...

Anony said, "Better creationists please". No kidding. Why are these creationist "experts" almost always "middle school" teachers or some such thing? That said, per his website, and not surprisingly, this guy is also a christian supremacist, bigot. Radar, notice that Mr. Priest is a "biblical literalist", first and foremost. Why is it, again, that one has to be a fanatical christian in order to believe that ID/YEC is actual science? I mean, you are the worldview guy Radar, if young earth creationism really is verifiable science (and as you assert, totally not "pseudoscience"), why is it that ONLY people that hold your christian worldview believe this to be the case? I mean just for kicks, is there any chance you can trot out an atheist/agnostic that believes YEC to be true?

Oh and a little googleing revealed that Priest/Mastropaolo are infamously featured in Dawkins well read open letter "Why I Won't Debate Creationists",
Oh those fundies. Now, regarding their "Life Science Prize",
and specifically their "Alternative Rules for the Life Science Prize Mini-Trial", someone should really alert them to the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case.
Where the following ruling was heldwas held,
"Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

Darwin ftw. $10,000 please.

- Canucklehead.

radar said...

I saw the spelling error but thought that might be a honeypot he put there for Darwinists to see if they would focus on that instead of the science. Yep. Besides, editing somebody's stuff means it is no longer theirs alone. You missed the point that a grain beetle remains a grain beetle.

But then you do always miss the point.

Many of you have spelled words incorrectly as have I. It does not change the fact that Karl won the fight in WV on evidence and not blather. You really think court cases about school content will keep pulling your butts out of the fire? No. Because the entire Darwinist ball of wax is based on assumptions and presumptions and not on observation.

Come on Canucklehead, Kitzmiller is a classic case of a stupid, publicity-seeking gloryhound who is not worthy of the judicial robes. An unjust judge does not help the science. Since when is Rolling Stone a witness for science? Kitzmiller is one of the worst cases of judicial idiocy ever! What a Kangaroo Kourt! Please do not ever use that as a point in favor of Darwin again if you want to be taken even slightly seriously.

Dawkins is AFRAID to debate any leading creationists because he is tired of getting humiliated in public. A-r-f-a-i-d. Oops. A F R A I D. Wait, Darwinists will not accept ID? AFRA...there. Hmmm. Okay, Dawkins is scared. There.

Darwinism is a religion and a belief system based on no actual evidence. Anyone can scan this blog the last six months and see Darwinists swing and miss at simple tasks (simple if naturalistic materialism can and does explain everything, that is). Kitzmiller was completely backwards. Dawkins is afraid of a fair fight. But at least he tried a couple of times while most Darwinists just hide out and call names from behind their paradigm castles, gate up, surrounded by moats of ignorance and built on just-so stories.

Anonymous said...

"You missed the point that a grain beetle remains a grain beetle"

That, not the spelling mistake, is exactly the point that marks Karl Priest as a deeply unserious commenter on the subject of evolution, and your repeating this exact point does you no favors, though we already know the depths of your ignorance on the subject of the theory of evolution. Your "bacteria evolution" commentary runs along exactly the same kind of nonsensical line of argument.

Why is it nonsense?

Look at the subject that Priest is discussing: insect development of resistance to various chemicals. (In the bacteria evolution experiment, the point was that the bacteria speciated; you came up with the (unfounded and deeply uneducated) claim that they should have not just evolved into a different species, nor even a different genus, family, order etc. but a whole domain - something the theory of evolution does of course not predict. In other words, your claim was based on an implicit lie.)

In the post above, is the argument that grain beetles turn into "something other than grain beetles"? Of course not. The argument is that grain beetles turn into grain beetles with a small but significant change. Does Priest pursue this argument honestly? Not in the slightest.

What is it called when one presents one's opponents' arguments as something other than what they are?

A strawman argument.

It's dishonesty, pure and simple. Not only does Radar peddle a very similar argument with his "bacteria evolution" nonsense on a fairly regular basis, but he copies (and apparently condones) the same kind of dishonesty from other sources.

Why the need for dishonesty, arguments from personal incredulity, conspiracy-mongering and blatant running away from evidence, for years now?

It doesn't speak well for the strength of your position.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

A honeypot?


Not bad, Radar. But snark, like comedy, usually works better when it's at least partly believable. That one wasn't. One of the fieldmarks of the creationist is that s/he (though it's usually a 'he' -- why is that?) has no sense of humor.

Come on Canucklehead, Kitzmiller is a classic case of a stupid, publicity-seeking gloryhound who is not worthy of the judicial robes.

And to think, before the trial the IDers were speculating hopefully that Judge Jones, being a good Christian and a Republican appointee, was likely to rule in their favor.

