Search This Blog

Friday, June 10, 2011

Upon spending time with Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

Tomorrow I get to (along with my wife) pick up the esteemed Dr. Sarfati from the airport and have a long drive with him, taking him to a very fine home on the lake owned by one of our elders, Harry and his wife Bonnie, to stay for the weekend.  So I may not make a post this weekend at all, or I may be inspired to write a couple, who knows?  This weekend is going to be a great deal of fun for us, that much is likely to be true!

Although I have spent time with many politicians both local and national and a few sports figures including a world champion boxer,  I would rather hang out with Jonathan Sarfati than with Peyton Manning or Michael Jordan or Michelle Bachmann or Bobby Jindall.   He is a megabrain and a very successful author and accomplished scientist who perhaps could have been chess champion of the world, but he chose science and especially creation science to make his mark on the world.   Were he the chess champion of the world, he would be more famous and have more money.  But what he does do is far more admirable and valuable.   He has taken the road less traveled by...

Harry and I were coordinating the events for the weekend along with a few fellow creation enthusiasts so that Jonathan can make three presentations and then have a chess match against a few competitors at once during his weekend here.  The team has apparently overcome any obstacles and we are ready to roll!


The following is one of Jonathan's "dialogue" posts, when he interacts with a commenter with the expressed permission of said commenter.  I think it gives you a good feel for his style.  Jonathan will be in black print and the commenter in blue.

Noah’s Ark never happened?

21 May 2001

From Paul Miles, of England, who gave permission for his full name to be used. His letter is printed first in its entirety. Once more, the complete lack of substance of anti-creationist attacks is glaring. His letter is printed again, with point-by-point responses by Dr Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International, Australia, interspersed as per normal email fashion. Ellipses (…) at the end of one of Paul Miles’ paragraphs signal that a mid-sentence comment follows, not an omission.

“You know, in the civilised times we live in I find it quite unbelievable that there are still people around who doubt the theory of evolution. I believe that everyone should have the right to make up there [sic] own minds, but the arguments in [CMI] are ridiculous in the extreme.
“Dinosaurs couldn’t have existed because they wouldn’t all fit in Noahs [sic] Ark? PLEASE! The story of Noahs [sic] Ark never happened! It’s a parable; a story designed to represent a deeper meaning.
“Do you truly believe that dinosaurs are only six thousand years old? There is so much overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
“I have nothing against free speech, but being Christian DOES NOT make you more right or your statements any more valid than anyone else regardless of whether they believe in the bible. Understand that there is no evidence that ANYTHING in the bible is even true!
“Paul Miles
England”

You know, in the civilised times we live in I find it quite unbelievable that there are still people around who doubt the theory of evolution.
I find it quite unbelievable that there are still people around who assert that the theory of evolution is proven fact in spite of the mountains of evidence against it and the lack of evidence for it. Please demonstrate that molecules can turn into magnolias and men; do not simply cite examples of trivial changes which add no new functional information. For more information, see our Q&A sections on information, mutations, natural selection and speciation.

Disproving spontaneous generation was one of the triumphs of science in the 1800s (by the creationist Louis Pasteur). But now it is again widely touted as ‘fact’, but renamed ‘chemical evolution’. See Q&A: Origin of Life for major scientific hurdles that non-living matter must jump to form even the simplest living cell
I believe that everyone should have the right to make up there [sic] own minds, but the arguments in [CMI] are ridiculous in the extreme.
It’s not surprising that you should have this view. The Bible says that the Gospel is ‘foolishness to the Greeks [i.e. gentiles or unbelievers]’ — 1 Corinthians 1:23. When the Apostle Paul first tried to tell the people in Athens of the things of the Creator-God many thought he was crazy (Acts 17:16 ff.). The people in Athens had an anti–Creator-God world view. It is not surprising that someone steeped in the anti-God world-view of today, Evolution, also thinks that the things of God are ridiculous.
Dinosaurs couldn’t have existed because they wouldn’t all fit in Noahs [sic] Ark? PLEASE!
PLEASE! Read what we actually teach if you want us to take you seriously as a critic of integrity. We have never denied that dinosaurs existed, as a cursory perusal of our website would have told you. See Q&A: Dinosaurs.
The story of Noahs [sic] Ark never happened!
Can you prove this? There is ample evidence that it did happen—see Q&A: Noah’s Ark.
It’s a parable; …
Can you demonstrate this by literary analysis, e.g. by comparing historical narrative with parabolic literature. As can be seen from the Gospel records of Jesus’ parables, parabolic literature is of the form: ‘there was a man with two sons’, ‘a farmer went out to sow his seed’, ‘suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one’ — note that the parables don’t name actual people, and they are clearly stated to be parables.
… a story designed to represent a deeper meaning.
What exactly is this deeper meaning, if it never happened? I agree there is a deeper meaning, the one Jesus said in Luke 17:26–27, which is based on its historical reality: that God judged the sin of the world once, and will do so again.
Do you truly believe that dinosaurs are only six thousand years old?
Of course. How else could red blood cells and hemoglobin survive in dinosaur bones, for example — see Sensational dinosaur blood report [and Still soft and stretchy about a later find of flexible dinosaur blood vessels]. I must also point out that if we believe that dinosaurs are a certain age, then logically we must believe that they existed — you’re not the first anti-creationist to make self-contradictory accusations.
There is so much overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Then you should have been able to provide some of this evidence. All facts concerning dinosaurs, as distinct from much story-telling, fit neatly with what the Bible says.
I have nothing against free speech, but being Christian DOES NOT make you more right or your statements any more valid than anyone else regardless of whether they believe in the bible.
Well, if what we are saying was just our opinion, you are correct. However, the Bible is the Word of God, so if we are correctly telling you what it says, then our statements have authority over all other opinions (including our own!). This is the source of our confidence, not our own supposed cleverness.
Understand that there is no evidence that ANYTHING in the bible is even true!
The Bible teaches that Adam was 130 years old when he fathered Seth, then lived another 800 years, then died at the age of 930. This shows the Bible is correct in arithmetical calculations, but if you deny that ANYTHING in the Bible is true, then I’d have to say that you need remedial instruction in arithmetic.

