Search This Blog

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Christian Faith versus Darwinist Faith. Other voices speak!

Oh, you do not think Darwinism is a faith?   Darwinism is a fundamental doctrine of the Naturalistic Materialistic Faith.   Adherents include Atheists, Agnostics, Pagans, Pantheists and certainly radical Environmentalists.   While Darwinism is obviously a doctrine, for the most part radical environmentalism is as well.

To quote my revered elder, Dr. CR Wood:

     An oxymoron is not a person with a low I.Q. who needs a lot of air.  It is a figure of speech that involves placing opposing views or utterly opposite words together.  An example with be “thunderous silence” or “uniquely ubiquitous.”  Another very current example would be “A Christian Environmentalist.”  Are there not, then, Christians who are concerned about the environment?  Most certainly, but there is a vast difference between those who are concerned with the ”stewardship of the planet” and “environmentalists”

    The first and most obvious difference is that true environmentalists fall into one of three or four categories spiritually.  They are either worshipers of “Gaia” or “Mother Earth,” (note the very intentional feminine terminology), Pantheists (those who believe that all is God and God is all - these are the people who think that hugging a tree is an act of worship), Agnostics - those who aren’t sure if there is a  God or if we can even know for sure about the entire God question -and Atheists, those who are convinced there is no God.  Obviously, there is no room for a Bible-believer in any of these positions.

     Beyond that basic difference, true environmentalists tend toward weird extremes.  There are those - and they are many - who believe we should return the planet to its original or ancient form by dismantling what the vast majority of us consider progress.  There are even those who go far beyond that and suggest that we have an obligation to lessen the population strain on the earth by taking ourselves out of it (yes, they are suggesting that large numbers of us have an obligation to commit suicide, the only problem being that they want to talk the talk, but none of them seems willing to walk the walk).  Neither of these views seems in accord with a Biblical approach.

     Then there is the counter-intuitive relationship to the “settled science” of evolution.  Someone, somewhere told me that evolution involves the survival of the fittest.  I see environmentalism as seeking through “endangered species” activism and government regulation to assure the survival of the weakest .  Since we are assured that the progress of evolution is still taking place and most environmentalists are evolutionists, I see a basic contradiction.  Contrary actions involving evolution - and the theory itself - hardly seem the pace for a believer to be involved.

     We can move on to the amount of pseudo-science involved in environmentalism.  In the last decade, we have seen “man-made global warming,” become “man-made climate change,” and more recently, to “climate change.”  Many, if not most, environmentalists are Liberals who believe a lie is not a lie, even if it is demonstrably untrue, if it fits the narrative or advances a worthy cause.  Legitimate findings by equally legitimate scientists have given the lie to much of the global warming falsification, and the email leaks from the East Anglia Project along with the admission of fraud by a supposedly noted climatologist have weakened the position beyond comprehension of credibility.  Is there climate change?  Absolutely (and there always has been as far as we can ascertain). Is the climate change dramatic?  Not in the short term (but there certainly appears that there once was an Ice Age a very, very long time ago). Is the climate change created by or contributed to by humans?  Possibly slightly, but not sufficient to really make any significant difference.  Is the science really “settled?”  Absolutely not!   No Bible-believer should want to be associated with those who have such a record of distortion, duplicity and deceit.

     We are not Deists, believing that God created the universe, wound it up like a clock and tossed it, ticking, into space to run on its own.  We believe in the God Who created the universe, daily sustains it, and periodically, intervenes in its affairs. We know from Scripture that man isn’t going to blow up the earth or even wear it out.  At a point in time of His choosing - and known only to Him - He will care for the demolition and recreation of the earth.  Does that mean that we should just do anything we want to the earth and its creatures?  Most certainly not, but the terms used in Genesis for our relationship to the creation (especially “rule” and “dominion”) come from very strong Hebrew words that indicate that we are in charge, We might differ on the details, but we should all be concerned with the proper stewardship of the earth, but that is a far cry from environmentalism.  “A Christian Environmentalist?”  An oxymoron!   "

 “For those who understand, no explanation is needed.  For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.”  (Source unknown)


“Brilliance–even genius–is no guarantee that consequential factors have not been left out or misconceived. Intelligence minus judgment equals intellect. Wisdom is the rarest quality of all–the ability to combine intellect, knowledge, experience, and judgment in a way to produce a coherent understanding.  Wisdom requires self-discipline and an understanding of the realities of the world, including the limitations of one’s own experience and of reason itself. The opposite of high intellect is dullness or slowness, but the opposite of wisdom is foolishness, which is far more dangerous.”  - Conservative columnist and thinker, Thomas Sowell.  Note the definition of wisdom which is high-lighted.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." - Psalms 14:1 AND 53:1. - God  (Who repeats for the sake of emphasis).

How does a normal Christian think?   There is no cookie-cutter faith.   Christianity welcomes critical thinkers and questioning minds.   For example:


AAAAAAND one more time for the awesome Ian Juby!!!

Saturday, February 25, 2012

A matter of a technicality? Ryan Braun, chain of custody and defamation.

Sorry to all who expect this blog to be a one-trick pony.   This is a post about baseball, science, and the integrity of process.  This is a post about the besmirching of the good name of Ryan Braun and the process failure that has vindicated him...while leaving room for doubters to continue to deride him.   A classic case of "have you quit beating your wife yet?" being played out in the world of Major League Baseball (MLB) and the Players Association (MLBPA) because of a failure to follow protocol in drug testing. 

The following is excerpted from the Online Free Dictionary regarding libel and slander:

"Two torts that involve the communication of false information about a person, a group, or an entity such as a corporation. Libel is any Defamation that can be seen, such as a writing, printing, effigy, movie, or statue. Slander is any defamation that is spoken and heard.

Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical.

To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.

To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning. It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so. Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory..."

I am NOT a Brewer's fan (White Sox and Reds) and not a Jew but I am disappointed with the world of journalism.   This concerns the case of Ryan Braun and the allegations of performance-enhancing drugs usage because of the results of a sample taken during last year's playoffs.  

ESPN's Outside The Lines referred to two sources when they released the story of Braun and a failed test back in December of 2011.   Braun had won the National League's Most Valuable Player award for 2011 and led his team to the MLB playoffs.  According to policy, the name of a player accused of violating MLB drug policy is NOT to be released until he is both charged and given a chance to appeal a failed test.  Someone was irresponsible if not criminal in leaking the information to ESPN.  Suspiciously, the ESPN reporters refer to two sources for the information and, as it happens, two collectors were the persons who broke the chain of custody with the urine samples that failed testing...and failed spectacularly at that!

Braun addressed the issues upon having his potential 50-game suspension overturned by a professional arbitrator.

