Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

An Omnoligist comments on Paluxy Man and Dinosaur tracks and how science does and does not work

Henry Johnson was (and hopefully still is alive although with a different email address) a researcher who did a lot of study on the subject of tracks found in the Paluxy region in and around Glen Rose, Texas and other related Southwestern US sites.  He was troubled by information posted on talk origins and specifically from Glen Kuban and he at one time headed a group based in California that he hoped would bring scientists together to study matters concerning origins.  His copied post is rather difficult to read on the original page and it took some time to copy this article so that it would be legible, but I think it is a timely find.

(I highly recommend his Delk print article linked here that bolsters the Juby findings.)

In my early days of blogging I discovered talk origins and was surprised to find outdated information and/or information that was NCSE-style Darwinist propaganda posted on that site and carried on a short exchange of emails with a couple of the people involved in the site.  To my amazement they seemed to think that they were providing a service by "bringing Christianity in line with the findings of modern science" or words to that effect.  How being in league with propagandists and anti-theists like the NCSE could possibly be a good thing from a Christian perspective is beyond me.  After I came to realize that they were going to simply ignore anything I said I gave up and moved forward.  It is kind of a stretch to characterize Glen Kuban as a "creationist" but Henry gave him that title in his post so I will not argue over it here.

To some extent this blog has been a documentary following my exploration of the world of origins science.  I quickly understood that most scientists began with a worldview and were restricted to that worldview.  As a former non-Christian Darwinist I had looked at things from both sides.   I also quickly found that there were a steadily increasing number of scientists who had come over to the Creationist side and that YEC scientists were creating organizations and pursuing investigations apart from the standard scientific organizations because such organizations had such a bias towards naturalism that they were blind to any other view no matter what the evidence!   Worse yet, they were then refusing to consider the research done by YEC science because the work was not peer-reviewed because none of their organizations would review the work!  This is obviously not simply prejudicial but it is in fact anti-science.   Shame on the NCSE and every other organization that is putting worldview ahead of truth!

So much of so-called science being taught in schools today is simply religious propaganda.  Darwinism is a basic tenet of atheism and the teaching of evolution is protected with religious fervor by the adherents despite the complete absurdity of the 19th Century hypothesis in the light of 21st Century knowledge.   The idea that mutation and natural selection could account for modern organisms is completely absurd.  It is laughable.  It is also indefensible and that is why Darwinists are afraid to debate a Jonathan Sarfati or a Carl Baugh or even a Ken Ham.  They are afraid that you will look behind the curtain.  Well, this blog is Dorothy's little dog and Toto keeps pulling back the curtain.  That sad little man with no power and no magic?  Yep, that is the heart of Darwinism.  Check out my last post and watch and listen to the befuddlement and incoherency of Richard Dawkins when asked how information could be shown to have entered the genome!

You will find that I post a lot of content from other sources along with my own words, providing evidence for people to consider.  You will usually find Darwinist commenters naysaying with no evidence to bring to the table but simply because...The wise reader will consider evidence presented and use their own minds to sort out truth from error.  In any event, while the Johnson site is rather hard to read I still have it linked so you may peruse at your leisure.  The following is content from Henry Johnson's site so it is both attributed and linked:

TWO OPPOSING EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS OF ICHNITES (FOSSIL FOOTPRINTS) OF MAN & DINOSAUR TRACKS IN THE PALUXY RIVER BEDS OF GLEN ROSE, TEXAS

THIS PAGE COMPARES TWO METAPHYSICAL CREATIONISTS "OPPOSING" POINTS OF VIEW REGARDING THE DINOSAUR & MAN TRACK DEBATE.

BOTH AUTHORS PROFESS TO BE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AND THAT "THE ONE TRUE GOD" PERSONALLY CREATED EVERYTHING FROM NOTHING AT A SPECIFIC POINT IN TIME PAST, "BUT" DIFFER AS TO HOW LONG AGO THAT "POINT" BEGAN.


GLEN KUBAN, AN INDEPENDENT "ICHNITE" INVESTIGATOR, BEGAN HIS RESEARCH IN THE LATE 70's, "LEANING TOWARDS" BECOMING A STRICT, "YOUNG AGE", CREATIONIST BUT EVENTUALLY BECAME A "GREAT AGE" CREATIONIST (Many Billions of Years Since Creation).

"BROTHER KUBAN," ON HIS WEB SITE, USES HIS EXPERIENTIAL AND EMPIRICAL "EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY" PLUS "ILLUSTRATED DRAWINGS" TO MAKE HIS CASE FOR "FALSIFYING" THE EXISTENCE OF MAN TRACKS WITH DINOSAUR TRACKS, ALONG WITH ALL THE EMPIRICAL "EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY" OF MANY PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS AND RESEARCH ASSOCIATES WHO HAVE INVESTIGATED AND VERIFIED, TO THEIR REASONED SATISFACTION, THE EXISTENCE OF MANY DOZENS OF MAN TRACKS WITH DINOSAUR TRACKS IN THE PALUXY RIVER BEDS AT GLEN ROSE, TEXAS.

AS FOR MYSELF, HENRY JOHNSON, AN INDEPENDENT "ICHNITE" INVESTIGATOR, I BEGAN MY RESEARCH IN THE EARLY 70's AS AN "EVOLUTIONIST" BUT LATER BECAME A "YOUNG AGE" CREATIONIST (Only Thousands of Years Since Creation).


ON THIS WEB SITE, I TOO USE MY EXPERIENTIAL AND EMPIRICAL "EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY" PLUS "ILLUSTRATED DRAWINGS" TO MAKE MY CASE FOR "VERIFYING" THE EXISTENCE OF MAN TRACKS WITH DINOSAUR TRACKS. BUT, IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, I ALSO USE THE EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF MANY PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCES, C-14 TEST RESULTS AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH REPORTS FROM INDEPENDENT SOURCES EXCLUDED ON BROTHER KUBANS' WEB SITE.