As is well documented in Q&A: Bible, the Bible’s reliability is amply corroborated by internal consistency, archaeology and fulfilled prophecy.

I encourage you to study what we actually say about the Flood, the Ark, and the evidence for the true history of the world, as revealed in the Bible. It seems that you have not done this before launching into your criticisms. The Bible says that those who have not received God’s forgiveness in Jesus Christ in this life will receive His condemnation in the judgment to come (e.g. John 3:16–18). If the Bible is what it claims to be, then you owe it to yourself to check these things out.
Paul Miles
England
(Dr) Jonathan Sarfati
Research scientist, author and editorial consultant
CMI (Australia [now USA])

Recommended Resource


~~~~~~~~



Tomorrow will be a great day!  Sunday will be a great day!   I will even enjoy the ride back to the airport with Dr. Sarfati, who is a very kind and gentlemanly person but quite firm on what he believes in metaphysically and scientifically.   Will be trying hard to not ask him too many questions, as he will be preparing for his events.  Dr. Sarfati presents evidence and keeps additional slides and movies to help with questions at the end of his events.  So I will have to keep in mind that he needs some downtime. 

In my dreams I can see the Darwinists picking one representative for their viewpoint (Dawkins, Myers, anyone) and having a set of Darwinist versus Creationist debates on national television, much like the Presidential debates, with Dr. Sarfati taking the creationist side.   That might be all it would take to drive that stake through the heart of the undead corpse of Darwinism.   All people need is to hear the truth compared to the lies and the vast majority would abandon macroevolution like sailors abandoning a sinking ship - lifeboat, life raft, ANYTHING but going down with that ship!

57 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

"In my dreams I can see the Darwinists picking one representative for their viewpoint (Dawkins, Myers, anyone) and having a set of Darwinist versus Creationist debates on national television,"

Why bother? Been there and tried that already, and not a whit of difference does it make. Creationists are liars in person and liars on TV. When it takes ten seconds to tell the lie and ten hours to refute it, who do you think is going to win?

Case in point: Sarfati speweth, "I find it quite unbelievable that there are still people around who assert that the theory of evolution is proven fact in spite of the mountains of evidence against it and the lack of evidence for it."

There are articles, essays, books, whole libraries full of evidence for evolution. Not a single fossil, not a single observation, not a single fact has ever been discovered that contradicts evolutionary theory. Biologists, palaeontologists, geneticists find more evidence for evolution every day, in every way.

On the other hand, there is no good evidence against evolution, only the argument from incredulity and other logical fallacies perpetrated by malignant liars like Sarfati and well-meaning fools like you, Radar.

I do hope you don't forget your promise to offer up my little list of questions to him. Sadly, I'm quite sure that he won't answer them honestly, nor will you report his answers honestly.

Anonymous said...

Sarfati? Isn't that the guy who still peddles the 'receding moon'-lie?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Please demonstrate that molecules can turn into magnolias and men; do not simply cite examples of trivial changes which add no new functional information."

Well, that should make any informed reader adjust their opinion of either Sarfati's integrity or Sarfati's grasp of science downward a few notches.

We have:

1. It's a strawman argument (no claim was made that the theory of evolution states that molecules turn into magnolias and men).

2. A ridiculous statement. Of course molecules turn into flowers and people all the time. That's what flowers and people are made of! And we can see molecules turning into, say, people with every pregnancy and birth.

3. An attempt to change the subject from the theory of evolution to abiogenesis. Creationists do this a lot - maybe because they can't come up with evidence either for creationism or against the theory of evolution?

"do not simply cite examples of trivial changes which add no new functional information"

What about changes that do add new functional information?

"I do hope you don't forget your promise to offer up my little list of questions to him. Sadly, I'm quite sure that he won't answer them honestly, nor will you report his answers honestly."

A simple solution to that would be to have Mr. Sarfati address them in writing. But as we saw with Radar blocking a discussion between scohen and Kevin, Radar is not a fan of open discussion out of fear that it won't support his stubborn conclusion. And judging from Sarfati's questionable integrity in the piece above, I'd say it's likely that he won't engage in open discussion with people who disagree with him either.

AmericanVet said...

Jon Woolf, I have carefully carved up all of your foundational arguments for evolution and sliced them and diced them into little pieces. Also, when creationists debate darwinists the darwinists get beat up. This is why Dawkins dodges Sarfati. Listen, you get Dawkins to agree to debate Sarfati and I will get Sarfati to agree, I betcha!

Yes, there are piles of BS a mile high about the unproven and untenable hypothesis of macroevolution and yet all of them are built upon fallacies and fairy tales. ALL OF THEM.

You calling Jonathan Sarfati a liar is rather like Bill Clinton lecturing on celibacy. You calling me a fool is worse, as I am a Christian and the definition of a fool is as follows = "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God."

The only thing Darwinism has going for it is that it eliminates God from the picture. But it is all a house of cards.

AmericanVet said...

Woolf, repeat your silly questions for me so I can copy them and print them for Dr. Sarfati, please. If you really want him to answer them, that is...

AmericanVet said...

But hurry, because I will be leaving to pick him up at the airport pretty soon!

AmericanVet said...

I didn't block a conversation between cohen and Kevin, I offered to let him make a blogpost and then have Kevin answer it. What I will not do is give out personal information of my students. That is true now and tomorrow and forever.

Fairy tales = molecules to men. By what means? Evolution is empty of proof and full of *poof*

