Why r evolutionary educators/scientists suppressing dissent?

[Bart007]

> Meet the ID's latest martyr, Guillermo Gonzalez.
> From the article:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­­--------
> Leading proponent of theory targeted by atheists,

Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez is an Assistant Professor of Astronomy at Iowa State University (ISU).

Credentials: Born in Havana, he and his family fled from Cuba to the United States in 1967, where he earned a Ph.D. in Astronomy from the University of Washington in 1993. Author of nearly 70 peer-reviewed scientific papers and co-author of a major college-level astronomy textbook, Dr. Gonzalez’s work led to the discovery of two new planets, and he has had his research featured in Science, Nature, and on the cover of Scientific American. He is building new technology to discover extrasolar planets. He served on the NASA Astrobiology Institute Review Panel in June 2003, and the National Science Foundation Advanced Technologies and Instruments review panel in January 2005. And He has served as a referee for Astronomical Journal, Astronomy & Astrophysics, Astrophysical Journal (and Letters), Icarus, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Nature, Naturwissenschaften, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Origins of Life and Evolution Biospheres and Science.

The Crime: Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez contributed to scientific Intelligent Design Video 'Privileged Planet'.

The Punishment: Religious studies professor Hector Avalos—faculty advisor to the campus Atheist and Agnostic Society—began publicly campaigning against Dr. Gonzalez and his work in order to “uphold the integrity of our university” by “reject[ing] efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science.” Furthermore, in the spring of 2007, when ISU President Gregory Geoffroy denied Dr. Gonzalez’s application for tenure, despite Iowa State University's Physics and Astronomy Department recommendation that Dr. Gonzalez receive an Associates Professorship.

This followed on the heals of of the attack on the Smithsonian Institutes science magazine that included an article written by Stephen Meyer that supports Intelligent Design ("The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," which cites mainstream biologists and paleontologists from schools such as the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford who are critical of certain aspects of Darwinism.) Mr. Meyers holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology. The article was received by the Institutes Richard Sternberger, who placed the article in the peer review process, was reviewed by 3 scientists, and approved for publication. The powers that be among evolution ideologues from Talk Origins to Academia shed their rage against the Smithsonian for allowing this ID paper to be even sent for peer review, much less be published.

Richard Sternberg in particular came under heavy vicious attacks from outside and inside the Smithsonian prompting him to file a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. The Smithsonian issued an apology to evolutionists and promised their magazine will never again publish another science paper that supports intelligently design. And who had not heard evolutionists belittle creationary scientists by claiming their science is so wrong and poor that they can't get them published in major science journals and periodicals.

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel eventually determined that Mr. Sternberg had indeed been discrimnated against, and in a most vicious and unprofessional manner.

Once again the lunatic atheist fringe that control our public education continue to use their power of censorship to control what students, and the public, may hear and think.

1984 has come and past, yet George Orwell's "1984" is alive and well in the hands of atheistic pro-evolutionary thought Police who enforce their evolutionary belief system on an unwary public despite their theory's failings as science.


In our educational systems a few evolutionary agents of the thought Police moved always among them, spreading false rumours and marking down and eliminating the few individuals who were judged capable of becoming dangerous.


And in the general hardening of outlook that has set in, practices which had been long abandoned: Censorship, Ad hominem Attacks, Ridicule, Public Humiliation, A Science established by Authority rather than Evidence and Reason - not only became common again, but is tolerated and even defended by people who consider themselves to be enlightened and progressive. Defenders of THE TRUTH, they seek to eradicate, in their words, "purveyors of Thoughtcrime".


Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they are bound to get you. Creationary scientists simply disappeared, always during the night, in the darkness. Your name was removed from the registers, every record of everything you had ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten. You were abolished, annihilated: vaporized was the usual word.


And if all others accepted the lie which the Evolutionism Oligarchy imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the materialists slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"


Day by day and almost minute by minute the past has been brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by evolutionism could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the evolutionism of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All evolutionary science was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.


------------------------

My challenge to those who responded is to provide a strong bit of specific scientific evidence that has clearly lead you to accept evolution as being a scientific fact, as so many of you wantonly proclaim. Please be specific and provide one piece of evidence from science at a time. Be prepared to defend whatever convincing scientific evidence you set forth.