NOTE: MY GRAPHICS &  PHOTOS MAY TAKE SOME TIME TO DOWNLOAD BUT I THINK YOU'LL FIND THEM WORTH THE WAIT

BEFORE WE START THIS COMPARISON OF "MAN TRACKS or NO MAN TRACKS" CONTROVERSY, THE READER NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT BOTH AUTHORS ARE COMING FROM THEIR OWN "BIASED" POINTS OF VIEW, AS REGARDS THIS SUBJECT, AND ONLY ONE OF THEIR VIEWS CAN BE TRUE.

YOU ALSO NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT IN SCIENCE, AS WELL AS MANY OTHER FIELDS OF HUMAN INTEREST INVOLVING THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN "UNBIASED" POINT OF VIEW. IN YOUR PURSUIT OF THE TRUTH REGARDING ANY SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW, YOU'LL NEED TO KEEP THIS FACT IN MIND. 

 "ALL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES" ENCOMPASS THE AUTHORS (AND DISCIPLES'), "PERSONALLY BIASED," RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL WORLD VIEWS!
THIS USUALLY LEADS TO THE DELETION OR IGNORING OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OR FACTS THAT WOULD WEAKEN OR FALSIFY ONE'S "FOUNDATIONAL" WORLD VIEW.


YOUR MISSION, SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO ACCEPT IT, IS TO DETERMINE WHAT EACH AUTHORS' BIAS IS AND WHETHER THE EVIDENCE THEY PRESENT SUPPORTS IT.


YOU WILL ALSO NEED, IN YOUR PURSUIT OF "THE TRUTH", TO RECOGNIZE AND BE WILLING TO CHANGE OR MODIFY YOUR OWN "BIASED" POINTS OF VIEW "IF" THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE WARRANTS IT.


BROTHER KUBAN'S POSITION HAS BEEN COPIED "VERBATIM" FROM HIS WEB SITE AND IS HIGHLIGHTED IN "Italics blue"
THE UNDERLINED TEXT BEING LINKS TO HIS GRAPHICS AND PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE.


BROTHER JOHNSON'S POSITION IS NORMAL PRINT.
THE UNDERLINED TEXT BEING LINKS TO HIS GRAPHICS AND PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE.

- IMPORTANT NOTE -
(to return to this page, after viewing their links, click on the BACK icon on your web browser)

The Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy
1996-99, Glen J. Kuban
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htm Last Updated: 18 October 1999

For many years claims were made by strict creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas.

Evidently brother Kuban has never asked to see any of the evidence his fellow creationists have documented regarding these "giant man tracks." This empirical evidence clearly verifies the fact that giant man tracks do occur "alongside dinosaur tracks" in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River. These are in no way mere "claims by strict creationists."

If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and have been abandoned even by most creationists. The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate "(metatarsal)" dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and some doctored and carved specimens "(most of the latter on loose blocks of rock)." This Web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links on dinosaur tracks in general.

As for the first sentence of this paragraph, brother Kuban, I believe, reveals the real motivation for trying to falsify the Paluxy man tracks. If this "conventional geologic timetable" is falsified, a major doctrine of his "Great Age" faith will be invalidated. The real problem for anyone of like faith is, these man tracks are not the only evidence that "contradicts" the metaphysical "geologic column."

I believe the second sentence would more accurately read as follows, ...the "man track" claims have not stood up to biased scientific scrutiny, and have been abandoned even by most creationists who have not investigated, as they should, the complete history of these tracks as well as the tracks for themselves.

As for his "..elongate "(metatarsal)" dinosaur tracks,.." theory, he does not "photographically" address the detailed, "secondary human features within them, nor the man tracks found alongside the dinosaur tracks."

Regaurding the "..doctored and carved specimens "(most of the latter on loose blocks of rock)", brother Kuban only shows "one" man track! The reason? There are no others! I would love to see them if there were any. Why? Because we could "scientifically scrutinize them" as was done to the "one" man track he refers to. This "man track" has been sectioned, as suggested by sceptics and truth seekers, and empirically verified to be a 14.5"-right human footprint known as the "Burdick Track." The only example of a "fake or carved man track" comes from Oklahoma and is obviously nothing like the "Burdick Track."


Joe Taylor, director of the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum in Crosbyton, Texas, states in his book "Fossil Facts & Fantasies" that this track came to light in the 1930s and "Originally there were two tracks; in fact there was said to be a whole trail of them at one time. It is unquestionably human in shape,..".

In 1992 Joe was asked by Dr. Carl Baugh to put the Burdick back together and mold it. He states regarding his evaluation; "While at the museum, "I studied each section of the track under black light," which clarifies the laminations. At that time, I was convinced that I was looking at a genuine track." NOTE: He still is convinced.

Regarding brother Kubans' reference to his web site, I must say, since he is a professional computer programmer, he has laid it out very well and I commend him for that. He is also a prolific writer and it is obvious to me that GOD has given him these gifts.

As for the content of his web site, I found it to be mostly filled with "un-substantiated hyperbole."
Now before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I'm not saying that using hyperbole is a bad thing at all. I use it here myself. What I am saying is, that when it is used in a debate format like this, it is imperative that you "show" the reader or audience "all the empirical evidence" you investigated to reach the conclusions that you have come to believe are true. After doing that, the subject of your address can decide for themselves whether you made your case or not.

Retracking Those Incredible Man Tracks
Copyright © 1989 by Glen J. Kuban
[This article is being mirrored from http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/retrack.htm.] Originally published in NCSE Reports, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1989, Special Section

Despite partial backtracking on the Paluxy "man track" claims by creationist leaders in recent years, the claims were never fully abandoned, and recently the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and other creationist groups have encouraged some new (actually rehashed) "man track" claims initiated by Carl Baugh and associates.