Anonymous whatsit said...

Jon Woolf doesn't happen to be on the blog in this small time window that Radar has suddenly presented.

A quick google of this blog turned out this list from Jon Woolf:

"How do you tell whether a given mutation increases or decreases the information-content of a gene, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for the no-young-isotopes phenomenon, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for fossiliferous strata in Large Igneous Provinces, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for age-specific trace molecules in crude oil, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for fossils in marble and slate, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for broken, weathered, and scavenged fossils, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for ecological ghosts, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for index features such as the K-T clay layer, Radar?

Why aren't dolphins and ichthyosaurs ever found together, Radar?

Why aren't rhamphorhynchoids and neornithines ever found together, Radar?

How did dogwoods and sycamores outrun brontosaurs and allosaurs to higher ground, Radar?

How do we get fossil formations that preserve multiple layers of dinosaur and bird nests, obviously nesting colonies from several different years, in the middle of the geologic column?

How did we get magmatic intrusions -- that is, underground lava flows that took time to occur and more time to cool and solidify -- in between layers of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock?

When you can answer those questions in detail, with specific observations and sensible deductions therefrom ... then, and only then, will you be able to claim that YEC is science. Until then, it's religious fanaticism and nothing more. "


I know he has presented the list in different forms on occasion, but this one seems representative.

Anonymous whatsit said...

I hope that previous comment (the 8th comment on the blog) will survive, since Blogger chops comments that are too long, but only sometimes. If not, I'll repost it in smaller chunks.

If by the time you read this comment and this comment is the 8th one, then the previous comment that I just put up will have been chopped by Blogger.

Anonymous whatsit said...

In any case, it would be interesting to hear Dr. Sarfati's response. In his own words, since you, Radar, have proven to be an unreliable intermediary.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I didn't block a conversation between cohen and Kevin, I offered to let him make a blogpost and then have Kevin answer it. What I will not do is give out personal information of my students. That is true now and tomorrow and forever."

Nobody asked you to give out personal information on your students, and it wasn't necessary for a direct discussion between scohen and Kevin, as you know perfectly well.

scohen made this exact point several times. It's disingenuous and dishonest of you to now try to claim that that's what the issue was. If you want to claim that you were just confused about what happened, then I'll be willing to retract my charges of dishonesty.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Jon Woolf, I have carefully carved up all of your foundational arguments for evolution and sliced them and diced them into little pieces."

Take - just as an example - the list of Jon Woolf's questions above. Where did you ever address these questions, let alone "carve them up"? Your boast is simply not based on reality.

"Also, when creationists debate darwinists the darwinists get beat up."

Wishful thinking. When what you call "Darwinists" "beat up" creationists, you complain about a vast unproven conspiracy.

"This is why Dawkins dodges Sarfati. Listen, you get Dawkins to agree to debate Sarfati and I will get Sarfati to agree, I betcha!"

Okay, since you're driving Sarfati around for a couple of days, ask him if he wants to debate Dawkins in an online debate. A written one. In a live setting of limited duration it's too easy for creationists to do a Gish gallop and engage in emotional appeals etc. and dodge factual discussion. Not so easy in writing. (Though you, Radar, are no stranger to the art of evasion in a written format...)

BTW, AFAIK none of the commenters here have Dawkins on their speed dial, nor are we buddies with him, so we can't get him to agree to much of anything. But it would help if Sarfati said that he would like to have a written exchange with Dawkins. If he expressed an interest, that's something one could approach Dawkins with, you know?

"Yes, there are piles of BS a mile high about the unproven and untenable hypothesis of macroevolution"

Confirmed theory, actually. You have some reading to catch up on.

"and yet all of them are built upon fallacies and fairy tales. ALL OF THEM."

Then why has nobody managed to refute the theory of evolution?

Name the specific fallacies.

You're on shaky ground here, since just about every counterargument to the theory of evolution that you have presented has been based on logical fallacies, specifically argument from incredulity, ad hominem (please look this up if you don't understand it - no, really), argument from authority, fallacy of division, fallacy of composition, strawman argument. There are more, but those are the prevailing ones. Oh, and the Big Evil Conspiracy, of course.

"You calling Jonathan Sarfati a liar is rather like Bill Clinton lecturing on celibacy."

As creationist commenter Lista has observed, charges of lying do depend on demonstrating not just untruth, but also intention.

But just out of curiosity, could you please point out a lie that you think Jon Woolf has presented? I've been observing Woolf's commenting since he first showed up here, and AFAIK he hasn't presented a single untruth.

If you want to paint him a liar, please be specific about the lies you think he's presented.

"You calling me a fool is worse, as I am a Christian and the definition of a fool is as follows = "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.""

??? That's not a definition of a fool, it's a pithy saying. Do you really think, based on that Bible verse, that "fool" is a synonym for "someone who doesn't believe in God"? Check your dictionary. People who believe in God are certainly capable of being fools.

"The only thing Darwinism has going for it is that it eliminates God from the picture."

Judging by the number of people who believe in God and who also accept the theory of evolution, this statement of yours doesn't contain a whole lot of sense.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Jon Woolf, I have carefully carved up all of your foundational arguments for evolution and sliced them and diced them into little pieces."