Have you read the trial transcript for Kitzmiller v. Dover? I have. Not all of it, but many of the highlights. The ID side simply fell apart, while the pro-science side did a magnificent job of proving its case. Oh, and it didn't help matters any that several of the ID-side witnesses committed perjury. Fine, upstanding God-fearing Christians, they were!

On the grain beetles, I can only conclude that you're either hopelessly unsmart or deliberately deceptive, and for the sake of your soul I hope it's the former. Insecticide resistance in grain beetles (or any other insect) is not intended to demonstrate cladogenesis, so faulting it for not demonstrating cladogenesis is dishonest. It's intended to demonstrate natural selection in action in a small, simple, easily-understood way. It does that quite well.

Dawkins is AFRAID to debate any leading creationists because...

... he's tired of getting screwed by people with no ethics. Creationists have mocked him, demonized him, lied about him, lied to him, conned him, double-crossed him, and then manipulated interviews of him to make him look like an idiot. Gee, I can't imagine why he'd be avoiding them, after all that!

Anonymous said...

creeper, it is a shame you cannot comprehend the discussion. First, any intelligent person can make a spelling error. Big hairy deal. You really want to invent the new creeper IQ index based upon spelling? What will you do with articles written by Englishmen or Kiwis or Aussies? Their spelling differs from ours(Americans) and which one is right? They both are right.

In any event, the argument is simple. All speciation is a result of a very complex process controlled by the cell using the information contained within DNA. Speciation is always variation within kind. Mutations are annoyances that do not bring new information to the genome for future use. Therefore Darwinism is a failed hypothesis. For, you see, mutation would have to produce information and place it within the genome and have that information be passed on and held within the genome to have even a tiny part of the reproductive process. Theoretically two mutations at one time might be passed on (usually to the detriment of the organism containing the variant mistake) but it requires thousands of changes such as this in concert to actually produce a new limb structure, for instance.

No such change has been observed in any organism in all of scientific history during the time man has observed them. All speciation has been part of the creation model. I have demonstrated this and then asked you Darwinists to give me even one example of new information entering the genome. No one had one.

I asked for an example of mutations adding new features but Darwinists gave me examples of mutations subtracting or inhibiting existing systems or processes. Guess what? 7-3 is not addition, it is subtraction.
All of your so-called evidence is held within your imaginations by faith. You have nothing of substance at all, zero, nada, zip, nechevo!!!

Bloggger calls me regmend

highboy said...

Dawkins is an absolute joke.

Jon Woolf said...

In any event, the argument is simple.

Simple, yes.

Correct, no.

Why are you using another sockpuppet ID, Radar?

I asked for an example of mutations adding new features but Darwinists gave me examples of ...

...exactly that. Only a creationist, using nonrational creationist mathematics, could call the appearance of an entirely new enzyme or anatomical feature a "loss of information."

Anonymous said...


Don't forget this is a man who says " So when a commenter challenges me to quantify information I shake my head in a combination of wonder and dismay. Information itself cannot be quantified."

Radar, how do you know a loss of information occurred in the bacteria if the amount of any information cannot be quantified? This makes absolutely no sense to me.



Anonymous said...


Are you a new commenter here called regmend or are you Radar? You sound a lot like Radar, but you also appear a little less evasive than Radar in this particular comment. But by the end of it, you do sound completely like Radar.

Anyways, I'll go on the assumption that you're a new commenter for now.

"creeper, it is a shame you cannot comprehend the discussion. First, any intelligent person can make a spelling error. Big hairy deal. You really want to invent the new creeper IQ index based upon spelling? What will you do with articles written by Englishmen or Kiwis or Aussies? Their spelling differs from ours(Americans) and which one is right? They both are right."

You start with "it is a shame you cannot comprehend this discussion", then waste the rest of the same paragraph to demonstrate that you, regmend, didn't understand the discussion.

How important do you think that I think spelling is in this argument? I kindly refer you to the actual words I wrote:

That, not the spelling mistake, is exactly the point that [...]"

I specifically put the spelling mistake aside, and that was the sum total of my commentary on the matter. An indication of complete indifference and that's it.

Not a great way to start out, regmend.

But whatever. I don't care about the spelling mistake, nor do I care about whether anyone cares about the spelling mistake.

"In any event, the argument is simple."


"All speciation is a result of a very complex process controlled by the cell using the information contained within DNA."

Seeing as speciation is the generation of new species (by definition), I'm dubious re. your claim. Creationists often claim that the part of evolution they're willing to allow (and I'm not sure if they mean micro-evolution or speciation here - the two are not synonymous btw) only makes use of information already contained within DNA, never anything else. I've never found any scientific work in this regard. It is, as far as I know, an unfounded claim, perhaps as a simple reaction to the theory of evolution.