In the December 1988 issue of ICR's Acts and Facts, John Morris explained that he had returned to the Paluxy this past September to investigate "new evidence" gathered by Carl Baugh and Don Patton.[1] Although Baugh and Patton acknowledge that the Taylor Trail is dinosaurian, they now are proposing that a human being followed the same trail, leaving a human print inside each dinosaur track. Although Morris stated that the "over printing" model "may sound bizarre," and that ICR does not advocate it, he proceeded to do just that, maintaining that the new model was "supported by the existence of somewhat human-like impressions, each rather consistent in length..." and "in several cases, toe-like impressions are seen in the proper location. Some are best denoted by an accentuated discoloration."[2]

Although Morris tempered these assertions by stating that "certain identification is lacking," what actually is lacking is any legitimate evidence for the new claims. Having intensively studied the Taylor Site since 1980 (and as recently as January 1989, I can testify that none of the Taylor Trail tracks (or other trails on the site) contain clear human features, and most do not even closely resemble human prints. In fact, the new "man track" claims are not really new, but are simply variations on the old, thoroughly refuted claims. What Baugh and Patton a re now claiming as human prints are merely portions of the largely infilled metatarsal segment (sole and heel) of the dinosaur prints--essentially the same depressions previously misinterpreted by various creationists as human prints.


As for this third paragraph, brother Kuban makes statements that deeply trouble me as an Omniologist and Christian. His assertion (due to his intensive study of the Taylor and other Trail sites since 1980) that there is no "legitimate evidence for the new.." and "..thoroughly refuted claims", that none of these tracks "contain clear human features, and most do not even closely resemble human prints" "is patently not true!" No one has "intensively studied the Taylor site" more than Dr. Baugh and Dr. Patton! I can personally vouch for their integrity and professional academic pursuit for the truth concerning these tracks.

Neither brother Kuban nor myself have any academic degrees in Ichnology, Paleontology, Anthropology, Archaeology or Geology. Doctors Baugh, Patton and Morris have all earned academic degrees, much to the chagrin of their detracting colleagues.

For brother Kuban to emphatically state that he has "thoroughly refuted" the claims and evidence of Dr. Baugh and Dr. Patton suggests to me an attitude of closed-minded arrogance, which is a "mortal sin" as regards the spirit of Academic Freedom.

Speaking brother to Christian brother, using the phrase "I believe I have thoroughly refuted.." is more conducive to future penance and reconciliation, something I have had to learn myself.

Morris' claim that the "human-like" depressions are "fairly consistent in length" is unfounded, since 1. none of the depres sions are very human-like, and 2. The same depressions have been interpreted in vastly different ways by different creationist authors--some claiming they were "giant human prints" from 16 to 19 inches long,[3,4] and others, such as Morris and Stan Taylor, indicating that the "best" prints in the trail represented normal sized feet about 10 inches long.[5] Baugh and Patton recently attempted to show that the "new" human prints (in the same dinosaur tracks) are each 11 1/2 inches long. This they did by partially filling each track with muddy water until a puddle about 11 1/2 inches long was achieved!

 
Dr. Morris' claims are founded on empirical scientific data, since 1. "many of the depressions are very human-like", and 2. Apparently brother Kuban has confused his facts with the documented "giant human prints" found in the same limestone layer as the dinosaur and Taylor tracks which measure 19, 21.5 and 25.5 inches long.

As for the past generalizations on the length of the Taylor prints, Dr. Patton has applied a more meticulous study method to these prints and produced this "data record" of his findings. They range in length from 11" to 11.75" with the average length being 11.53 inches. To correct brother Kubans' "puddle claims," Dr. Patton measured the tracks "dry" and, as ichnologists frequently do, filled the tracks with water for photographic and diagnostic purposes.

The ambiguity of the supposed "man tracks" within the dino saur tracks is further exemplified by the fact that neither Morris nor other creationists who reexamined the Taylor Site on several occasions between 1985 and 1988 reported any new human- like features there--until they were "found" by Baugh and Patton this summer--even though the tracks have changed very little since 1985. Ironically, Baugh stated to me while standing on the Taylor Site in 1985, "No one would call these prints human."

There is no ambiguity about the "man tracks" within the dinosaur tracks at all. Again, They are clearly there within the Taylor Trail and Upper Taylor Platform. The reason for some "new human features" is due to the ongoing erosion of the mud infill in the Taylor Trail.

Dr. Patton and Dr. Baugh have documented this erosion since the trail was first uncovered. What they have found is that the tracks, made by the dinosaurs, were continually being infilled by calcareous mud. Soon after, the human stepped in the mud infilled dinosaur track. This left a second impression, which in turn became infilled with more calcareous mud.
The erosion is simply reversing this process revealing the "original human features" that were always there.

Also unfounded is Morris' assertion that several prints contain properly configured "toe-like impressions" or that they are "accentuated by colorations." None of the depressions contain anything approaching clear human toe marks, and the few markings that Baugh and Patton are claiming as toes are merely vague or irregular features representing broken and or partially eroded portions of the infilling material, or (in one case) a mudcrack pattern. Any "discolorations" associated with these supposed "toes" are ill-defined and superficial features within the infilled regions. These are quite different from the more distinct and significant color contrasts occurring at the boundary of the infilling material and the surrounding substrate, which, along with texture and relief features, define the dinosaur digits.[6] Further, in no case are the supposed human toes accompanied by a complete or clear set of other human features (ball, arch, heel), and often the contours of the track contradict those of genuine human prints.

There he goes again! Brother Kuban obviously has not done his homework.
Not only is Dr. Morris correct in his observations but Dr. Patton and Dr. Baugh have empirically verified clear toe impressions as well as "ball, arch and heel impressions." The most recent excavation of clear human features was in July, 1997. I call it the "Dino & Beverly Track."

The primary method for determining whether foot impressions are human or not was applied to these tracks. In my opinion, the results are unequivocal, the Paluxy man tracks are in fact "human."

The fact is, these features are so well defined as being human that three of the best documented tracks were found destroyed only two days after Dr. Don Patton presented their photographic evidence at a creation conference, on August 12, 1989 in Dayton, TN.

The questions I have, are 1. why were only these tracks destroyed within less than 48 hours of their public disclosure? and 2. Why haven't any other tracks in the Paluxy been destroyed in this manner? Some have been cut out by local people and sold in the past but before August 1989, no one has ever destroyed any tracks in this manner!