Take - just as an example - the list of Jon Woolf's questions above. Where did you ever address these questions, let alone "carve them up"? Your boast is simply not based on reality.

"Also, when creationists debate darwinists the darwinists get beat up."

Wishful thinking. When what you call "Darwinists" "beat up" creationists, you complain about a vast unproven conspiracy.

"This is why Dawkins dodges Sarfati. Listen, you get Dawkins to agree to debate Sarfati and I will get Sarfati to agree, I betcha!"

Okay, since you're driving Sarfati around for a couple of days, ask him if he wants to debate Dawkins in an online debate. A written one. In a live setting of limited duration it's too easy for creationists to do a Gish gallop and engage in emotional appeals etc. and dodge factual discussion. Not so easy in writing. (Though you, Radar, are no stranger to the art of evasion in a written format...)

BTW, AFAIK none of the commenters here have Dawkins on their speed dial, nor are we buddies with him, so we can't get him to agree to much of anything. But it would help if Sarfati said that he would like to have a written exchange with Dawkins. If he expressed an interest, that's something one could approach Dawkins with, you know?

"Yes, there are piles of BS a mile high about the unproven and untenable hypothesis of macroevolution"

Confirmed theory, actually. You have some reading to catch up on.

"and yet all of them are built upon fallacies and fairy tales. ALL OF THEM."

Then why has nobody managed to refute the theory of evolution?

Name the specific fallacies.

You're on shaky ground here, since just about every counterargument to the theory of evolution that you have presented has been based on logical fallacies, specifically argument from incredulity, ad hominem (please look this up if you don't understand it - no, really), argument from authority, fallacy of division, fallacy of composition, strawman argument. There are more, but those are the prevailing ones. Oh, and that conspiracy thing, of course.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"You calling Jonathan Sarfati a liar is rather like Bill Clinton lecturing on celibacy."

As creationist commenter Lista has observed, charges of lying do depend on demonstrating not just untruth, but also intention.

But just out of curiosity, could you please point out a lie that you think Jon Woolf has presented? I've been observing Woolf's commenting since he first showed up here, and AFAIK he hasn't presented a single untruth.

If you want to paint him a liar, please be specific about the lies you think he's presented.

"You calling me a fool is worse, as I am a Christian and the definition of a fool is as follows = "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.""

??? That's not a definition of a fool, it's a pithy saying. Do you really think, based on that Bible verse, that "fool" is a synonym for "someone who doesn't believe in God"? Check your dictionary. People who believe in God are certainly capable of being fools.

"The only thing Darwinism has going for it is that it eliminates God from the picture."

Judging by the number of people who believe in God and who also accept the theory of evolution, this statement of yours doesn't contain a whole lot of sense.

AmericanVet said...

Refute the "theory" of evolution? First present a piece of evidence that supports it! Not suppositions and fairy tales but some solid piece of evidence. There is no there there. No one has ever observed evolution happening, so there is nothing to refute!

Bacteria remain bacteria, dogs remain dogs. No new kinds appear. No life forms from non-life. No information is formed from a natural cause.

Like the emperor's new clothes, there is nothing but the stories themselves to refute because all the evidence is on the side of creation and design.

scohen said...

"I didn't block a conversation between cohen and Kevin"

Actually, you did. You had a reason for blocking it, but you certainly blocked it.

"What I will not do is give out personal information of my students."

First off, I never asked for any personal information. Secondly, I made several suggestions on how Kevin and I could communicate temporarily, all of which were rejected by you.

I agree with mr. Whatsit above, your statement above was *at best* disingenuous.

"No new kinds appear."
Did you plan on ever answering my questions about 'whale kinds' and whether ichthyosaurs and dolphins have ever been found in the same strata?

Without a rigorous definition of kind, that's a pretty bold statement. From where I sit, Kind can mean pretty much anything you want it to.

Jon Woolf said...

"First present a piece of evidence that supports it! Not suppositions and fairy tales but some solid piece of evidence. "

OK.

1: The human chromosome designated "human chromosome #2" has embedded telomeres and an inactivated second centromere, demonstrating that it was probably formed by the fusion of two smaller chromosomes.

2) Chromosomes always come in pairs, so this fusion event must have reduced the ancestor's n number by 1, and its 2n number by 2.

3) Humans have one fewer chromosome-pair (2n=46) than our nearest relative, the chimpanzee (2n=48).

4) Genetic analysis shows that human chromosome #2 contains the same genes, in the same sequences, as two of the chimpanzee's chromosomes.

For more information:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29

That's evidence for common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees -- evolution.

radar said...

Jon Woolf, really, the chimp genome and the human genome are 23% different, which is a very significant difference. So whatever the explanation for your pet spot on the gene might be, it cannot in any way prove that humans came from chimps because we are far too unrelated. But, yes, I will waste this question on Jonathan tomorrow.

Baramin = created kind. The definition is simple and clear. Kind is the original form of organism from which all of it's speciated descendants come. Baraminologists can tell that the original wolf-dog was the source of wolves and dogs and coyotes but it takes more research to determine how many species have come from the original.

In the case of whales we see the possibilities of both dolphins and blue whales to have descended from one original kind. But it will take a lot of work to figure this out.