"Speciation is always variation within kind."

Define "kind" in this context. From what I've seen so far, the definition of "kind" falls very close to that for the biological definition "species" (being able to reproduce together), which would make the above sentence a nonsensical one.

"Mutations are annoyances that do not bring new information to the genome for future use."

"Annoyances"? Perhaps. But also full of potential. Your claim that they do not bring new information to the genome for future use appears unsupported to me, as well as falsified by the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria.

"Therefore Darwinism is a failed hypothesis."

Could you define "Darwinism" please? It's a pretty imprecise term in creationists' mouths, and makes meaningful conversation difficult. If it so happens that you intend it to mean "the theory of evolution" in this case, then allow me to unravel your logic here:

Unfounded claim 1.

Unfounded claim 2 - and not just that, but also falsified.

Therefore the theory of evolution - a well-established scientific theory that is confirmed in numerous scientific fields - is not just a "hypothesis", but a failed one at that.

I think you'll have to build a more careful case than that if you'd like to be taken seriously anywhere other than among fellow creationists, who of course want the theory of evolution not to be true for religious reasons.

If, however, you would like "Darwinism" to mean the more muddled "theory of evolution plus atheism plus whatever", as it is often used on this particular blog, then your logic would make even less sense than it does already.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"For, you see, mutation would have to produce information and place it within the genome and have that information be passed on and held within the genome to have even a tiny part of the reproductive process."

Indeed. And?

"Theoretically two mutations at one time might be passed on (usually to the detriment of the organism containing the variant mistake)"

"Usually", but not always, and that's what matters.

"but it requires thousands of changes such as this in concert to actually produce a new limb structure, for instance."

It certainly does, which is why it took a very long time indeed. And this, incidentally, is why the creationist strawman arguments of demanding to see macroevolution happen before our very eyes are so desperately misinformed, to put it politely.

"No such change has been observed in any organism in all of scientific history during the time man has observed them."

Ah, there you go. For a moment there I thought you were in the middle of making an intelligent argument, but it appears I was mistaken. So you're acknowledging that it takes thousands of changes to produce a new limb structure, for example, but in the next sentence you think you're on to something because this has not been observed "in all of scientific history". For evolution itself, that would span all of a century and a half, but even if one were generous and said that man had taken great pains to observe limb structures for, say, 2,000 to 3,000 years, it would still of course be nowhere near enough time to observe the production of a new limb structure. Not only would this take much more time, but even if it did only take such a short time, who's to say we would be around at the exact time that this were happening?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"All speciation has been part of the creation model."

Define speciation as you understand it.

Define "kind" in this context.

Define "the creation model".

"I have demonstrated this and then asked you Darwinists to give me even one example of new information entering the genome. No one had one."

Am I missing something here? Are you regmend or are you Radar?

If you're not Radar, well then you didn't ask for that here, so you can hardly blame us for not heeding your request. What exactly do you think you've demonstrated, and could you please show it to us?

If you are Radar, we did give you examples of that. Kindly read the comments on your own blog.

"I asked for an example of mutations adding new features but Darwinists gave me examples of mutations subtracting or inhibiting existing systems or processes. Guess what? 7-3 is not addition, it is subtraction."

The nylon-eating bacteria were a copying error which led to new information in the genome.

As for "mutations subtracting or inhibiting existing systems or processes", aren't you getting things a little confused here? Now it's mutations inhibiting existing systems or processes? I thought it was some kind of well-oiled machine that did that, and mutations were all meant to be destructive. Isn't that how it goes?

"All of your so-called evidence is held within your imaginations by faith."

No, that would be the creationist model, an imagined creation myth that you hold on to by faith. Since there are different creation myths, how should one choose between them?

"You have nothing of substance at all, zero, nada, zip, nechevo!!!"

Perhaps you missed the recent post in which Radar asked for evidence, which was provided to him in abundance, and he was unable to address even a single one of them, opting instead for the usual boastful blather that you also put on display here.

"Bloggger calls me regmend"

I see. Is that what you called yourself or did Blogger do it for you?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Radar, how do you know a loss of information occurred in the bacteria if the amount of any information cannot be quantified?"

Yep, Radar conceded that information can't be quantified, and so he has essentially conceded his argument re. information gain or loss.

-- creeper

radar said...

You guys know if I post from work I post an anonymous comment, good grief. Sense of humor, anyone?

You had me at information loss. As I said, you cannot quantify information itself, but only the medium that carries information. So if genetic material is lost from the genome, the logical mind realizes that the information within the lost material is gone? Bueller?