As an Omniologist and Creationist, I have investigated a lot of empirical evidence that clearly falsifies several major doctrines of the macro-evolutionary faith. The reaction of the evolutionary faithful to this evidence has ranged from indifference to Ph.D. rattling to verbal intimidation to attempted and successful physical destruction of the evidence.

If a single, well verified mammal skull were to turn up in 500 million year old rocks, our whole modern theory of evolution would be utterly destroyed." (The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p.225).
This is also true of a single, well verified human footprint among dinosaur tracks!

At this point I want to remind brother Kuban of Dr. Morris' excellent research in the past regarding the Paluxy man tracks. In his [presently out of print] 1980 book, Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs, And The People Who Knew Them, Dr. Morris personally photographed and documented many of these obvious man tracks which are not eroded dinosaur tracks! One of these tracks was the 21.5" long Dougherty Track, while another he discovered was named after him, and is the Morris Track.
This being true, It appears obvious to me that someone who was at that creation conference in August of 1989 realized the devastating impact that Dr. Pattons' evidence would have on the entire metaphysical theory of evolution, not to mention brother Kubans' "man track" analysis, if it were to be independently verified. They had to be destroyed before that could happen.

I believe either that person, or someone they called, who knew exactly where these tracks were located, were the one/s that went to the Taylor site and did the dirty deed.
Dr. Patton gave no information on how to find these tracks at the conference.

If you don't believe the importance these man tracks have on falsifying the theory of evolution, consider this quote by Richard Dawkins, Oxford "…there are certain things about the fossil record that any evolutionist should expect to be true. We should be very surprised, for example, to find fossil humans appearing in the record before mammals are supposed to have evolved!


Curiously, Morris evidently does not question ill-defined colorations misapplied to dubious "man track" claims, but previously sug gested that distinct color and texture features indicating dinosaurian digits might be fraudulent stains (despite much evidence to the contrary), and that his core samples of the tracks were "inconclusive."[7] Whether Morris still believes them "inconclusive" he did not clarify. Core samples taken by Ron Hastings and me in recent years has well-established the genuineness of the cores, and, along with other evidences, thoroughly confirm the dinosaurian origin of the tracks.[8]

As for Dr. Morris questioning dinosaurian digit stains, brother Kuban questions human digit stains. These statements are moot because both stain features are genuine.

In regards to Dr. Morris' core samples being inconclusive, I believe brother Kuban and Mr. Hastings core samples do establish the genuineness of the dinosaur tracks, but that's all they do. They neither verify or falsify the secondary man tracks because no core samples were taken of them. Even if there had been, there would not be the same blue-gray/ivory contrasting color differential that brother Kuban found at the edge of the dinosaur tracks to reach any conclusions.

In my opinion, nothing short of an MRI of these tracks, which would require their removal from the river bed, could produce the detailed lamination features necessary to be of any value.

Speaking of track removal, brother Kuban attempts, later in this article, to suggest that Dr. Baugh "possibly violated state law" by removing a dinosaur track from private property. His reference number [14] states the following, "Texas law forbids removal of dinosaur tracks from the public lands, which according to local authorities includes the Paluxy Riverbed, but there is some question as to whether the ledge along the riverbank from which the dinosaur track was removed is considered part of the riverbed."

Core sampling "is in fact" an incremental removal of dinosaur tracks from the riverbed and therefore a direct violation of brother Kubans definition of Texas state law.

I would humbly remind brother Kuban of The Scriptures instruction to us all, "..you are without excuse, every man who passes judgement, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."

One might wonder why Baugh has resorted to hunting "man tracks" among previously refuted evidences on the Taylor Site, when Baugh himself claims to have found over 50 human tracks along the McFall property during his previous excava tions.[9] The probable reason is that even most creationists have realized that Baugh's claims did not match the evidence, and possibly Baugh and Patton are now desperate to salvage something "man trackish" from the Paluxy, especially since their much lauded "human tooth"[10] is looking more and more "fishy."

If there is any "wonder" left as to why Dr. Baugh, Dr. Patton or Dr. Morris are continuing their research after reviewing the empirical evidence presented here, it could only be due to the unwillingness of dogmatic evolutionists or incredulous creationists to accept the fact that man, at some time in the past, walked and coexisted with dinosaurs!

For additional information checkout Dr. Don Pattons evidence and Dr. Carl Baughs excavations.

Morris suggested in his article that if the alleged human tooth (found by Baugh along the Paluxy in 1987) could be shown to be human, then a better case could be made for the human tracks. Actually, the quality of the "man track" evidence really has nothing to do with the tooth (each evidence should stand on its own), but the point may be moot, since the evidence is overwhelming that the tooth is a fish tooth. Morris' acknowledged that the tooth resembles a certain kind of fish tooth, but stated (without documentation) that "objective chemical tests" have supported the human interpretation. Morris neglected to mention that biologist (and fellow creationist) David Menton had studied the tooth with a scanning electron microscope and concluded that it was not human and probably was a fish tooth.[11] The same conclusion was reached by Ron Hastings and other mainstream scientists who have studied similar teeth from the Paluxy.[12] These and other evidences relating to the tooth will be discussed further in a future article by Hastings.

 
Brother Kuban is right when he says "each evidence should stand on its own" as regards the "tooth & man tracks", but he is not correct in saying "..the evidence is overwhelming that the tooth is a fish tooth." The fact is there are actually 3 teeth that have been found and they all fit several criteria that defines them as human, with the exception of their unique enamel structure. Even though this structure is different than modern human enamel, it was not conclusively identified as a fish tooth either. It would be best for you to review the documented evidence for yourself and come to your own conclusions. Dr. Baugh has termed the tooth "an ongoing research project."

At this time I am not aware of any "qualitative empirical report", showing a tooth with the exact same morphological structure, by Mr. Hastings, which should include photographs, several independent chemical and electron microscopic analysis, and review by several dental experts. A web page article simply stating "this is what I found and believe, therefore it is a fact", isn't going to cut it!