Linnaeus did a great job considering the tools he had at hand to devise a classification system. His system was intended to do what Baraminologists want to do - connect the descendants to the ancestor. Learning all we can about the DNA of organisms will help us eventually figure it out.

Follower of Jesus said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous whatsit said...

"Jon Woolf, really, the chimp genome and the human genome are 23% different, which is a very significant difference. So whatever the explanation for your pet spot on the gene might be, it cannot in any way prove that humans came from chimps because we are far too unrelated. But, yes, I will waste this question on Jonathan tomorrow."

You might want to get your facts right before you do that, and ideally present Sarfati with Jon Woolf's original wording, not your paraphrase.

You dismiss Jon Woolf's point not for any substantive or relevant point (most likely because you don't understand it - all the more reason to use Woolf's wording), but because "the chimp genome and the human genome are 23% different" and "we are far too unrelated".

This is nonsense of the highest order. The chimp genome and the human genome are not 23% different, but 1.23% different.

Seriously, Radar, you've come up with some blunders in your time, but this is one for the Hall of Fame. :-)

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Baramin = created kind."

An etymological definition, not a functional scientific one.

"The definition is simple and clear. Kind is the original form of organism from which all of it's speciated descendants come."

That would indicate that a baramin is at a higher level than a species. Okay. BTW, is this a definition from a baraminologist, or did you just make it up?

"Baraminologists can tell that the original wolf-dog was the source of wolves and dogs and coyotes but it takes more research to determine how many species have come from the original."

And how can baraminologists tell this, exactly? Can you name the baraminologist research that determined this?

Anonymous said...

"First present a piece of evidence that supports it! Not suppositions and fairy tales but some solid piece of evidence."

The sequential nature of fossils found in the fossil record, of course. It clearly indicates certain types of organisms living before and after certain other types of organisms, indicating a progression of organisms that paints a clear picture of macroevolution having occurred.

YEC has never come up with any way to explain this arrangement within the YEC worldview. Ever.

"all the evidence is on the side of creation and design"

Okay, so what is the YEC explanation for the arrangement of fossils in the fossil record?

Anonymous said...

"Linnaeus did a great job considering the tools he had at hand to devise a classification system. His system was intended to do what Baraminologists want to do - connect the descendants to the ancestor. Learning all we can about the DNA of organisms will help us eventually figure it out."

Could it be that you're actually coming around to an evolution perspective? What's this about connecting descendants to ancestors? According to you, there are only (more or less) identical ancestors and descendants, so what would there be to connect?

You are correct, though, that DNA provides valuable information about evolution, and can be used in combination with the fossil record in mapping a pretty detailed picture of the history of life on Earth.

radar said...

"So what is this great and
overwhelming ‘proof’ of chimp-human
common ancestry? Researchers claim
that there is little genetic difference between us (‘only’ 4%). This is a very strange kind of proof becauseit is actually more than double the percentage difference that has been
claimed for years!

The reality is, no matter what
t h e p e r c e n t a g e
difference, whether 2%, 4% or 10%,
they still would have claimed that Darwin was right.

Fu r t h e r, t h e use of percentages o b s c u r e s t h e
magnitude of the differences. For
example, 1.23% of the differences
are single base pair substitutions (1.06% are believed to be
fixed differences6). This doesn’t sound like much until you realize that it represents ~35 million mutations! But that is only, because there are an additional ~40–45 million bases present
in humans and missing from chimps,
as well as about the same number
present in chimps that is absent from man. These extra DNA nucleotides are called ‘insertions’ or ‘deletions’
because in the evolutionary paradigm (indels) they are thought to have been added in or lost from the sequence. The majority of
these insertions are small (96% are
less than 20 base pairs in length) but some are several thousand base pairs long. The minimum possible number of insertion events is around 5 million, counting each insertion sequence as
one mutation event.

Adding the 35
million substitutions yields at least 40 million separate mutation events that would separate the two species. But the total number of DNA nucleotide differences is about 125 million. To put the numbers into perspective,a typical page of text might have 4,000 letters and spaces. It would take 10,000 pages of text to equal 40 million letters, the minimum number of mutation events. And it would take over 31,000 pages to list the 125 million base sequences that are different.
There are very significant
differences in transposable elements.

Humans have many more short
interspersed elements (SINEs) than
chimps but chimps have two novel
families of retroviral elements which are absent from man. Indeed, comparing endogenous ‘retroviral elements’yielded 73 human-specific insertions and 45 chimpanzee specific insertions.

Humans have two SINE (Alu) families
that the chimpanzees lack and humanshave significantly more copies (~7,000 human-specific copies vs ~2,300 chimpanzee specific ones). There are also ~2,000 lineage specific L1
elements. All of these lineage specific changes would be required to take place sometime between the last chimp/human common ancestor, and the most recent common ancestor for all people on the planet. Importantly, these are modifications for which there
is no known selective advantage.
Small scale insertions are not the
only differences.

A major distinction between chimpanzees and man is the
fact that chimpanzees have 48 (24
pairs) chromosomes while man has 46
(23 pairs). Evolutionists claim that two chromosomes in the putative human chimp
common ancestor were fused
to become the human chromosome"

radar said...

If I see any commenters calling Dr. Sarfati names and lying about him I will delete the comments and, if they continue, I will begin deleting that commenter altogether. Your unsubstantiated and rude charges will not be allowed on my blog!