You forgot the part about the medium or containers for information, which can be quantified. So let us be simple here. Each cell contains information within itself in the form of DNA. There are millions of functions being performed in one of the millions of cells within your body. There are at least 13 billion components to the human brain alone. Just take away that little tiny pituitary gland from that human body and watch what happens. Is that information loss? Yep. Is it change. Yep. But it would not be macroevolution.

As to new functions, so far all your bacteria have had mutations that caused a lost feature or a speciation that revealed a normally hidden trait but never a mutation bringing forth something new.

So you think that if I pluck the feathers from a chicken that it has become a new "kind" and is therefore an example of evolution in action?

I had a friend who took the body off of a VW Beetle and called it a "dune buggy". Did he add to the machine or subtract from it?

Guess what, like I said, I can rip a leg off of a three-legged stool and behold a baseball bat (sorta)! Behold a stool to fool and amaze your friends (make them laugh, make them cry, hope you have a personal injury attorney).

You guys can talk about bacteria that have lost functions and have processes that are not complete and present that as evolution in action all you like, we will just laugh. We already have.

Information was pretty hard to press upon you Darwinists as you ran away from dictionary definitions of the word (in fact, a LOT of words) but as soon as you thought you had me in a logical monkey puzzle you were willing to agree with the idea that information is not material in form and substance. So now you are in for it!

radar said...

If I hand you a hard drive from a computer, you cannot just heft it and guess at the information within it. Weighing it on a scale will not tell you anything.

If you install it in a computer that the hard drive can run on, the computer will tell you how much of the hard drive is being used by counting the bytes within. Naturally such a small measurement is hard to handle, so we usually speak of gigabytes of information.

But we are not really quantifying the information itself, not the quality or content, but only the containers of the information. By determining that 124 of the 250 Gigs within a hard drive are used up does not tell me how much of that is useful and how much is various kinds of cookies and log files and image files and temp files and the remnants of application install files and...oh man, there is so much JUNK that can clutter a computer.

This is one reason you need to do disk cleanups and defragmentations on your computers regularly. I have my computers set up to automatically clean and defrag once a week, I have file scrubbers and malware filters that scan once a night and also run in real time in the background.

People are always trying to install trojans and other nasty stuff on your computer, so you need good protection. But just the interaction between you and your computer is messy. Computers tend to file things like teenagers put things away, opening the door and flinging stuff in the general direction of a closet or dresser. Disk cleanup is the mom coming in and picking up trash and scooping up dirty clothes from the floor. Defragmentation is arranging the sock drawers and hanging up the clothes neatly in the closets.

Anyway, you might look up Shannon's Law and think on the difference between counting containers and quantifying and qualifying the value of the information contained therein. Hopefully once the distinction is clear to you, we can talk about information loss and gain within organisms?

Anonymous said...

"As to new functions, so far all your bacteria have had mutations that caused a lost feature or a speciation that revealed a normally hidden trait but never a mutation bringing forth something new. "

Nylon-eating bacteria.

"So you think that if I pluck the feathers from a chicken that it has become a new "kind" and is therefore an example of evolution in action? "

We wouldn't use a meaningless term like "kind" in this context. Way to project, Radar.

And what exactly are you trying to say with this example? It has nothing to do with anything anyone's been discussing here. Is it a lame attempt at some kind of Lamarckian joke?

Regarding information gain or loss, for some reason you've conceded that information as such can not be quantified, and so your earlier claims re. information gain or loss just went out the window.

"As I said, you cannot quantify information itself, but only the medium that carries information."

Now it seems to me that you may not quite have done your homework here. As Jon has pointed out on occasion, you not only don't understand what you are arguing against (e.g. the theory of evolution), but you're not even that well-versed in what (or who) you are arguing with. You really can't think of anyone who might have a real interest in quantifying information?

Oh well.

"So if genetic material is lost from the genome, the logical mind realizes that the information within the lost material is gone?"

Be specific. What genetic material is being lost and how?

We did not run away from dictionary definitions, we asked for a definition of information that could be used to quantify information so that it would be useful in the context of your claims re. information gain or loss. All the dictionary definitions are fine as far as they go, but they were useless in this discussion.

Not just that, but you seem hopelessly stuck with (1) seeing everything in computer terms and (2) for some reason thinking that information not having mass is a big deal, as if anyone had ever claimed that it should have mass. Typical strawman argument.

Re. your constant refrain of subtraction, this is clearly falsified by the fossil record and human evolution: the notion of more perfect organisms becoming less perfect organisms over time is not supported by the evidence.

I'll grant you that there's an inkling of a hypothesis here that creation "scientists" could pursue. If the claim is that genetic material was perfect 6,000 years ago and has been deteriorating ever since, what kind of testable, falsifiable hypotheses could one come up with?

-- creeper