Search This Blog

Wednesday, February 15, 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...


Jon Woolf said...

Sanford again, huh?

See here:

and here:;act=ST;f=14;t=6034;st=30

for discussions that expose some of the problems with Sanford's program "Mendel's Accountant".

The real killer, I think, is the gent who points out that Sanford's program says that small, fast-breeding animals such as mice and flies should already be extinct due to the accumulated weight of negative mutations:;f=14;t=6034;st=60#entry146552

Sorry, Radar, you lose again.

Anonymous said...

Nice of Jon to assert his scientific dominance over yet another great scientist. Shouldn't you have a couple of Nobels by now? Heck, the first link you probably got from me!

The reason many organisms have not gone extinct from over-mutation we are just discovering within DNA, which has a mutation-filtering mechanism. More like mechanisms. More revelations from so-called "Junk DNA" as it happens.


radar said...

Yes, Sanford again. Jon, I did look hard to see if you had any papers published on genetics but did not find any so I am going with the inventor of the Gene Gun. See, ad hominem attacks on Sanford do not actually qualify as an argument.

echidna said...

Yeah Jon,
Once again, you've been schooled by Radar.

Your arguments are so flimsy that he doesn't even have to take the time to address them.

So have fun with your lame ad homophone attacks, but please recognize who you're dealing with here.

Radar's a pro, and what you really don't want to admit is that deep down, you know he's smarter than you are.

You keep telling them Radar!

Jon Woolf said...

Sanford a great scientist? Uh, no. "Great scientist" is a title I associate with names like Aristotle, Newton, Lyell, Cuvier, Darwin, Curie, Edison, Einstein, Feynman, Hawking. Sanford doesn't even make the first cut.

I'll grant he probably knows his particular area of expertise - gengineering methods for plants - pretty well. Once you get away from that, though, he's just another interested amateur. And yes, given the current state of knowledge in physics, astronomy, chemistry, and historical geology, anyone who still believes in a young earth is either ill-informed, crazy, or evil.

radar said...

Jon says "anyone who still believes in a young earth is either ill-informed, crazy, or evil."

I am not ill-informed or crazy or evil. In fact, being on the side of God I am frankly against evil. You are channeling Richard Dawkins but he cannot explain his way out of a paper bag, either.

Anonymous said...

Was Echidna's argument sarcastic or not? I really can't tell.


radar said...

Well, Echidna is a great animal, very hard for Darwinists to explain as a monotreme. Also I have a few Aussie/Kiwi friends so it is possible that Echidna is either a rooter or a very well-played sarcasm-dealer. Subtlety?

Point of fact, though, is that Jon never did manage to give me a natural source of information, nor has he really dealt with the foundational issues of existence and life and laws. He likes to climb up high in the tree of explanations where so many presuppositions must be made before you even get to his argument.

For instance, when comparing where fossils are found in the sedimentary rocks, since Darwinists have dominated the categorizing and labeling for years, most of what he asserts or asks about is suppositional. I read where the same organism is given differing scientific names depending on which rock layer they were discovered and the various mistakes made in dating and identifying layers and ask myself how will that mess ever get cleaned up? It will take real science decades to revise the rock layers to reflect their sedimentary flood-and-post flood causation just to begin the fix!

Jon Woolf said...

"I am not ill-informed or crazy or evil. In fact, being on the side of God I am frankly against evil."

Ill-informed you certainly are. Evil? Not willingly, I think, but the Lone Power has always been adept at turning well-meaning fools to its service.

"Well, Echidna is a great animal, very hard for Darwinists to explain as a monotreme."

They are? Gee, the biology I learned gives a perfectly reasonable evidence-based explanation for monotremes: they're a relic line of early mammals, from a time when all mammals were egg-layers. In fact, the progression from monotreme to marsupial to placental presents YATCCE - Yet Another Thing Creationists Can't Explain. Marsupial young are born alive, and spend the next few months in the mother's pouch, completing development to a functional youngling. However, while in utero the marsupial embryo develops a vestigial eggshell, which is reabsorbed by the mother shortly before birth. Some marsupial babies also have a vestigial egg-tooth. Now, why would they have such things if they weren't descended from oviparous ancestors?

As for information: been there, done that. Information can come from many natural sources. In the genome, it comes from natural genetic variations of numerous kinds.

"For instance, when comparing where fossils are found in the sedimentary rocks, since Darwinists have dominated the categorizing and labeling for years, "

So what? The basics of historical geology were developed by William Smith twenty years before Darwin was born.

"I read where the same organism is given differing scientific names depending on which rock layer they were discovered and the various mistakes made in dating and identifying layers and ask myself how will that mess ever get cleaned up?"

Elementary. Under ICZN rules, when one organism is given multiple scientific names, the name assigned first has priority. When two different organisms are given the same genus name, the older one has priority and the second one must be renamed. Names assigned to geologic formations are generally dealt with the same way, as I understand it.

radar said...