radar said...

Woolf, I asked you for your list and you gave me a chimp genome question. It has been answered.

radar said...

As to Dr. Sarfati, I was present at a meeting when Dr. Hugh Ross would not debate Dr. Sarfati and asked for a substitute. Hugh Ross is a theistic evolutionist and didn't care to lock horns with Sarfati. So Danny Faulkner stepped in. Jonathan Sarfati is very willing to debate Richard Dawkins.

If any of you know Richard Dawkins, let him know that Dr. Sarfati has agreed in advance to debate him in an open forum and, in fact, looks forward to the opportunity!

AmericanVet said...

scohen, you should remember that your statements on this blog are recorded. I caught you in the Hartnett debacle and even though I actually quoted your words back to you verbatim you were still too proud to admit your error.

Now you are saying I blocked a conversation between you and Kevin when in fact I offered you an avenue you refused and, as it happens, you and I both know that statement you are making is a lie as well. I didn't block and haven't blocked and am not blocking you, period.

scohen said...

"scohen, you should remember that your statements on this blog are recorded."

Umm, duh? I'm glad of that, because when you quote me out of context, I get to search the blog and find the proper context and include it.

"I caught you in the Hartnett debacle"

That's your opinion. Unfortunately, it's not correct. Honestly, if I had a fields medal winner say that I'm correct, you wouldn't believe that, would you? You're so blinded that you can't even see that Kevin agrees with me.

"you are saying I blocked a conversation between you and Kevin "

I'm not the only one. Creeper, Jon, Canuck, and several anonymous commenters also said that. I'm agreeing with them.

"I offered you an avenue"
One that you controlled. No thanks. I offered several safe avenues that any reasonable person would have agreed to, but you declined. Why's that, I wonder?

"you and I both know that statement you are making is a lie"

That definition of 'lie' of yours sure is malleable, isn't it?


"I didn't block and haven't blocked"

So, what would you call it? How about you didn't even try to foster direct communication between Kevin and I in any meaningful way whatsoever.

Does that work for you?

No matter. I'm pursuing another strategy that's already bearing fruit. You'll hear from me when it's done.

BTW, I love how you have such a double standard regarding usage of the word 'lie'. If anyone levels it against Dr. Safarti, they're off your blog, but you're free to use it against anyone that disagrees with you. Me, Jon, Creeper, etc.

Maybe you should try to be consistent?

Anonymous said...

"If any of you know Richard Dawkins, let him know that Dr. Sarfati has agreed in advance to debate him in an open forum and, in fact, looks forward to the opportunity!"

Does that include a written forum?

Anonymous said...

Radar left to his own devices: difference between man and chimp genome is a whopping 23%.

Radar pasting article from creation.com (without attribution, perhaps an oversight): look at the big numbers! = Argument from incredulity.

So far, no solid comeback on this from the YECs.

BTW, scohen is correct. You should take a closer look at his actual statements and what Kevin said. Kevin actually confirmed scohen's statements.

Anonymous said...

"If I see any commenters calling Dr. Sarfati names and lying about him I will delete the comments and, if they continue, I will begin deleting that commenter altogether. Your unsubstantiated and rude charges will not be allowed on my blog!"

Well, it was "Follower of Jesus" who was most adamant on that point. But I happen to agree with you.

It would help if you, as the proprietor of this blog, led by example instead of "do as I say, not as I do", and thus adopted a more civil tone. There is no need to accuse people who disagree with you of being "liars" at every turn. If you have superior arguments, let them speak for themselves.

Anonymous said...

"Refute the "theory" of evolution? First present a piece of evidence that supports it!"

We can start with the evidence for macroevolution having taken place, which is uncontroversial: the consistent placement of fossils over time in the fossil record.

Follower of Jesus said...

I made some reasonable and politely worded criticism of Jonathan Sarfati, and it was censored from this blog.

Coward.

And that's precisely the problem. When your position is so weak, the only way you can pretend you've won the argument is to blot out your critics and then crow over your "speechless" opponents, just like Sarfati does himself on a regular basis.

So, readers, what aren't you reading about the good Doctor? What is so embarassing that it needs to be removed on behalf of (at the request of?) Sarfati himself?

Look, if you believe in Creationism (as I do) then all I'm saying is that there is a way you do and a way you don't go about it. You don't go about it by grandstanding and oiling your way around good Christians who are unaware of just how much sneering contempt you hold for brothers and sisters in Christ who share your beliefs but just aren't filling your pockets in the process.

If you censor this comment, I win, because you prove absolutely I am right.

AmericanVet said...

The incorrectly named "follower of Jesus" made a comment so bad I had to erase it. I have only had to erase maybe four comments in all these years of blogging.

He then calls me a coward, revealing that he is not a follower of Jesus at all but mislabeled.

So this time he keeps himself civil and simply snivels. I don't remove comments except for cause. Shame on follower of Jesus for being so bad it was required. Keep your language civil. You might dislike Dr. Sarfati but he is a genuine Christian and a top scientist. Who are you and why are you so negative? Keep it civil or I will remove it again.

Comments on this blog are NOT monitored and most comments disagree with me. I don't remove comments because they disagree with me, only for cause. You need to behave.

AmericanVet said...

scohen, I know the Kevin does NOT agree with you. You don't think I stay in communication with Kevin? You don't think Kevin sent me an answer that revealed your mistake on accident, do you?

As to the chimp genome, there are so many differences that I had to use several paragraphs just to point the majority of them out.

As to the fossil record, we will address that when Jon's list of questions are answered, which will be this week.