The MLB collectors mishandled the samples, as Braun eloquently pointed out, with several FEDEX facilities open and the collectors supposedly being professional and responsible for knowing that the sample is supposed to be turned over to FEDEX immediately and assigned a number rather than a name.   Instead they broke chain of custody (this would have the evidence thrown out in a court of law 100 per cent of the time) and, suspiciously, Braun's positive result was released to ESPN reporters.   A Yahoo Sports reporter decided to make this statement:

"None of that changed the noon press conference in Maryvale. Accompanied by his agent and two public relations men, Braun walked from the right-field corner to a place in foul ground near the first-base dugout.
He will not sit out the Brewers’ first 50 games. He will play left field, bat third, and lead the defense of their National League Central title, almost like none of this ever happened.

It did, of course, and now we’re left to wonder who Ryan Braun is. Or was.

MLB thinks it knows. The public thinks it knows. Only Braun, however, knows for sure.

He fixed his stare.

“If I had done this intentionally or unintentionally, I would be the first one to step up and say I did it,” he said. “This substance never entered my body at any point. … There were a lot of times I wanted to come out and tell the entire story, to attack everybody as I’ve been attacked and had my name dragged through the mud.”
He concluded, “The truth prevailed.”

His eyes said yes.

Science said no, no, no."

The science cannot say "no no no" if the process was not controlled, so the statement is dramatic but inaccurate.  If a test is not run properly the results are suspect, no matter what field of science is involved.  Therefore, from a legal perspective the chain of custody was broken and from a scientific perspective the sample was not controlled properly.  The conclusion is a a great "gotcha" line but it is completely wrong.  The science was never given a chance to say anything because the possibility of tampering is there.  Given motive and opportunity, miscreants can find a way to tamper with a sample.  The point of the process is to avoid such situations.  The process was NOT followed, there was no excuse for the two day delay in delivering the sample to FEDEX.  The collector's lame explanation flies in the face of common sense.  Are we to believe that MLB would assign such a critical task to a couple of morons?  If your job is to take samples and deliver them, numbered, directly to FEDEX and you choose not to do so properly, then the observer should be asking how and why such incompetence is tolerated?

Why is it that these collectors held on to a sample for so long when it is their job to handle it properly?  How is it that Braun's name got out, anyway?  As an amateur scientist and forensics buff, when I see that a guy has 25 clean tests when the process was followed and a bad result when two guys break chain of custody AND Braun's name is released?  My focus leaves Braun and scrutiny lands squarely on the collectors! 

Is it possible that the collectors had rigged the samples somehow by adding a substance by sleight-of-hand during the time Braun produced the samples?   Is that why the collectors kept the samples in their home rather than sending them off to FEDEX, because they wanted an added substance to thoroughly mingle with the sample before it was tested?  Innumerable questions hang in the air, unanswered.   If Braun has been defamed then the MLB authorites should be trying to find out how the system failed rather than complaining about the decision of the arbitrator, a respected man in that field, who concluded that the evidence was sullied by a system failure.   As there was no question about the samples beforehand and the testing facility had no reason to believe that tampering may have occurred, there were no forensic tests performed to look for signs of tampering before the seals were broken and the testing done.   It is too late to go back in time and thoroughly scrutinize those containers now.  That horse is long gone from the barn.   MLB would be wise to ensure that said barn's door is secured properly in the future.

The fact that Braun's name was dragged through the mud and no one has scrutinized the collectors should bother a responsible reporter.  Braun has no "symptoms" of PED usage at all.  But an unfortunate fact of life is that there are people who are prejudiced against some people based on color or creed.  I would expect a responsible journalist to follow up on the questions instead of taking the easy way out and piling on Ryan Braun.   Yet a host of sports journalists are complaining that Braun was vindicated "on a technicality."   If they were accused of a crime and the evidence against them was mishandled, would they ask the judge and jury to go ahead and use it against them anyway?  I think not!

I would not be surprised if Braun decides to investigate the collectors and perhaps bring suit against them.  As an investigative journalist, I would be interested in researching how Braun's name was released.  If you think like a detective and consider the mishandling of the sample and the release of the name as a crime, then the number one suspects on your evidence board are the two collectors.  Who else would have been able to leak the name?  Who else had possession of the samples for a long period of time with no oversight?  Means, opportunity and motive...the two collectors would certainly have the first two of the three standards for identifying criminal suspects.   Motive remains entirely unclear because the investigation of the leak and leakers is yet to come. 

I do hope a responsible investigative journalist decides to follow up without prejudice and do so with intelligence.  It would be great to read baseball commentary by columnists from a big organization like Yahoo Sports that is more thoughtful than "Ryan Braun’s words say one thing, science another."  To me, it was a hit piece based on presuppositions that are not supportable scientifically or legally.  The science was not allowed to say anything authoritative because of the irresponsible actions of the collectors.   To suggest otherwise seems irresponsible to me.  I made sure to relay my opinion of that article to the author.   If he replies and wants to have his reply made public, I will follow up accordingly.   Just because I have left the field of sports journalism does not mean I do not care about the profession.   (It does mean I do not have an editor, however, for better or worse.   I simply tell it like I think it is.)

One of my hobbies involves the statistical analysis of baseball players and their performance over the course of their careers.   Athletes and their careers can be compared to an iceberg.   The bigger the iceberg, the more ice above the surface.   That is another way to say that statistics indicate a bell curve of production.   Over the course of an athlete's life, only a small portion of his lifetime will be spent playing major league baseball.   The more talented athletes tend to make it to the major leagues earlier and remain good enough to play later than the norm.   If the peak of a typical career is around the age of 29 or 30 (some would argue for 26 or 27 but for purposes of great players 30 is a pretty common midline) the very greatest players tend to get to the majors by age 20 or 21 and stay in the majors until around age 40.   Less talented players take longer to get to the majors and do not stay nearly as long.  Barring injuries, the bell curve applies to baseball performance and PED users tend to show up as outliers.   Braun  is not an outlier in any way as a young man who made the majors at age 23.  Players who debut at that age are often very good and sometimes organizational mistakes keep youngsters in the minor leagues too long.   This happened to Wade Boggs, who was kept in the minor leagues by Boston for some strange reasons until age 24, whereupon he hit .349 and then proceeded to lead the American League in batting average in five of the next six seasons. 

The career path of PED user Barry Bonds is statistically aberrant.  Bonds produced his best seasons at an age when other great players were falling back towards mediocrity.   In fact several players accused and evidentially shown to have been PED users produced seasons that were far off the expected path of their careers.   The typical PED user of the past has gotten bigger and often faster and have recovered faster from injuries than a normal human. Thus the apparent superhuman numbers put up by men like Bonds and Roger Clemens link directly to their use of PED according to statistical analysis as well as observation.  Bonds, for instance, grew in both shoe and hat size in his 30's!  