Of perhaps greater concern than the new, unfounded claims of Baugh and others is physical damage done to some tracks this summer by Baugh's improper field methods. At least one Taylor Site track was partially damaged when Baugh and associates poured plaster into it (even though itit had undercuts), and then had to use hammers and chisels to break out the hardened plaster (rubber casting material should have been used). A glob of plaster they poured into one of the Ryals Trail tracks is still stuck there.[13] Earlier in 1988 Baugh and associates attem pted to physically remove a dinosaur track from the McFall ledge. Not only is this a possible violation of state law[14] (and a bad example at best), but the track evidently was destroyed in the process (the hole was not cut deep enough to allow the track to be removed intact). Curiously, no creationist leaders have said anything about these serious problems.

Brother Kuban has tainted my trust in his honesty and integrity by these statements made here. The reason no creationist leaders have said anything is because these are slanderous and false accusations. The specific tracks he mentions were in fact destroyed within two days after the creation conference in 1989 and he knew that before he wrote this article! The question is, why would brother Kuban fabricate a story like this when he knows it's not true?

Dr. Baugh has removed dinosaur tracks from private land under the auspices' of the Creation Evidence Museum, but only at the request and with permission of the land owners. Before doing so Dr. Baugh contacted Texas authorities and confirmed that there was no violation of State law. Other people have failed in attempting to remove tracks in the past but Dr. Baugh and his associates have never destroyed any of the tracks they have removed.

Morris' article is an unfortunate sign for young earth creationism. It indicates an unwillingness to fully abandon past claims (no matter how well-refuted), and a return to the same kind of faulty research, deficient documentation, and inaccurate reporting that fostered the Paluxy mess in the first place. Instead of helping to set the record straight on the Paluxy issue, Morris' article undoubtedly will contribute to the spread of new misinformation among creationists and the public at large. Already some creationists are calling for the film Footprints in Stone [15] to be reinstated.[16] Evidently little if anything was learned from past mistakes.

Brother Kubans' concern about creationists being unwilling to abandon their research of the Paluxy man tracks is understandable. He and his associates, along with creationists who have sided with him, have a lot to loose. For one, their reputations as thorough and un-biased researchers and second, the falsification of their metaphysical Macro-Evolutionary and Great-Age faith.

At this point I think it somewhat prophetic to consider what Ernst Mayr of Harvard has said about this subject. "Creationists have stated that humans and dinosaurs were contemporaries in time...Were this momentous statement true the names of its discoverers would thunder down the corridors of time as individuals who made one of the most outstanding discoveries of the twentieth century."

Since this "momentous statement" is obviously true, as demonstrated here by the objective and empirical scientific method, the California Institute of Omniology hereby nominates the following names deserving of this honor.

Mr. Stanley Taylor - Dr. John Morris - Dr. Carl Baugh and Dr. Don Patton.


THE WORK THESE MEN HAVE DONE IN THE PAST AND ARE CONTINUING TO DO TODAY, IN MY OPINION, IS ONE OF THE GREATEST THREATS TO THE MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY PARADIGM. ANOTHER IS THE C-14 DATING OF DINOSAUR BONES, HUMAN REMAINS AND ORGANIC MATERIAL THROUGHOUT THE FOSSIL RECORD.

I BELIEVE THE TIME HAS COME FOR HONEST EMPIRICAL SCIENTISTS AND RESEARCHERS TO JOIN TOGETHER AND SETTLE THIS ISSUE ONCE AND FOR ALL!

THERE NEEDS TO BE A CONSORTIUM OF PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS AND INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS WHO ARE WILLING TO COME TOGETHER AND PRODUCE A DEFINITIVE SCIENTIFIC PAPER, TO BE RELEASED TO THE WORLD, ON THIS SUBJECT.

MAN TRACKS AND HUMAN ARTIFACTS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN EVERY PERIOD OF THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN. OF ALL THE LOCATIONS WHERE MAN AND DINOSAUR TRACKS ARE FOUND, GLEN ROSE, TEXAS HAS THE LARGEST CONCENTRATION.
MAN AND DINOSAUR TRACKS HAVE BEEN FOUND TOGETHER IN THREE SEPARATE "CRETACEOUS" LIMESTONE LAYERS, JUST IN THE EXPOSED PALUXY RIVER BASIN ALONE.

THINK OF WHAT A LARGE EXCAVATION OF LAND COULD PRODUCE!
IT IS HIGHLY PROBABLE THAT THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF MAN TRACKS AMONG THOUSANDS OF DINOSAUR TRACKS, NOT TO MENTION POSSIBLE HUMAN REMAINS AND ARTIFACTS, UNDER THE ENTIRE SOMERVELL COUNTY AREA!

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question (RAW FTGE) and Darwinists bungle Linnaen classification

Darwinists seek to avoid debate

In this article, my words will be in this color other than an occasional link.  Standard print indicates content from another source, all of which are linked.

Funny how, when offered a chance to show the world how the evidence supports Darwinism over Creationism, it is the Darwinists who run away as fast as they can.   In a world in which they close their eyes and ears to evidence contrary to what they wish to believe as if small children, there is the occasional brave one who will come forth bravely from time to time.  Or, at least he used to come forth.  Richard Dawkins!   But having lost a debate to a supposedly inferior foe, and having been made to look silly by Ben Stein (here comes panspermia again, lol) and then completely being befuddled on videotape, he too has quit trying.  Why go to a gunfight with no bullets, right?




So it goes.  The video cuts out part of the time that Dawkins sits there dumbfounded.  He never does answer the question, as you see, but instead goes rambling on in another direction that is simplistic and probably would cause other Darwinists to object.  Richard Dawkins has made a fortune on a variety of concepts he has popularized that have been disproven and a few books that have been proven top-sellers.  So in this world I cannot feel too sorry for him.  Give him credit for trying, he has more cajones than the majority of Darwinists in the world who will not dare to debate a credentialed YEC opponent.  Naturally Dawkins doesn't debate people of the YEC persuasion any more but for awhile he bravely went forth and that is in itself to be commended.

You cannot get a P.Z. Myers (as a for instance) to debate a Jonathan Sarfati because Sarfati would make mincemeat of him.   I promise that if ever P.Z. reads this blog and contacts me I can get ahold of Jonathan Sarfati and arrange for a debate.  Not because I am anyone but I know someone who is and I am acquainted with some of the Creation Science folks at a handful of sites.  But I betcha it will never happen because the evidence favors YEC.  As it happens Dr. Sarfati has moved to the United States and is most often here rather than in the land of Oz (Australia).  