Shame on every one of you who complains about my removal of the nasty comments by a cad! I let you rake me over the coals, make ludicrous statements and I leave them up. I don't moderate the blog so that scohen and creeper and Woolf and others can vehemently disagree with me. I do not chase trolls away. I only ask that people remain civil. Do that and your comments will remain.

AmericanVet said...

Jon Woolf, sorry you cannot read technical journals and do not understand the language of geneticists. If you re-read my comment you will see that 1.23 per cent difference is only in one small area of the DNA string and not the entire string, but in fact there are huge differences between chimp and man and there is no reason to say that there is a link between chimps and man. It is a supposition made with a very weak and unsupported argument. It is much more reasonable to suppose that the Designer preferred 23 chromosomes for mankind or joined the one chromosome when He changed organisms, either after the Garden of Eden or at the time of the Flood. In any case no reason to think that man was not fully man at any time.

Anonymous said...

"scohen, I know the Kevin does NOT agree with you. You don't think I stay in communication with Kevin?"

You see, that's the problem with not allowing an open discussion between scohen and Kevin for all to see. The part of Kevin's writing that you have shown on the blog so far does confirm what scohen was saying, and now you're claiming (or at least implying) that in other correspondence that you haven't shown Kevin supposedly does make it clear that he disagrees with scohen.

So how about you present that part, the part where Kevin does make it clear that he disagrees with scohen? (If it exists, that is.)

Or better yet, allow scohen and Kevin to communicate with each other openly?

Anonymous said...

"If you re-read my comment you will see that 1.23 per cent difference is only in one small area of the DNA string and not the entire string, but in fact there are huge differences between chimp and man and there is no reason to say that there is a link between chimps and man."

Just out of curiosity, is this you doubling down and sticking by your claim that man and chimp genomes are 23% different?

Anonymous said...

AmericanVet,

Yes, if a commenter is truly beyond the pale, then I agree, it's your blog and you can delete the post and ask people to be civil.

However, I attempted to post only this link, without commentary, which seems to draw together some defendable criticisms of Sarfati.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sarfati

My intention was to allow your readers to do some more background work and perhaps return here and make up their own minds.

You, however, censored my comment as well! All it was was a link!

Forgive me, but it makes me think that you're doing more than upholding the tone. You're trying to defend the indefensible. Sarfati should not be above criticism just because you've broken bread with him.

Will you leave the link up this time?

Anonymous said...

"If you re-read my comment you will see that 1.23 per cent difference is only in one small area of the DNA string and not the entire string,"

No, the 1.23% difference was in reference to the entire DNA string. It has since been revised by a relatively small amount so that scientists now estimate approx. 96% similarity. In any case, your estimate of 23% difference is way off-base, and I doubt you can even find a creation scientist to back you up on that one.

Will your provide prevent you from admitting fault yet again?

"but in fact there are huge differences between chimp and man and there is no reason to say that there is a link between chimps and man."

Huge differences? 4 percent?

96% similarity?

And let's not even get started on endogenous retroviruses.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Jon Woolf, sorry you cannot read technical journals and do not understand the language of geneticists."

This from the guy who claimed that the human and chimp genomes differ by 23%.

Priceless.

Anonymous said...

"As to the chimp genome, there are so many differences that I had to use several paragraphs just to point the majority of them out."

How many paragraphs would it take to point out the similarities?

AmericanVet said...

How many paragraphs would it take to point out the similarities between a man and a fern?

Quit trying to take genome information out of context. There are massive differences between Chimp DNA and Human DNA.

Anonymous, As for simply putting up a link that is hostile to Dr. Sarfati, this time you were civil so I will not delete the comment.

AmericanVet said...

Also, ERVs have been shown to be entirely different than Darwinist portrayed them to be. I have already posted on the actual ERV findings of the 21st Century. Really, commenters need to drag themselves kicking and screaming into the new century! Abandon Darwin now before the parade passes you by...

You chimpies, answer me this - what is the difference in the total genome of both? I say it is far more than 100 million components. How do you claim a tiny difference when there are in actuality over 100 million differences in their DNA strings?

AmericanVet said...

Another common falsehood is the sequential fossil record. When Darwinists find a fossil of a certain kind, they name the layer where the fossil was found for the layer associated with that fossil. Thus they have an age and a name for that layer. Then they say all fossils found in that particular layer are of a certain age.

The problem is that sometimes they find anomalous fossils in that layer. What often happens is that the field scientist gives the creature a new name even though it is the same animal associated with a different rock layer.

Furthermore, we find many organisms which are claimed to be found in only one layer which we have found are still alive today. How did the Coelecanth jump past all those millions of years of rock layers without a trace and then wind up alive off the coast of South Africa in the 20th Century?

The fact is that "Lazarus" taxa debunk the sequential nature of the fossil record because they are all supposedly extinct and not found in later layers and yet we find them now. The Gladiator Fly, the Lazarus Rat, the Wollemi Pines and on and on and on they go. Darwinists can rename an Apatasaurus when they find it in the "wrong" layer and call it something else. They can deliberately ignore fossils that do not belong in an attempt to keep the lies going. But the sequential fossil record ship is overturned by Lazarus Taxa and that is one thing Darwinists cannot hide or explain away.