Ryan Braun's career path is completely typical of a very good player bordering on greatness, winning Rookie of the Year at age 23 and then having his best season at age 27.   It is very common for a batter to have his best season at age 26 or 27.   Braun's appearance physically is that of a normal athlete, he has not beefed up or had any of the physical symptoms of PED usage and his career path is absolutely normal for his talent level.   The times recorded for his running the bases have been normal and the track of his long hits have been within normal ranges.   There is no evidence at all that Ryan Braun has ever done PEDs other than this one sample which was mishandled by two men who have had the benefit of anonymity.   Meanwhile, Braun's test results, which are by agreement supposed to be secret, were released.  Mark Fainaru-Wada and T.J. Quinn are the ESPN reporters who broke this story back in December.   Only they know who is responsible for leaking the Braun test results.   They are definitely responsible for revealing Braun's name in violation of MLB drug policy.  Investigative reporters are supposed to investigate (I wish more of them were doing some investigating in Washington, DC!) and only they can decide whether it is ethical to reveal information they have uncovered.  Naturally the job implies that, if you find out secrets, you break the story before someone else beats you to it!  Sports reporters are not part of MLB management or the MLBPA and are legally entitled to reveal such secrets.   However, the source(s) did violate MLB policy and may also find themselves facing a defamation lawsuit.  The truly interesting story would (and hopefully will) be the story of the revelation itself.  Who passed the news to ESPN and why did they do it?   Supposedly there were only three people in the world who knew the name associated with the samples that failed during the testing process;  Ryan Braun and the two collectors. 
How can Ryan Braun reclaim his good name when careless reporters add to the damage done by careless and possibly malevolent collectors?  Not one of us should have even heard of this case.  How would you feel if you were accused of child abuse?  Even if the charges were dropped you would be labeled.  You would carry it around like an albatross around your neck.  This is what has been done to Braun.  He should pursue a defamation case against whoever released his name to the ESPN reporters and, if I were Braun, I would spend a good deal of my large paycheck on private detectives vigorously investigating the collectors to discover whether or not they were the source of the leak and whether they could be linked to possession of synthetic testosterone.  The samples tested so ridiculously high that one suspects contamination.  

The chain of custody protocol failure alone was enough for highly respected arbitrator Shyam Das to overturn the potential 50 game suspension.  Go ahead and click on that link.  Das is no rookie, his credentials are impeccable and impressive.   Das has 30 days to deliver a written verdict to MLB and there are rumors that other factors were also involved in his decision.   But chain of custody failure would be enough and MLB representatives should quit issuing "spin" statements and admit that the system worked by being able to identify mistakes in the process.   For MLB to cry about the legal vindication of Ryan Braun now is equivalent to shooting  yourself in the foot,

Other voices:

TMZ "broke the story" that Braun's failed test was a result of another ailment, which quickly became rumors of STD treatments.  It turns out that Braun did not test positive for an STD and was not taking medication to treat an STD.  I think Craig Calcaterra sums things up nicely in the following two short articles:

Ryan Braun got off on a “technicality?” Bull!

Think Braun is still dirty? Fine, but then at least admit you don’t care about drug testing

Friday, February 24, 2012

Things Evolution is not - well-supported by the true believers

Due to vacation and then an illness my wife and I both caught while traveling (ah, togetherness!) I have not been working steadily and certainly not posting.   On the other hand, my last post was 99% Ian Juby and it was packed full of information and challenges to Darwinists...which they have pathetically failed to rise up to meet.  Somehow it reminds me of what Ian was addressing in his latest video, so in lieu of posting while sick, I will give Ian the wheel again:

It is true that commenters so-called "responses" to issues like the population of the Earth are much like answering the question, "How many of the fifty United States were considered colonies in the year 1750?" with the answer, "Marigolds." 

Not one of you has come close to challenging the information presented in my last post.  Consider perhaps changing your worldview?  Perhaps you pat each other on the back for your so-called "answers" but they are not good science or history and will not mollify the Giver of Final Grades.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Human footprints from 250 million years ago? Ian Juby follows up on a mystery from the 1930's, and another Delk situation is discerned.

Mini-vacation for us, so three Ian Juby videos and a well-argued look back at some human footprints found in "ancient" stone. Go Ian!

Note:  You can subscribe to Ian's you tubes, get his newsletter and of course peruse his previous articles by going to his website.   That is, if you want to hear some real science for a change rather than the Darwinist propaganda that relentlessly pounds away at you from the television, magazines, secular scientific outlets and academia in general?  

Special report #1: The strange fossil footprints of Berea, Kentucky

Several years back, with the help of friends in high places,  I had managed to track down (pun intended) an article from 1940 documenting the Berea, Kentucky fossil human footprints in Carboniferous rocks. Allegedly 250 million years old, fossil footprints in such rock are a huge problem for evolutionists who claim that humans had not evolved until the last 500,000 years or so, and our allegedly ancient hominid ancestors some 5  million years ago.

These footprints had been cited by creationists for years, and fossil human footprints being one of my specialties, I of course wanted to follow up on it.  The article was in Scientific American, January issue.  It contained four photos of which I took one quick glance, and with disappointment said "Nope, those are carvings, not genuine fossil footprints."

In fact, it was this very article from which many of you will have undoubtedly heard the quote by author Albert Ingalls, saying:

"If man, or even his ape ancestor, or even that ape ancestor's early mammalian ancestor, existed as far back as in the Carboniferous Period in any shape, then the whole science of geology is so wrong that all the geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving.
Hence, for the present at least, science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these mysterious prints in the mud of the Carboniferous Period with his feet."

Apparently I was not the only one to reject the Berea tracks as carvings, based on the photos provided in SciAm. The story that unfolded over the next year surprised me.  A gentleman I had met via the internet, David Willis, had wanted to go to Berea to investigate these tracks.  David turned out to be an incredible sleuth, finding out all kinds of details about the tracks and the archives at the college in Berea, as well as another alleged fossil human footprint in Tennessee which I had only seen on television.
I was in Ohio in 2009, and had a couple of days to spare before heading back to Canada. David's schedule also permitted him time, so we set out to Berea.

Professor Burroughs was the gentleman who originally studied the Berea tracks. A geologist who founded the geology department and taught at Berea college, there is now a small museum named after him in the college. I would dare say that little museum is well worth the visit.
Burroughs began his study of the tracks in 1930.   These footprints were so remarkably human, that  upon suggestion and discussion with Dr. Frank Thone (Science Service, an organization for the popularization of science associated with the Smithsonian)  he gave the tracks the latin name "Phenanthropus mirabilis," which means "looks human; remarkable."

The "fossil tracks" that appeared in January 1940 Scientific American, page 14.  Interpreted to be the Berea, Kentucky tracks by

When one looks at the photos provided in the SciAm article, one begins to wonder what drugs Burroughs and Thone were on to give such a name to tracks that do not look human... and so the first surprise came to light when David and I went through the correspondence and photographic archives at the college.  With the exception of the upper left "track" in the images above, *none* of the SciAm images even vaguely resembled the Berean footprints.  In fact, reading the first paragraph of the SciAm article carefully, one can read between the lines that they admit the photographs are not the Berean tracks!