Every time a Darwinist says "vestigal" it is code for "investigate and find out for yourself." For instance, P Z Myers insisting that the way the aortic arch is formed in the embryo is a sign of common descent when in fact it is typical of design. Same with the claims that man has a vestigal tail, nope, the spinal column grows longer first and then more of the body is filled in. The list of "vestigals" is continually being shrunk as science finds use or reason for each system, stage, organ or etc. Kind of like "Junk DNA."

radar said...

Also, there is no progression from egg layers to live bearers. Another myth.

echidna said...

Once again radar slices and dices you atheist darwinists and your so called science! That's why I love to read this blog.

You can't even account for marsupeals in australia, and you call it science.

Your arguments are so weak, you haven't even caused radar to even start showing you how lame they are. You're not even worth his time! Ha!

"Also, there is no progression from egg layers to live bearers. Another myth."

Boom! Now you darwinists have nothing. See how he eviscerated your argument there? That's called getting pwned.

Go RADAR!! You show those darwinists whose boss!!!

echidna said...

I love how Jon Wolf writes paragraph after paragraph and then gets destroyed with Radar's two sentence reply.

Utter failure. It'd be painful if it weren't so fun to watch.

Where does information come from, huh? In*for*ma*tion is only created by intelligence, check out conservapedia you fools.

Radar, this site is so full of information (created by intelligence... DUH! See how that works, darwinists?) that it must be on the darwinist hit list. I'd start looking over my shoulder if I were you. Your life and family might be in danger.

Jon Woolf said...

I'd say the balance just tipped toward 'satire,' lava.

echidna said...

Another ad homonym attack by Jon Wolf. Is that all you've got?

Radar, these trolls are something else!

Jon Woolf said...

"Also, there is no progression from egg layers to live bearers. Another myth."

Well, Radar, if you ever want to follow your own dictum and find out for yourself, find a book called Mesozoic Mammals and read it. Particularly Chapter 13, "Reproduction in Mesozoic Mammals." All there in black and white, although the level of discussion may be a little high for you.

radar said...

I kind of thought he would keep going until it was too obvious.

What cracks me up is that teenagers can easily understand my pen and paper illustration of why we can easily see that information comes from intelligence and can only be received and understood by intelligence. So do Darwinists fear to demonstrate that they do HAVE intelligence, thus making them responsible for the information?

Dawkins really had no answer for William Paley. All the abiogenesis projects in the world cannot overturn the Law of Biogenesis. The Big Bang is 96% absolutely nothing and has 0% causation. Life cannot be explained or isolated in a test tube. Very significantly, why do laws of science work? Why should they be logical or coherent when supposedly everything came from chaotic chance?

In fact, if everything did come from chaotic chance then your thoughts are not your own, they are evolved and intrinsic reactions bred in by billions of mutations and chemically powered so that you think that you think, but you are not thinking at all. Dr. William Provine spent a great deal of his life asserting this while, of course, living in such a manner to disprove what he said. Hmmmm.

You have no problem believing in billions of zeroes behind the odds of life on this planet happening by chance (when you ignore the hard chemical barriers that stop it entirely) but cannot accept the simple concept of the Transcendent God?

Anonymous said...

"Well, Radar, if you ever want to follow your own dictum and find out for yourself"

He won't. When presented with all the necessary information to find out if google censored results in china, he instead trusted his authority 'in asia' rather than using his own too eyes.

echidna said...

I was totally serious about the Darwinist cabal coming after you or this blog.

I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to shut it down.

It'd be a shame to lose a hero to the cause like you.

radar said...

Let's not rewrite history concerning China. Whether you believe I know anything about that is immaterial to me and should be to general readership, since it has nothing to do with Darwinism and science anyway.

I take brief moments of time to blog and make comments but my life is too busy to fool around with things that are not necessary. I have to keep turning down new opportunities to concentrate on my primary job, my family and ministry without being ordered about by commenters. Lots of church activities and I try to keep them limited to three major ones. I turned down two writing jobs last year to have time to do this for free instead. Lots of family and they need my time. So you go ahead and spend time pinging from Hong Kong if you like. Not me.

Anonymous said...

All of the above goes straight to your intellectual honesty. You made a claim, I told you the claim was false and showed you that it was false.

I provided links and supporting evidence, all of which you ignored.

It would have taken you all of 30 seconds to click on a link, but you couldn't be bothered.

So, if you make a mistake on a side issue and refuse to be corrected, why should we trust you when you speak on other issues of more importance to you? Why should we trust your research when you seem to be so biased that you can't be bothered to check on a simple thing?

radar said...

Most of the links I get from anonymous commenters are garbage, for one thing. Also, notice that there is an hk designation on that comment? Hong Kong is a different animal from inland China. This is yet another rabbit trail trying to take the focus off of the fact that Darwinism is being cast aside by the findings of real science. My decision to forego Google ads will stand.

radar said...

People who resort to JRandi and Talk Origins have no standing to use the phrase "intellectual honesty." IMO of course.

Anonymous said...

"People who resort to JRandi and Talk Origins have no standing to use the phrase "intellectual honesty"

Who brought up Randi or TO?

Anonymous said...

The reason that there is a .hk link is that redirects all traffic to

I explained this to you, but you didn't read my comment.

More to the point, you can easily go to and try to search and notice that it takes you to

Anonymous said...