AmericanVet said...

Within a couple of days I will have the famous "Woolf string of questions" as the title of a blogpost and maybe we can move on from this one.

Jon Woolf said...

"Jon Woolf, sorry you cannot read technical journals and do not understand the language of geneticists. If you re-read my comment you will see that 1.23 per cent difference is only in one small area of the DNA string and not the entire string..."

Uh, Radar, first of all you said no such thing. Did you not understand the material you were parroting? It read "For
example, 1.23% of the differences
are single base pair substitutions (1.06% are believed to be
fixed differences6)." This is a description of what category those mutations belong to, not of where they're located in the genome. A "single base pair substitution" mutation means that a single base on one strand of DNA was swapped for a different base -- a C for a G, or an A for a T -- without affecting the total number of bases. In many cases, single-base-pair substitutions don't even change the amino-acid being coded for.

Second, I never commented on the "percentage of difference between the human and chimpanzee genome." That was someone else.

Jon Woolf said...

Now, as for this: "How did the Coelecanth jump past all those millions of years of rock layers without a trace and then wind up alive off the coast of South Africa in the 20th Century?"

Point one, the living coelacanth species Latimeria chalumnae has never been found as a fossil.

Point two, the living species of coelacanths are deepwater fish. Anyone who knows marine taphonomy knows that deepwater marine fishes are among the least likely organisms to be fossilized.

"The fact is that "Lazarus" taxa debunk the sequential nature of the fossil record..."

Thinking wishful again, I see. And still forgetting Rule 15. Lazarus taxa represent examples of organisms that were thought to be extinct, but reappeared later. There are maybe a hundred or two of them known, and most of those are living organisms that were thought to have gone extinct within the last couple of hundred years, but survived as remnant populations that may or may not be viable over the long term. The number of fossil Lazarus taxa known is under twenty.

Jon Woolf said...

"The sequential nature of the fossil record" refers to two well-established facts about the fossil record. First, we never find fossils of advanced types of organisms in strata below any possible ancestor for those organisms. No cases of modern horses below Hyracotherium. No birds below maniraptoran dinosaurs. No tyrannosaurs below primitive theropods. No elephants below primitive mammals.

Second, we always find the same combinations of fossils in a given formation of rock, no matter where our particular exposure happens to be located. The Morrison Formation, for example, covers six hundred thousand square miles of western North America, hundreds of feet thick, and it always contains the same fauna. You won't find any large mammals in the Morrison. Nor will you find any large marine animals, cynodonts, thecodonts, or therapsids. Morrison rocks yield only dinosaurs typical of the Late Jurassic, and the lesser species that shared their world.

What's true of the Morrison is true of every other sedimentary rock formation, too. Every one is easily identified by its unique mix of fossil species. The number of rock strata that have been found to contain sauropods and mammoths, or dromaeosaurs and lions, or ichthyosaurs and dolphins, or any similar combination, is zero.

Get it? I'll repeat it, just to be sure: The number of sedimentary strata which have been found to contain mixes of species from different geologic periods, or highly derived species below any possible ancestor for them, is ZERO.

ZERO cases of sauropods and mammoths together.

ZERO cases of mosasaurs and whales together.

ZERO cases of ichthyosaurs and dolphins together.

ZERO cases of birds below basal dinosaurs.

ZERO cases of deciduous trees below primitive land plants.

ZERO cases of flounder and catfish living alongside ostracoderms.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

That's what palaeontologists mean when they talk about "the sequential nature of the fossil record."

Anonymous said...

Third time lucky?

I keep putting this link up, AmericanVet keeps censoring it. Embarassed? He should be

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sarfati

Anonymous said...

"How many paragraphs would it take to point out the similarities between a man and a fern?"

A lot, but a lot less than the one for the similarities between man and chimp. But do you notice how this kind of argument from incredulity ("millions and millions"!!) doesn't lead anywhere?

"Quit trying to take genome information out of context."

Isn't that what you just did by simply taking the number "1.23%" from a completely different context than the one being originally discussed?

"There are massive differences between Chimp DNA and Human DNA."

96% similarity is extremely similar.

Or are you seriously sticking by your claim that man and chimp genomes are 23% different?

"Anonymous, As for simply putting up a link that is hostile to Dr. Sarfati, this time you were civil so I will not delete the comment."

That was somebody called "Follower of Jesus", not me. Getting confused?

Anonymous said...

And by the way, I'm not the Anonymous putting up the Sarfati links.

Anonymous said...

Jon Woolf, nice job of summarizing the fossil record issue. Radar keeps evading this, but he can't refute the simple facts at hand that confirm macroevolution having taken place over time.

Anonymous said...

"Within a couple of days I will have the famous "Woolf string of questions" as the title of a blogpost and maybe we can move on from this one."

Prediction: you will have nothing but evasions and misrepresentations.

IAMB said...

Jon, for the sake of correctness:
A "single base pair substitution" mutation means that a single base on one strand of DNA was swapped for a different base -- a C for a G, or an A for a T -- without affecting the total number of bases.

It's actually more often A<-->G and C<-->T (transitions) rather than C<-->G or A<-->T (transversions) partially due to transversions causing a distortion in the DNA backbone that's easily recognized and repaired. Your mileage may vary, but the typically accepted transition/transversion ratio is around three or four to one.

The really interesting ones are when you get things like cytosine deamination and end up with uracil in a DNA molecule...

Jon Woolf said...

Correction noted & appreciated, IAMB. Thanks.