I do want to make a note of the fact that Christopher Hitchens has been, unlike the Darwinist scientific community, quite willing to debate metaphysical topics with a conservative Christian and there is book and DVD available for those who are interested.

For example, Darwinists have made a mess of Linnaeus and his classification system.  Carl was a believer in a Creator God and he was trying to classify the types of organisms with that in mind.

I have read the book and watched the DVD with great interest.  An avowed atheist and a dedicated Christian pastor in an ongoing debate both officially before crowds and then carried on in bars and restaurants and homes and in the back of vehicles taking them to yet another destination.   It is a story of friendship between men who are able to disagree completely on some issues and yet remain respectful.  Good stuff!




"(from Conservapedia)
Linnaean taxonomy refers to the taxonomic system developed in the 18th century by Carolus Linnaeus wherein life forms are classified according to a ranked hierarchy.
The basic hierarchy (leaving out the sub- or super- ranks, and other more technical ranks) is as follows:
  • Domain
    • Kingdom
      • Phylum
        • Class
          • Order
            • Family
              • Genus
                • Species
Linnaean taxonomy was originally developed as a physicotheological system in which nature was viewed as another testament of God to be read much like the Bible. By seeking to document the patterns of continunity in Creation, Linnaeus and his peers hoped to elucidate the mind of God[1]. It was not originally meant to describe a system of biological descent, which Linnaeus, a devout Christian and creationist[2], would have considered shocking[3]. Linnaeus also applied his taxonomy to mineralogy[4], but that usage has been superseded by chemical classifications.

Evolutionists inherited the Linnaean system from the Christian founders of biology and tried to adapt it to the Darwinian world view of ever-transmogrifying species. However, since the Linnaean system describes a fixed creation with no way for members of one order or family to move to another order or family, this Neo-Linnaean Synthesis has always been problematic.

While the system is still in almost universal use for the naming and categorizing of creatures -- especially in the form of the binomial nomenclature, where species are given a scientific, Latinate name comprised of a generic and specific descriptor (e.g. the common wombat is known as Vombatus ursinus) -- it has largely been replaced as a framework for describing origins by creation science's baraminology and the evolutionists' cladistics.

Later developments since Linnaeus

Over time, our understanding of the relationships between living things has changed. Linnaeus could only base his scheme on the structural similarities of the different organisms. The greatest change was the generally understood classifications ought to reflect the phylogeny of organisms, by grouping each taxon so as to include the common ancestor of the group's members (and thus to avoid polyphyly). Such taxa may be either monophyletic (including all descendants) such as genus Homo, or paraphyletic (excluding some descendants), such as genus Australopithecus.

Originally, Linnaeus established three kingdoms in his scheme, namely Plantae, Animalia and an additional group for minerals, which has long since been abandoned. Since then, various life forms have been moved into three new kingdoms: Monera, for prokaryotes (i.e., bacteria); Protista, for protozoans and most algae; and Fungi. This five kingdom scheme is still far from the phylogenetic ideal and has largely been supplanted in modern taxonomic work by a division into three domains: Bacteria and Archaea, which contain the prokaryotes, and Eukaryota, comprising the remaining forms. This change was precipitated by the discovery of the Archaea. These arrangements should not be seen as definitive. They are based on the genomes of the organisms; as knowledge on this increases, so will the categories change.

References

  1. "Linnaeus' view of nature", Linné On Line
  2. "Faith in the Bible and Creation", Linné On Line
  3. "Carl Linnaeus", biography
  4. "Linnaeus as a minerologist", Linné On Line"
Back to our movie:  While Darwinists have been at work creating cladograms and continually revising their idea of what they refer to as taxonomy, the YEC scientists have been working on furthering the work of Linnaeus himself:  Those of you who are regular readers will remember that I posted on this very thing in Baramins and Baranomes back in May.

Ligers and wholphins? What next?

Crazy mixed-up animals … what do they tell us? They seem to defy man-made classification systems—but what about the created ‘kinds’ in Genesis?

If we can cross-breed a zebra and a horse (to produce a ‘zorse’), a lion and a tiger (a liger or tigon), or a false killer whale and a dolphin (a wholphin), what does this tell us about the original kinds of animals that God created?

The Bible tells us in Genesis chapter 1 that God created plants to produce seed ‘after their kind’ (vv. 11, 12). God also created the animals to reproduce ‘after their kind’ (vv. 20, 24, 25). ‘After their/its kind’ is repeated ten times in Genesis 1, giving emphasis to the principle. And we take it for granted. When we plant a tomato seed, we don’t expect to see a geranium pop up out of the ground. Nor do we expect that our dog will give birth to kittens or that Aunt Betty, who is expecting, will bring home a chimpanzee baby from the hospital! Our everyday experience confirms the truth of the Bible that things produce offspring true to their kind.
But what is a created ‘kind’? And what organisms today represent the kinds God created in the beginning? The creationist scientist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), the founder of the science of taxonomy,1 tried to determine the created kinds. He defined a ‘species’ as a group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the Genesis concept. (See aside below.)

Linnaeus operated on the assumption that God created kinds of animals and plants and that the organisms observed today are the speciated survivors of the thousands of years since the Flood rather than a result of millions of years of blind chance.

Finding the created kinds

From Genesis 1, the ability to produce offspring, i.e. to breed with one another, defines the original created kinds. Linnaeus recognised this, but named many species2 without any breeding experiments, on the basis of such things as flower characteristics. In his mature years he did extensive hybridization (cross-breeding) experiments and realised that his ‘species’ concept was too narrow for the species to be considered as created kinds; he thought that the genus perhaps corresponded better with the created kind.3,4

  
Even today, creationists are often misrepresented as believing that God created all the species we have today, just like they are today, in the beginning. This is called ‘fixity of species’. The Bible does not teach this. Nevertheless, university professors often show students that a new ‘species’ has arisen in ferment flies, for example, and then claim that this disproves the Genesis account of creation. Darwin made this very mistake when he studied the finches and tortoises on the Galapagos islands. (He also erred in assuming that creation implied that each organism was made where it is now found; but from the Bible it is clear that today’s land-dwelling vertebrates migrated to their present locations after the Flood.)