"On sites reaching from Virginia and Pennsylvania, through Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and westward toward the Rocky Mountains, prints similar to those shown above, and from 5 to 10 inches long, have from time to time been found on the surface of exposed rocks, and more and more keep turning up as the years go by."
(emphasis mine)
Notice that they did not say where these particular tracks were found? Notice that they never claimed these tracks were the Berean footprints?  The photograph credit was given to F.R. Johnston.  Who on earth is F.R. Johnston?  We have no idea - because Johnston's name appears nowhere in any of the boxes of correspondence we looked at in the archives at Berea college.  All photographs of the Berea tracks were taken by a local professional photographer by the name of Coleman Ogg of Ogg studios, located right in Berea, whom Borroughs hired to photograph the tracks.

We found a copy of the SciAm article in Burrough's archives, complete with his disdainful comments on the bottom of the page:

(Photo used with Permission from the Berea College archives

The photographs were not of the Berea tracks, that much was clear. But it would appear that Burroughs did recognize the tracks depicted in the SciAm photos as he complained that Bushnell "did not visit these tracks." (emphasis mine)
In fact, in his typical die-hard sleuth fashion that would make Columbo proud, David continued to pursue further information on the whereabouts of the Berea tracks presently, and also obtained Dr. Gilmore's correspondence from the Smithsonian.  In his correspondence with Gilmore, Burroughs sent a photograph of what he called "Indian carvings" he had examined about 30 miles away from the Berea track site.  It would appear that somehow the photos that wound up in the SciAm article were of the "Indian carvings" found some 30 miles from the fossil human footprints, which Burroughs had also visited at one point and had determined were Indian carvings (petroglyphs) not tracks.

What we can say is that in all the photographs that David and I examined, as well as pencil rubbings of the Berea tracks, maps, and casts, we saw NO tracks that resembled the photos in the SciAm article.  At no place at the Berea site were three tracks found side by side. The toes of the Berea prints most certainly did not look like the toes in the second, third and fourth SciAm images, and the middle inset image (the first image shown in the group above) only vaguely resembles the Berea tracks (and appears to be lacking the fifth toe, which the Berea tracks did not). 

The images depicted in the SciAm article are
not the Berea tracks in question.

As if that wasn't scandalous enough, the Christian Science Monitor also ran a report which contained no photographs of the Berea tracks, but a pencil rubbing of a pair of the tracks, and a fossil trail of amphibian tracks from some unknown location! 

Photographs from Creation Science Monitor, Aug 31, 1938, pg 2, captioned "Upper: Photograph of footprints of a prehistoric creature appearing in solid sandstone on a Kentucky farm. Each foot has five toes, the foot-prints being 9-1/2 inches long and 6 inches across the toes.  Darkened area is due to film of oil left on rock after cast of footprints was made. Lower: Photograph of "rubbings" of footprints of one of the prehistoric creatures that left imprints of left and right feet where it stood in damp sand that later hardened into sandstone.  Note arch and five toes of each foot."

The errors are glaring: The upper photograph is of a pencil rubbing of a pair of the Berea human tracks (the original pencil rubbing is one of several in the Berea college archives that David and I saw), the lower image is a photograph of fossil amphibian tracks.  There is no darkened area caused by film of oil, because the upper image was a pencil rubbing, not the actual fossil.  There was still a copy of the press release photo in the Berea archives (left), as well as several original pencil rubbings (click on image for larger size):

(Photos used with Permission from the Berea College archives

Burroughs pointed out the glaring errors and flagrant misinformation contained in the reports in his correspondence with others.

The Scandal:
The scandalous nature of the reporting of the Berea tracks alone should raise a few eyebrows.  Both the SciAm and the Christian Science Monitor articles contained photos implied (or outrightly stated) to be photographs of the Berea tracks which were not the Berea tracks.  Both articles interviewed "experts" who then gave their "professional opinion" on the tracks depicted in the non-Berean footprint photographs appearing in the articles.  The CSM article even went to the trouble of depicting ten footprints in the amphibian tracks - the number matching the count of the Berean tracks at that time.  It would be gracious to call this horrible journalism or gross error.  It is probably more accurate to refer to the reports as fraudulent.
Ingalls mentioned that "science" had rejected the human footprint explanation. Actually, scientists of evolutionary persuasion had rejected that interpretation.  Their reasons were the same, vacuous reasons I hear regularly when people wish to dismiss profound evidence of man in "old" rock layers. 

In fact, reading through Burrough's private correspondence was quite enlightening, as in almost every instance Burroughs was very careful to always refer to the tracks as "human like." A letter to Borroughs from Waldemar Kaempffert, Science Editor of the New York Times, read "Dear Sir: The footprints to which you refer in your letter of recent date are probably not human in origin. There is not the slightest fossil evidence that Man was known in this country back of the last Ice Age.  Faithfully yours, (signature of Kaempffert)." (dated January 27, 1938. Burroughs noted he wrote back on January 31, 1938)

Burrough's response was probably the only time he wrote so emphatically: "They are P O S I T I V E L Y human footprints - brought to view thru erosion of millions of years." Burroughs invited Kaempffert to come see the tracks for himself, but it is unknown whether Kaempffert ever took him up on the offer.

Kaempffert's response, as well as that of Ingalls, smacks of the typical argumentation which I presented in the second pilot episode of Genesis Week, starting at the 7:37 mark:

What is the evidence?
So what then is the evidence?  The tracks were found in a ledge of rock that was part of the Pottsville formation sandstone.  This is one of the original photos of the site straight from Dr. Burrough's archives:

Click on image to view larger image.
(Photo used with Permission from the Berea College archives

David and I both obtained wax castings of the Berea tracks from the Berea college museum, and two of these tracks are now part of the new "fossil human footprints" exhibit in my traveling creation museum.  See "upcoming exhibitions" down below for more details on how you can see these tracks for yourself.

A single footprint from Berea.  Notice the displaced mud surrounding the heel which would not be present if the track was a carving.

While some are the strangest human footprints I have ever seen, I was shocked at what I saw.  Namely, there was displaced mud surrounding the prints.  This one fact alone convinced me the tracks were genuine, and Burroughs pointed this out repeatedly in his correspondence.  Burroughs and others who examined the tracks also pointed out that the grains of sand in the sandstone were more compacted under the tracks, and this compaction was visible under a magnifying glass. One of those persons was an artist and a sculptor by the name of Frank Loug (sp? The signature is difficult to read). Obviously Burroughs was seeking Loug's opinion as to whether these were carved tracks or not.  Loug made an interesting observation to which he wrote in an undated, signed letter (transcribed exactly as written, spelling mistakes are in the original):

"It is my opinion as artist and sculptor and from careful examination with magnifying glass, the impressions in the stone at [the Finnell farm] was made by imprint pressure in the substance before this hardened into stone. There is no logical, artistic argument to sustain an opinion that those marks are carved, chiseled, or made by hand. In the first place the prints are scattered aimlessly over the rock with no apparrent design; secondly there are no tool marks visible; thirdly the prints so closely resemble those made by human feet in a soft substance that a manual production so faithful could be, not only, almost beyond human skill, but is inconceivable since an artistic motive for such work would be lacking.
I can testify that the sand grains within the tracks are in closer combination than those on the rest of the surface of the stone. They have many appearances of having been compressed by a weight pressure, as the stone surface bulges upwards and outward around the tracks. Then our track, half of which is visible on the surface of the stone, the other half concealed beneath the partly cracked away, overlying layer of newer stone would seem to disprove any argument that these marks were around. All of the marks present an appearance singularly like that of human tracks."