Since you brought him up, Radar, here's what The Amazing Randi thinks of you,

"There exists in society a very special class of persons that I have always referred to as the Believers. These are folks who have chosen to accept a certain religion, philosophy, theory, idea or notion and cling to that belief regardless of any evidence that might, for anyone else, bring it into doubt. They are the ones who encourage and support the fanatics and the frauds of any given age. No amount of evidence, no matter how strong, will bring them any enlightenment. They are the sheep who beg to be fleeced and butchered, and who will battle fiercely to preserve their right to be victimized"
- James Randi

For the record, I'm presently trying to work up the courage to confront Radar's newest reader and apparent "big fan", echidna. That said, going up against anyone with such an obviously thorough understanding of both ad homophone AND ad homonym attacks, is giving me some serious second thoughts.


radar said...

JRandi causes you to look in the mirror and yet you see me instead of yourself?

What are Darwinists other than propagandized true-believing sheep who have not let recent scientific discoveries change their brainwashed minds? Just what we know about DNA and the cell and reproduction is enough to blow Darwinist thinking into as many bits as there are electrons in the Universe!

You have no idea what it means to think for yourself and go against the flow, do you, Canucklehead? Do you ever really think on the nature of the Universe and life itself and review your underlying assumptions? Ever?

If there was a roadmap of the thought processes of my life, it would have plenty of valleys and mountains but it would also show a long journey of many steps and miles and years. I did not just take my public education, put it in my pocket and then go about to make money and satisfy myself. I kept looking and questioning and eventually found myself moved far away from the place where my worldview began. I can say truthfully that what I believe is what I have researched when it comes to life and science and philosophy. God wound up in the middle of the road I walked and fortunately I did not detour around Him.

Anonymous said...

How did I know Radar would go with the "I'm rubber, you're glue..." argument. ~Sigh~

The problem for you, of course, is that my worldview is based in reality and yours clearly isn't. Mine is based on evidence, scientific consensus spanning the entire globe and peer reviewed testing, and yours is based on faith in your sect's holy book and a handful of uncredentialed pseudo-scientists. You admit to starting with the bible and working your way back from there. Yet then state that black is white, by insisting that you and your creationist masters uphold "science" and great scientific minds like Hawking and Darwin are "religious". As is often pointed out to you, despite your bombastic statements to the contrary, the case for evolution, as a scientific theory, actually gets stronger, as the evidence piles up, day after day, year after year.

And Dude, I'm an atheist living in the Canadian prairies. I think know a thing or two about going against the flow. You know the saying, I think therefore I am an atheist. I was raised a christian and thinking is exactly what brought me to the realization that all of it is just man-made BS. Nice try though.


Oh and enough with the "testimonials" already. No one cares what you think about yourself, Radar. We get it, you think that you're awesome. We don't agree, but we get it. Seriously though, enough already.

radar said...

Canucklehead, this is not about me and my testimony except for the fact you are completely wrong about it. I began as a Darwinist who took courses to prepare for a career in Paleontology (but when I took an Anthropology class I switched to information/journalism track. I did not go to church or believe in the Bible. I started where you are now.

I cannot imagine how anyone believes in Darwinism without a strong desire to avoid a God. The evidence points to God from every direction. People like you do not make sense to me. Why do you come here and argue without evidence? Just saying that most scientists believe in Darwinism is irrelevant. Truth is what it is, not what the majority choose to believe.

Good night!

echidna said...

canucklehead I'm going to ignore your ad homonym attack on me because I know when you have nothing, you resort to ad homonym attacks.

The reason Radar dusts you guys is that he know more about biology than you do and he knows more about the Bible too.

He's been down your path and knows what you know already, so your not telling him anything new.

You've lost before you even begun.

He's a hero for going up against the ruling establishmint and for illustrating how Christians are persecuted in the USA.

Anonymous said...

echidna is my new favorite commenter.


Jon Woolf said...

Careful, lava. I'm not yet convinced that he's not a loki.

Radar: "I cannot imagine how anyone believes in Darwinism without a strong desire to avoid a God."

That only means your imagination is limited.

"Just saying that most scientists believe in Darwinism is irrelevant. Truth is what it is, not what the majority choose to believe."

And KABOOM! goes another irony-meter....

Anonymous said...

echidna is a good example of poe's law.


Anonymous said...

echidna is amazing, even loonier than Radar. I don't care if s/he's parody or not - even as unintentional parody echidna serves the same function.

Radar's on a roll as well with his willful misunderstanding of the concept of "ad hominem". He accuses Jon of stooping to ad hominems when Jon was clearly arguing with facts, and then he turns around and uses another logical fallacy, the argument from authority (a close cousin of the ad hominem fallacy), on Jon so that he can avoid an actual argument.

The irony's so thick you can cut it with a dull knife.

Hawkeye® said...

Great article Radar. Thanks for sharing.

radar said...

I am honored that Echidna has recognized my valor and labors for the cause of Truth, Justice and the American Way. Trying to figure out the right color scheme for my superhero outfit, that is the hard part?

Anonymous whatsit said...

And thus the journey into self-parody is complete.