If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind. 

Herein is a rubber-meets-road statement.  We believe that God created kinds that cannot become another kind.  But kinds can and will speciate.  Based on modern genetic research we now know that all the information required to speciate is contained within the DNA of the cell and also that the cell controls the reproduction process to conserve the kind while allowing for speciation in order to adjust to changes in environment.  Natural selection does drive speciation but, just as a driver can get in a car and go to Chicago, the driver can only steer what is already available to him (the vehicle) and take the roads or tracks already available to travel there.  The driver cannot snap his fingers and make a VW into a Cadillac nor can he head towards a stand of trees and expect a road to magically appear.   Natural selection is just that, selection from a pre-existing menu.

On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind. We all know of couples who cannot have children, but this does not mean they are separate species!


In the case of three species, A, B and C, if A and B can each hybridize with C, then it suggests that all three are of the same created kind—whether or not A and B can hybridize with each other. Breeding barriers can arise through such things as mutations. For example, two forms of ferment flies (Drosophila) produced offspring that could not breed with the parent species.5 That is, they were a new biological ‘species’. This was due to a slight chromosomal rearrangement, not any new genetic information. The new ‘species’ was indistinguishable from the parents and obviously the same kind as the parents, since it came from them.

Following are some examples of hybrids that show that the created kind is often at a higher level than the species, or even the genus, named by taxonomists.

Mules, zeedonks and zorses

zonkey zorse
Zonkeys result from a cross between a zebra and a donkey (left). ‘Tigger’ (above ), belongs to Camilla Maluotoga, from New Mexico in the USA, and is the name she gave to this cross between a horse and a zebra, known as a zorse.
Crossing a male ass (donkey—Equus asinus) and a horse (Equus caballus) produces a mule (the reverse is called a hinny). Hybrids between zebras and horses (zorse) and zebras and donkeys (zedonk, zonkey, zebrass) also readily occur.

Some creationists have reasoned that because these hybrids are sterile, the horse, ass and zebra must be separate created kinds. However, not only does this go beyond the biblical text, it is overwhelmingly likely that horses, asses and zebras (six species of Equus) are the descendants of the one created kind which left the Ark. Hybridization itself suggests this, not whether the offspring are fertile or not. Infertility in offspring can be due to rearrangements of chromosomes in the different species—changes such that the various species have the same DNA information but the chromosomes of the different species no longer match up properly to allow the offspring to be fertile. Such (non-evolutionary) changes within a kind can cause sterility in hybrids.

Ligers


The Created Cat Kind
Possible family tree of cat kind(s)
Possible history of cats since Creation. Speciation (based on pre-existing created genetic information) probably occurred faster after the Flood due to greater environmental pressures, isolation due to migration of small populations, and many unoccupied ecological niches.
A male African lion (Panthera leo) and a female tiger (Panthera tigris) can mate to produce a liger. The reverse cross produces a tigon. Such crossing does not normally happen in the wild because most lions live in Africa and most tigers live in Asia. Also, lions and tigers just don’t mix; they are enemies in the wild. However, the Institute of Greatly Endangered and Rare Species, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina (USA), raised a lion and a tigress together. Arthur, the lion, and Ayla, the tigress, became good friends and bred to produce Samson and Sudan, two huge male ligers. Samson stands 3.7 m (12 feet) tall on his hind legs, weighs 500 kg (1,100 lbs) and can run at 80 km/hr (50 mph).

Lions and tigers belong to the same genus, Panthera, along with the jaguar, leopard and snow leopard, in the subfamily Felinae. This subfamily also contains the genus Felis, which includes the mountain lion and numerous species of smaller cats, including the domestic cat. The cheetah, genus Acinonyx, belongs to a different subfamily.6 Thus the genera Panthera, Felis and Acinonyx may represent descendants of three original created cat kinds, or maybe two: Panthera-Felis and Acinonyx, or even one cat kind. The extinct sabre-tooth tiger may have been a different created kind (see diagram above).

The Panthera cats lack a hyoid bone at the back of the tongue, compared to Felis. Acinonyx has the hyoid, but lacks the ability to retract its claws. So the differences between the cats could have arisen through loss of genetic information due to mutations (loss of the bone; loss of claw retraction). Note that this has nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution, which requires the addition of new information, not loss of information (which is to be expected in a fallen world as things tend to ‘fall apart’).

Kekaimalu the wholphin

In 1985, Hawaii’s Sea Life Park reported the birth of a baby from the mating of a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) .7 The birth surprised the park staff, as the parents are rather different in appearance. Here we have a hybrid between different genera in the same family, Delphinidae (dolphins and killer whales).8 Since the offspring in this case are fertile (Kekaimalu has since given birth to a baby wholphin), these two genera are really, by definition, a single polytypic biological species.2 Other genera in the group are much more alike than the two that produced the offspring in Hawaii, which suggests that the 12 living genera might have all descended from the original created kind.

Rama the cama

Veterinarians in the United Arab Emirates successfully cross-bred a camel and a llama. The ‘cama’, named ‘Rama’, has the cloven hooves of a llama and the short ears and tail of a camel. The scientists hope to combine the best qualities of both into the one animal—the superior fleece and calmer temperament of the llama with the larger size of the camel.
‘Genae’ the snake—the live, healthy 
offspring of snakes from two different genera
‘Genae’ the snake—the live, healthy offspring of snakes from two different genera (see main text).

Genae the hybrid snake

‘Genae’ (pictured right) resulted from a cross between an albino corn snake (Elaphe guttata) and an albino king snake (Lampropeltis triangulum) in a reptile park in California.9 Apparently, this particular intergeneric hybrid is fertile. Genae is almost four years old and already 1.4 m (4½ ft) long. The parent snakes belong to the same snake family, Colubridae; the success of this hybrid suggests that the many species and genera of snakes in this family today could have all originally come from the same created kind.