 Indeed, Loug brings up a significant point about a particular track which became exposed over time, of which the heal is only visible in this early photo:

(Click on image for larger version - Photo used with Permission from the Berea College archives
This particular track is significant in that it was only exposed after Burroughs had started his research, and several eye witnesses signed a testimony documenting how this track became exposed after the overlying layer had eroded away.  The letter reads:

"We, the undersigned, herewith go on record that we saw the following on the sandstone rock which bears the fossil tracks on the farm of Mr. O. Finnell, Rockcastle County, Ky..  At the end of the rock outcrop where one footprint is partially covered by Pottsville sandstone solid and in place, the Pottsville sand grains near this partially exposed  track did not show foot-prints in the rock, until within the last few weeks. During these last few weeks sand grains have been gradually worn away due to people having walked on the rock and brushed the rock off, and rain water having washed over the rock, until now there are several imprints of toes and the front parts of the feet exposed to view.   ....This is one of several additional proofs that the tracks are real tracks, such proofs being the uproll of the sandstone adjacent to each track where the sand was pushed upward by the pressure of the creature's foot, the closer texture of the sand within than outside the tracks due to pressure of the feet, the fact that two tracks are distinctly seen to pass beneath solid Pottsville sandstone in situ.
Yours very truly, signed, W.G. Burroughs, M.R. Burroughs, G. Pruitte Sentt(?), Mark H. Clark, W. A. Finnell.
June 28, 1939
This is why the footprint count at the track site varies the reports: originally it was ten tracks, then eleven, then twelve.  It is because other footprints were being exposed over time.  The tracks are clearly not carvings.
You probably noticed the odd placement of the toes in the first casting. This is actually caused by the person habitually running barefoot.  In fact, one person who had visited the Berea tracks with Dr. Burroughs had placed his feet within the Berea tracks and noted the remarkable match:
"My own feet as you will recall, fitted in the tracks perfectly, even to the arches, the only exception being the wider toe spread in the track.  During my years residence and travels in Far Eastern Oriental countries, I was a very close observer of the natives, their habits and customs. the foot tracks you discovered could well be those of barefoot natives of remote villages and jungle settlements or those of aboriginal tribes with whom I came in frequent contact, so near do they approach the formation of these prehistoric 'tracks'. Most cordially yours, A. Merle Hooper" (Private correspondence to Burroughs from A. Merle Hooper, October 18, 1938)

Several of the tracks were in right-left pattern, enabling identification of the track maker as bipedal (walking on two legs).

Casting of Berea tracks in the "Fossil Human Footprints" exhibit, Creation Science Museum of Canada.  Again, note the displacement of the sand by the footprints.  The cracks were in the wax casting, and not the original rock.

The site of the Berea fossil footprints.  Sadly, all the tracks have been cut out of the rock over the past 70+ years.

Except for his one outburst in response to the New York Times' science editor Kempffert, you could see Burrough's own private struggle with the footprints. They were clearly fossil footprints - of that much he was certain. But he knew the ramifications of the tracks being made by humans, and thus struggled with accepting them as human.  His struggle can be seen in the words of many of those who have seriously considered and looked into these Carboniferous tracks.

Why the struggle? Because if man has been around since the Carboniferous, then evolution has been rightly falsified.  It also means the earth is young, and that Creation is true.  The ramifications are spiritual in nature, not physical.  Scientific evidence showing the earth is young is not a big deal.  Pointing to a Creator God? That is a big deal in the minds of men.  The Berea fossil footprints provide excellent evidence of humans in the Carboniferous.

In the next CrEvo News, we'll give another special report on first-hand research into some mysterious fossil footprints at Horton Bluff, Nova Scotia, which are just as stunning in their ramifications as the Berean footprints.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Things Evolution is not? Well, science for one. Darwinism considered.

"Think for yourself

Advanced education is dominated by evolutionary theory taught as established fact. But ‘are you really just a meaningless bag of molecules—the product of nothing more than random molecular mutations and reproductive filtering?’ (Prologue). This doctrine is presented as unquestioned truth, an axiom accepted by faith because many scientists present it as obviously true (p. 5). But if you come to the point where you feel that the Primary Axiom is no longer obviously true to all reasonable parties, then you must not accept it on blind faith (p. 10). At best the materialist model could be basically right, but it is absurd to continue believing that it is self-evident. At the very least, critical thought and fair discussion is required, something scorned and denigrated by the current high priests of biology." (article below)

Real science does not replace one law with an unproven hypothesis and real science does not throw away an hypothesis that works for one that does not.   This is why Darwinism is not real science.   God created the Universe is logical.  Spontaneous Generation of the Universe?  Spontaneous Generation of life?  Of information?  Of coherent scientific laws?  These are the premises that Darwinism has come down to in place of real science.   Stephen Hawking actually has the boneheaded idea that the Universe created itself.  Richard Dawkins seems to think that life created itself, although he cannot come up with any explanation about how it could have happened.   Not one Darwinist has any explanation of how life came from non-life and frankly there is no way they will ever do so, because it is not possible, in fact the Law of Biogenesis is well-proven after literally hundreds of years of tests.   Isn't testing and getting the same results every time supposed to be science?    Darwinism is 100% suppositions and stories and completely devoid of actual science.   Check it out when they present "evidence" and then stop for a minute and begin to think for yourself!

Funny thing, a lot of folks seem to think that Sir Isaac Newton, the founder of Physics and Michael Behe, the guy who revealed to the world the concept of irreducible complexity, were or are idiots.   Also, recently Darwinists have been calling the amazingly accomplished geneticist, John C Sanford, a "loon" because he believes in creation rather than evolution.   Sanford, the genius behind "Mendel's Accountant" and the Gene Gun, a loon?  Because as he studied genetics he realized that Darwinism was completely unable to account for what he found, as a scientist, when studying genomes.   I thought this article would be useful read.  Because it is science.   Darwinists may as well not read it.   Because the article represents very well the findings of arguably the best plant geneticist on the planet, a guy who discovered through real science that Darwinism is impossible.

From ape to man via genetic meltdown: a theory in crisis

A review of Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by John C. Sanford,
Ivan Press, Lima, New York, 2005

Genetic Entropy cover

I write this review with very mixed feelings. On the one hand, for the first time some key data are being divulged which we need to include in our models, and which honest thinkers who question evolutionist theory need to digest. But I have a problem. In the Prologue professor Sanford wrote, ‘I knew I would be at odds with the most “sacred cow” of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.’ I know John personally and treasure his intelligence and integrity. In further drawing attention to his book, I may be contributing to having his ties to academia severed, a world to which he has such strong emotional ties and to which he has made so many contributions. I know academics and journalists who have already lost their jobs for questioning Darwinian theory.

He is not exaggerating. I myself have also had my experiences in this matter.
‘I started to realize (again with trepidation), that I might be offending a lot of people’s religion,’ he confides early on. How correct he is. I recently discussed the issue of life’s origins with a dear friend I’ve worked together with for years. He brought up three arguments contra creation which I easily answered on strictly scientific terms. Suddenly he leaped to his feet. Trembling with rage he pointed a finger at me, and yelled that what I was doing was dangerous! The fundamentalists in America are dangerous! They are fighting against tolerance! They refuse to accept science! They are irrational and have no facts!
Dr Sanford is an applied geneticist semi-retired from Cornell University and now with the Institute of Creation Research. He is also the inventor of the ‘gene gun’, widely used in the genetic modification of crops. In this book the reader is confronted with compelling reasons to reject the claim that mutations plus natural selection have led to the marvels found in nature.

Many scientists do not believe man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection, what Sanford calls the Primary Axiom. One line of reasoning, that of irreducible complexity, has been very capably championed by professor Behe:1 molecular machines require many complex components, the absence of only one rendering that entity non-functional. Evolutionary processes cannot be expected to provide the necessary building blocks.

Others have argued that the high fidelity of DNA replication leads to very low rates of mutation. Developing humans from an ape-like forefather would just take too long. In a much cited paper, Drake has estimated2 that the rate of spontaneous mutations for humans is about 5 x10–11 nucleotides per generation. In some 6 million years from a claimed split from the chimpanzee lineage, no humans could be generated if this is true.

Sanford was a practising evolutionist and at heart a eugenicist (p. 116), who ‘gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress” which has been built up around the Primary Axiom is really a house of cards. … Its apparent invincibility derives largely from bluster, smoke, and mirrors’ (Prologue). But we will learn that evolutionary theory fails on grounds most people did not suspect.

Mutations are bad

Sanford forces us to recognize clearly that the relentless net effect of random mutations is degradation or complete destruction of function.

Sanford forces us to recognize clearly that the relentless net effect of random mutations is degradation or complete destruction of function. After decades of research, if even one mutation out of a million really unambiguously created new information (apart from fine-tuning), we would all have heard about it by now (p. 17). This is to be distinguished from certain changes in for example bacteria (p. 19), which merely fine-tune a component of a system already in place. The changes typically involve modification of one or two nucleotides, and in huge bacterial populations these are usually already present, a solution waiting for the precise niche. In other words, ‘When we use a rheostat to dim a light, we are not creating a new circuit, nor are we in any way creating new information’ (p. 19).

Mutagens have been used for years in plant breeding, creating billions of mutation events: mostly small, sterile, sick, deformed and aberrant plants (p. 25). One improvement, low phytate corn, was caused by mutations which damaged the metabolism of phytic acid, making hungry cows happy, but hardly explaining the origin of this biochemical process (p. 25). ‘However, from all this effort, almost no meaningful crop improvement resulted. The effort was for the most part an enormous failure, and was almost entirely abandoned’ (p. 25).

Indeed, no one is suggesting replacing incubators with X-ray machines to help evolution along. On the contrary, health policies are in place aimed at reducing or minimizing mutations (p. 15).

Disastrously high mutational rates

Now Sanford provides a key fact, inimical to evolutionary theory, but fully consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The genetics community now accepts that point mutations in human reproductive cells are in the range of at least 100–300 per individual each generation (p. 34). In fact, additional kinds of mutations, such as deletions, insertions, duplications, translocations, inversions, micro-satellite mutations and all mitochondrial mutations exacerbate the situation. Mitochondrial mutations alone would add about another mutation per individual each generation within the reproductive cell line, and macro-mutations can generate more sequence divergence than all point mutations combined. The overall contributions imply more than 1,000 nucleotide changes in every person, every generation (p. 37).

Using the unrealistic lower bound of 100 mutations, and assuming 97% of the genome has no function, implies three new relevant mutations per individual each generation are generated (p. 34). Before someone attempts to shrug off these new findings, let us evaluate whether it is true that only 3% of the human genome is relevant. If the percent is twice as high, then we would double the proportion at risk through mutations.

Junk DNA or masterpiece?

The genome is full of countless loops and branches—like a computer program using analogue and Boolean logic.

Driven by an incorrect model, genomes are generally characterized as chaotic and full of meaningless evolutionary relics. The irony is that the more advanced the organism, the more so-called ‘junk DNA’ is claimed to be present (p. 37). Perhaps we should be exposing our babies to radioactivity after all?! Biochemists discover ever more complex metabolic networks, with elaborate regulatory schemes to provide feedback inhibition or acceleration. The genome is full of countless loops and branches—like a computer program using analogue and Boolean logic. It has genes that regulate genes that regulate genes, able to set in motion complex cascades of events (p. 3).

But the fact that research is steadily decreasing the proportion of supposed non-functional DNA has not been properly integrated into evolutionist thinking. ‘In just a few years, many geneticists have shifted from believing that less than 3% of the total genome is functional, to believing that more than 30% is functional—and that fraction is still growing’ (p. 21). Seriously now, when we examine organisms, such as dolphins, swallows or humans, do we get the impression of final products driven by a chaotic information processing system? In any event, in our thinking we need to start getting used to the fact that over 30 new genetically relevant, function-altering mutations occur per individual each generation.

Unity of complexity

Reductionist, materialistic thinking prevents more effective reasoning constructs from being developed. If we could understand to the finest detail the properties of all atoms in a computer we’d still fail to grasp the logic of algorithms programmed to solve a mathematical problem. We would not even suspect its existence. None of the individual components of an airplane can fly, but the integrated unity can. The purpose of a back-up in-flight computer may appear to be ‘parasitic junk’, especially if we limit our analysis to the material properties of the atoms it is constructed with. When it is to be brought into action, why and in response to what circumstances, would not be discerned by researching individual characteristics such as atomic vibrations and molecular rotations and bond strengths.

Before we assume that the information in the genome used to generate mature organisms is mostly junk, we would be wise to examine the final morphological product with more humility.

Good and bad mutations inseparable

Are mutations really causing all that much damage? Many Hollywood stars (and my wife!) sure seem awfully attractive. Since interchange of the genes provided from the father and the mother occurs, might this not provide a means of avoiding passing on defective genes? Might not ‘bad’ sperms and eggs lead to defective offspring which simply don’t survive, leaving many ‘good’ versions in the population? Well, unfortunately not. A huge number of mutations are added to the germline of every baby born, and these are spread throughout the various chromosomes. Human nucleotides exist in large linked clusters or blocks, ranging in size from 10,000 to a million, inherited in toto, and never break apart (p. 55, 81). A desirable trait will be accompanied by an undesirable trait, within the same individual (p. 79).