Other hybrids

With the cattle kind, seven species of the genus Bos hybridize, but so also does the North American buffalo, Bison bison, with Bos, to produce a ‘cattalo’. Here the whole family of cattle-type creatures, Bovidae, probably came from an original created cattle kind which was on the Ark.10
 
Plant breeders have bred some agriculturally important plants by hybridizing different species and even genera. For example, triticale, a grain crop, came from a cross of wheat (Triticum) and rye (Secale), another fertile hybrid between genera.

During my years as a research scientist for the government in Australia, I helped create a hybrid of the delicious fruit species lychee (Litchi chinensis) and longan (Dimocarpus longana), which both belong to the same family.11 I also studied the hybrids of six species of the custard apple family, Annonaceae. Each of these two family groupings, recognised by botanists today, probably represents the original created kinds.
lychee longan
The delicious fruit species, lychee (left) and longan (right) hybridize, despite being different genera.
God created all kinds, or basic types, of creatures and plants with the ability to produce variety in their offspring. These varieties come from recombinations of the existing genetic information created in the beginning, through the marvellous reproductive method created by God. Since the Fall (Genesis 3), some variations also occurred through degenerative changes caused by mutations (e.g. loss of wing size in the cormorants of the Galápagos Islands).

The variations allow for the descendants of the created kinds to adapt to different environments and ‘fill the earth’, as God commanded. If genera represent the created kinds, then Noah took less than 20,000 land animals on the Ark; far fewer if kinds occasionally gave rise to families. From these kinds came many ‘daughter species’, which generally each have less information (and are thus more specialized) than the parent population on the Ark. Properly understood, adaptation by natural selection (which gets rid of information) does not involve the addition of new complex DNA information. Thus, students should not be taught that it demonstrates ‘evolution happening’, as if it showed the process by which fish could eventually turn into people.

Understanding what God has told us in Genesis provides a sound foundation for thinking about the classification of living things, as Linnaeus found, and how the great diversity we see today has come about.


Linnaeus and the classification system


Linnaeus
Linnaeus established the two-part naming system of genus and species. For example, he called wheat Triticum aestivum, which means in Latin, ‘summer wheat’. Such ‘scientific’ names are normally italicised, with the genus beginning with a capital. When used in scientific works, the names are followed by the abbreviated name of the scientist responsible for the name. When ‘L.’ follows a name, this shows that Linnaeus first applied the name. For example, the name for maize or ‘corn’ is Zea mays L. Linnaeus named many plants and animals.

There can be one or many species in a genus, so genus is a higher level of classification. Linnaeus also developed the idea of grouping genera (plural of genus) within higher groupings he called orders, and the orders within classes. Linnaeus opposed the pre-Darwin evolutionary ideas of his day, pointing out that life was not a continuum, or a ‘great chain of being’, an ancient pagan Greek idea. He could classify things, usually into neat groups, because of the lack of transitional forms. (some things don't change, eh?)

Later, other levels of classification were added so that today we have species, genus, family, order, class, phylum and kingdom. Sometimes other levels are added, such as subfamily and subphylum.

The world’s only Wholphin … false killer whale/dolphin cross

False killer whales (pseudorcas) and bottlenose dolphins are each from a different genus. Man-made classification systems were thrown into confusion when these two creatures mated and produced a live offspring (see main text).

This suggests that all killer whales and dolphins, which are all in the same family, are the one created kind.
This wholphin’s size, shape and colour are right in between those of her parents. She has 66 teeth—an ‘average’ between pseudorcas (44 teeth) and bottlenose dolphins (88).
Kekaimalu has since mated with a dolphin to produce a live baby.

References and notes

  1. The study of the naming and classification of organisms. Return to text.
  2. ‘Biological species’ is often used today to refer to a group of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring. It does not always correlate with the taxonomic ‘species’. Note that the kinds would originally have met the criterion for each being a separate biological species, since they did not interbreed with any other kind. Return to text.
  3. In Latin, ‘genus’ conveys the meaning of origin, or ‘kind’, whereas ‘species’ means outward appearance (The Oxford Latin Minidictionary, 1995). Return to text.
  4. Creationist biologists today often combine the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind) to call the created kind a baramin. Return to text.
  5. Marsh, Frank L., Variation and Fixity in Nature, Pacific Press, CA, USA, p. 75, 1976. Return to text.
  6. Encyclopaedia Britannica 98 CD. Other authorities call the Panthera genus Leo, so that the lion is then Leo leo. Return to text.
  7. Keene Rees, Waimanalo Hapa Girl Makes 10! Waimanalo News, May 1995, , March 1, 2000. Return to text.
  8. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica 23:434, 1992. Return to text.
  9. Genae belongs to David Jolly, M.S. (USA). Genae was bred at a reptile park at Bakersfield. Corn snakes are one of the most popular pet snakes in North America, and snake fanciers have bred all sorts of colour variations, which are catalogued at , March 22, 2000. Return to text.
  10. See Wieland, C., Recreating the extinct Aurochs? Creation 14(2):25–28, 1992. Return to text.
  11. McConchie, C.A., Batten, D.J. and Vithanage, V., Intergeneric hybridization between litchi (Litchi chinensis Sonn.) and longan (Dimocarpus longan Lour.), Annals of Botany 74:111–118, 1994. Return to text.
 ~

Previously I have posted on the successful breeding in the wild between brown bears and polar bears and grizzly bears and also interbreeding amongst a wide range of baleen whales.  The determination to inject Darwinist thought into the classification system means that Darwinists have cluttered up and ruined that system.  Creation Scientists are at work following up on the lead of Carl Linnaeus and recharting creation step-by-step as they go along.  Naturally this is a process that will go on for generations, as there are so many organisms that have speciated along life's way.

Oh, on a personal note?  Dawkins did quite as well as any of my commenters with that question.  I have yet to hear a Darwinist give me an answer on the question of information entering into the genome.  Please go hit play on that youtube video just one more time.  Think about what Dawkins is saying.  Think about what he was asked.  Yep.