Therefore, within any physical linkage unit, on average, thousands of deleterious mutations would accumulate before a beneficial mutation would arise (p. 82). All of the individual 100,000–200,000 linkage blocks in genomes are deteriorating.

Furthermore, recombination appears to be primarily between genes rather than randomly between nucleotides. This means that an inferior gene is doomed to remain in that lineage, unless a back-mutation occurs, which is vanishingly unlikely. This means that the good mutations and the bad mutations cannot be separated, another example of the one-way direction of degradation known as ‘Müller’s ratchet’.

Being now clearly persuaded that the net effect of mutations will be loss of information-guided functionality, we are ready to digest another insight. Tragic as a devastating mutation may be to the affected and family, the effects of this ‘curse’ would be limited to the victim if no offspring survive. But for the population as a whole, the major damage turns out not to be the severe mutations.

Near neutrals

Mutation effect
Figure 1. Far more mutations are deleterious than advantageous. Individually, most have too small an effect to be acted upon by natural selection (p. 32). 

The majority of deleterious mutations have individually a negligible effect on viability of the organism. This is especially true if the ‘competitors’ are also accumulating non-deadly but nevertheless undesirable mutations. This is like the rusting of a car, one iron atom at a time (p. 72). Even one extra unnecessary nucleotide is slightly deleterious—as it slows cell replication and wastes energy (p. 21).

This issue has been mostly ignored in the literature. Mutations in the ‘near-neutral box’ (figure 1) are redefined as being completely neutral, and so dismissed. It is then claimed that more severe mutations to the left of the near-neutral box can be entirely eliminated by natural selection (p. 23). I supposed that if we are talking about a very small number of mutations this would be to a first approximation reasonable. But the accumulation of dozens or hundreds of such mutations every generation presents a totally different picture.

Incidentally, we must remember that essentially all hypothetical beneficial mutations also fall within Kimura’s ‘effectively neutral’ zone (p. 24). Therefore, positive selection would also be too weak to have an effect!
It would be desirable if natural selection could remove at least some damaging mutations. In fact, this remains our last hope to avoid a fitness meltdown. Before abandoning hope, we need to consider natural selection carefully.

Natural selection is ineffective

The same environmental factor is unable to severely penalize different deleterious mutations. It is not realistic to invoke strongly negative selection to quickly eliminate a large number of unrelated mutations. As the number of minor mutations increases, each mutation becomes noise for the others (pp. 77, 78).

Now, in a laboratory one can intelligently favour natural variability to accentuate some chosen trait (p. 98). This requires carefully crafting the external environment (nutrition, temperature, natural enemies, etc.) to minimize mutational noise. Nevertheless, no one has ever claimed to have created brand new functions not already coded for on the genome in this manner. And inevitably the organisms fine-tuned in the laboratory for a single trait are less viable long-term, living freely in nature where all natural ranges of environmental challenges occur. It is possible to optimize things such as the amount of sugar a beet produces, as long as this plant is later protected from full competition with the original stock. The changes may be in man’s interest, but at the price of the organism’s natural fitness (e.g. the large sugar production might result from a mutation damaging its control mechanism so it over-produces; in the wild, this could not compete because it is wasting valuable resources).

Outside of the laboratory the matter is much worse. There is no intelligent guidance. The judge is also nearly blind (p. 7). There is a very long chain of events separating the direct effects of a genetic change and the consequences for the whole organism level. There is a logarithmic dilution at each step, a huge loss of cause-effect resolution and correspondence. ‘It is like measuring the impact of a butterfly’s stroke—on a hurricane system which is a thousand miles away’ (p. 49). ‘It is a little like trying to select for a specific soldier, based upon the performance of his army’ (p. 49).

The literature is full of statements and abstruse computer programs claiming natural selection can perform near miracles.3–5 But after 25 years of searching, I have yet to find an analogy or computer model backing up this claim which has any biological relevance. Generally it is enough to simply ask what kind of organism would be suitable to check and perhaps calibrate the claims against, to reveal the irrelevance. Sanford offers an illustration of how natural selection really works, which reflects formally the issues involved very realistically, which I will modify to maximize correspondence to how selection really works in nature (p. 50).

Let’s imagine a new method for improving biochemistry textbooks. A few students are randomly selected who will get a biochemistry textbook each semester during the next four years, whether or not they take a biochemistry course. Each new book will have 100 random changes in the letters. Those receiving the textbook are forced to read it (whether they take the biochemistry course or not). Different teachers assign grades to all courses taken by all students across the country each semester (whether they received the biochemistry textbook or not). The correlation between true ability and each grade (math, history, Latin … ) is weak and often wrong. At the end of the semester we compare the average grades of all students nationwide and identify from among the best students those in possession of a mutated biochemistry textbook. Each of these latter textbooks are borrowed, 100 new random changes are made, and then returned to the owner. The whole cycle of reading and grading is repeated, multiple times. Will a better textbook result in this manner? No, since there is no meaningful correlation between the small differences in textbooks and the grades. Too many other factors (‘noise’), such as home life, lack of sleep, classroom setting etc. override the effect of a few misspellings.

Any trait such as intelligence, speed or strength depends on gene characteristics and environmental factors (nutrition, training, etc.) (p. 90). For example, height is about 30% (h2 = 0.3) heritable. For complex traits such as ‘fitness’ heritability values are low (i.e. 0.004). ‘This is because total fitness combines all the different types of noise from all the different aspects of the individual’ (p. 91). Low heritability means bad genotypes are very difficult to eliminate. Survival becomes primarily a matter of luck, and not better genes:
‘If Kimura’s estimate is correct, then 99.6% of phenotypic selection for fitness will be entirely wasted. This explains why simple selection for total phenotypic fitness can result in almost no genetic gain.’ (p. 93)
Natural selection is a probabilistic matter. ‘Mother Nature’ does not compute for each member of a population a ‘total fitness value’ based upon all phenotypic traits (p. 94).

Furthermore, almost all mutations are recessive, camouflaging their presence and hindering selection against them (pp. 56, 76). Another consideration, not explicitly brought out in this book, is that key environmental factors (disease, temperature, mutation, predators, etc.) affecting survival vary over time. Strong selection must be present for a huge number of generations if fixation of a (temporarily) favourable trait throughout a population is to occur. Relaxation for just a few generations could undo this process, since selection for a different trait would then be at the expense of the preceding one.

We must recognize clearly this lack of strong correlation between a mutation (whether having a positive or negative effect) and reproductive success. It is a fact of nature, yet most people attribute incorrectly near miraculous creative powers to natural selection.

But then how could natural selection supposedly develop optimized proteins, such as enzymes, one nucleotide mutation after the other, leading to almost identical versions throughout nature?6–8 Each improved nucleotide would have to be selectable in the presence of all the other noise-causing mutations within the same linkage blocks. This cannot occur by somehow selecting for superior individuals on average—which inherently involves thousands of different genes and millions of different nucleotides (p. 117).

We conclude that evolutionary theory has a major problem. If mutation/selection cannot preserve the information already within the genome, it is even more difficult to argue that billions of slight improvements were selected gradually over time (p. 106). The matter is not merely an issue of low probabilities. Theoretically a huge number of offspring could be generated, each differing by many random mutations. Might not a lot of luck bordering on the miraculous cherry-pick out the best? Not really. Sanford explains why there are physical constraints as to what natural selection could do in the real world.

The cost of selection

The number of offspring which humans can produce is rather small. For a human population to maintain its size, about three individuals per couple would be needed. This is because not all who live go on to have children, due to personal choice, accidental death, etc. Eliminating individuals carrying bad mutations would require that additional children be born, to be sacrificed to natural selection (p. 57). ‘All selection has a biological cost—meaning that we must remove (or ‘spend’) part of the breeding population’ (p. 56). In other words, deleterious mutations in man must be kept below one mutation for every three children for flawless, 100% effective selection to be able to eliminate all the mutations and still allow the population to reproduce (p. 32).

There are several kinds of costs, all additive, which must be paid for before ‘real’ selection can be covered (p. 59).9 As mentioned above, fitness has low heritability, meaning environmental factors are much more important than genetic factors in determining who survives. This means that a very large number of additional offspring is needed, which must die due to natural selection independent of genetic causes, simply to remove non-heritable variations (p. 59). In these circumstances, having to additionally select the worse culprits which carry 100 or more mutations, every generation, is not physically possible (p. 62).

Haldane’s Dilemma

A process
A process which steadily degrades a genome cannot produce a better organism. 

Having demonstrated conclusively that the degradation of the human genome (in the presence of such high mutations rates, preponderance of deleterious mutations and lack of huge expendable proportions of offspring) cannot be avoided, we return to what evolutionary theory claims happened. Ever more complex and sophisticated genomes are supposed to have arisen, step by step, over eons.

In the 1950s, one of the most famous population geneticists, John Burdon Sanderson Haldane, presented an observation known as ‘Haldane’s dilemma’ (p. 128): it would take (on average) 300 generations to select a single new mutation to fixation. However, his calculations were only for independent, unlinked mutations. He assumed constant and very strong selection for a single trait, which is not realistic. The interference by hundreds of random mutations was not taken into account. Even so, selection for only 1,000 specific and adjacent mutations could not happen in all putative evolutionary time. There is no way an ape-like creature could have been transformed into a human (p. 129). Man and chimp differ at roughly 150 million nucleotide positions (p. 130) and humans show remarkably little variation worldwide.

Think for yourself

Advanced education is dominated by evolutionary theory taught as established fact. But ‘are you really just a meaningless bag of molecules—the product of nothing more than random molecular mutations and reproductive filtering?’ (Prologue). This doctrine is presented as unquestioned truth, an axiom accepted by faith because many scientists present it as obviously true (p. 5). But if you come to the point where you feel that the Primary Axiom is no longer obviously true to all reasonable parties, then you must not accept it on blind faith (p. 10). At best the materialist model could be basically right, but it is absurd to continue believing that it is self-evident. At the very least, critical thought and fair discussion is required, something scorned and denigrated by the current high priests of biology.

Historically, the entire field of population genetics was developed by a small, tightly knit group of people radically committed to the Primary Axiom. They were free to explore many scenarios and adjust multiple parameters unconstrained by objective calibrations, and to optimize frameworks to appear internally consistent. Their mathematical approach was to define the unit of selection as discrete genetic units, such a gene or nucleotide, instead of whole organisms with all the contradictory influencing factors (p. 52).
‘For the most part, other biologists do not even understand their work—but accept their conclusions “by faith”’ (p. 46). The theorists’ models can be shown to never have matched biological reality to the minimal degree expected of useful models, but these men were undeniably intelligent and had an incredible aura of intellectual authority (p. 53). In many ways they deserve our admiration, since transforming any scenario, correct or not, into an appropriate mathematical formulation requires a great deal of skill. One can also admire honestly the brilliant lawyer who argues ever so cleverly against the truth in his client’s interest. How we wish they would contribute their gifts within a correct paradigm!

There is hope

Finally, professor Sanford makes it clear that no amount of human intervention can salvage the relentless degradation of our genomes. We will experience much and increasing suffering on the part of our children and grandchildren. But our Creator made the genome in the first place.
‘ … Jesus is our hope … He gave us life in the first place—so He can give us new life today. He made heaven and earth in the first place—so He can make a new heaven and earth in the future’ (p. 155).
Read this book twice. Then read it again with a highlighter. Technical aspects are easy to follow, and the specialist will benefit very much for the highly relevant references offered.

Related articles

Further reading

Recommended Resources


  1. Behe, M., Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, The Free Press, New York, NY, 1996. Return to text.
  2. Drake, J.W., Charlesworth, B., Charlesworth, D. and Crow, J.F., Rates of spontaneous mutation, Genetics 148:1,667–1,686, 1998. Return to text.
  3. Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin Books, London, 1986. Return to text.
  4. Lenski, R.E., Ofria, C., Pennock, R.T. and Adami, C, The evolutionary origin of complex features, Nature 423(8):139–144, 2003. Return to text.
  5. Schneider, T.D., Evolution of biological information, Nucleic Acids Res. 28:2794–2799, 2000. Return to text.
  6. Truman, R. and Heisig, M., Protein families: chance or design? Journal of Creation 15(3):115–127, 2001, . Return to text.
  7. Truman, R., The ubiquitin protein: chance or design? Journal of Creation 19(3):116–127, 2005, . Return to text.
  8. Truman, R., Searching for needles in a haystack, Journal of Creation 20(2):90–99, 2006. Return to text.
  9. ReMine, W.J, Cost theory and the cost of substitution—a clarification, Journal of Creation 19(1):113–125, 2005, . Return to text.

The above article is real science.  Not propaganda.  Not just-so stories.   Just actual science.   Think about the things you have been taught about the hypotheses relating to Darwinism and forget for one minute that so many people believe in it. Darwinism was always an attempt to find some sciency-sounding way to get away from a Creator God.   When organisms were supposedly clumps of protoplasm and genetics was not a science and we did not understand about things like DNA and when it was possible for someone to assert that Uniformitarianism could explain the sedimentary rock records and that a steady state infinite Universe was plausible?   

People like Haeckel and Huxley and Lyell and of course Darwin pushed a pseudo-science for the sake of worldview and in the cause of atheism.   

If the Darwinists have had control of the scientific community for several generations, who can really trust the "findings' they have published about the rock layers?  The "standard geological column" is a lie.   The circular reasoning of dating rock layers by index fossils and then dating fossils by the same rock layers, the hiding of evidence of actual flesh rather than fossil remains until Mary Schweitzer let that cat out of the bag, the use of derision and ad hominem attacks rather than evidence?   You are being lied to and fooled and frankly robbed of your chance to know truth.   By a concerted effort an entire army of propagandists and censors have tried their best to keep you ignorant and propaganized.  Don't let them.

More to come...