I, on my part, aim to respond, with the hope of demonstrating that: Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science.


To wet your appetite, note the following:


Scientists abandoning Evolution


"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities. ... Many scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." Science Digest:
`Educators against Darwin', winter, 1979.


In a Newsweek article, 1985, "The great body of work by Charles Darwin is under increasing attack and not only by Creationists, but by all sorts of other scientists." In this same article, one evolutionist stated that "things have gotten so bad in the field of Evolution that I am thinking of moving into a field with more intellectual honesty, like being a used car salesman."


"Today, a hundred and twenty years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. There was a time. not too long ago when it seemed to the world at large that triumphed once and for all, and that the issue was henceforth closed. And yet, within the last two or three decades the debate about evolution has not only revived but is showing signs of heating up. Indeed, the question whether claims are justified is currently being discussed and argued, not just in fundamentalist circles, but also on occasion in research institutes. and in the prestigious halls of academe. The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing descent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that most of these `experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but strictly on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully, as one could say."
J. Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D. Mathematics, MS Physics, 'Telhardism and the New Religion" 1988, Tan Books and Publishers Inc..


ON BIOLOGY:


"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, And biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith ? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to a belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." Evolutionist L. Harrison
Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwins "The Origin of the Species", J.M. Dent &
Sons LTD, London, 1971, p xi.


ON ABIOGENESIS (Evolution of life from non-living matter)


"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to it's solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in a stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."


"Considerable disgreement between scientists have arisen about detailed evolutionary steps. The problem is that principal evolutionary processes from prebiotic , molecules to progenotes have not been proven by experimentation and the processes by which these proceeses occurred are not known. Moreover, we do not actually know where the genetic information of all livings cells originates, how the first replicable polynucleotides (nucleic acids) evolved, or how the extremely complex structure-function relationships in modern cells came into existence."

"It appears the field has now reach a stalemate, a stage in which hypothetical arguments dominate over facts on based on experimentation or observation"

[and]

"In spite of many attempts, there have been no breakthrough during the past 30 years to help the origin of chiralty in living cells,"
Klaus Dose, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1988, 13(4) 348.


Eminent Evolutionist, A.I. Oparin, In the preface of Dean Kenyon's book, 'Biochemical Predestination', (Mcgraw Hill, 1969 edition, and was the best selling advanced level book on chemical evolution in the 1970's, written in Professor Kenyon's (Ph.D. Biophysics, BS Physics) evolutionist days) wrote:

"It is not only my professional opinion, but that of many leading evolutionary scientists at present, and in the past as well, that Creation Science and Evolution are the sole scientific alternative explanations, though each have a variety of approaches. ... To sum it up, biological creation is scientific, and in fact is stronger than biological evolution." German Edition (1974).


"My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms." (private interview with Antony Flew, Dec 2004)


On Darwinian evolution:

"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable,and so far from the criteria of HARD science has become dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds." Biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, as quoted by Huston Smith, 'The Post Modern Mind' (New York, Crossroads, 1982) p. 173

On the General Theory of Evolution (Macro-evolution - That all species share a common ancestry)

Professor J. Wolfgang Smith wrote:
"The salient fact is this: If by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall) then it can be said with utmost vigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there is not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macro evolutionary transformations have ever occurred."

"... We are told dogmatically that evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consist." Professor J. Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D Mathematics, MS Physics, 'Teilhardism and the New Religion', 1988, Tan Books and Publishers. pp. 2,5,6.


On the interpretation of Scientific Data in support of evolution


"Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." (Physics Bulletin, "A Physicist
Looks at evolution," Lipson, 1980, Vol. 31,p. 138.)


"Any reasonably graded series of forms can be thought to have legitimacy. In fact, there is circularity in the approach that first assumes some sort of evolutionary relatedness and then assembles a pattern of relationships from which to argue that relatedness must be true. This interplay of data and interpretation is the achilles heel of the second meaning of evolution [Macro-evolution]". Thomson
`Marginalia, the Meaning of Evolution' 70 Am. Scientist 529-530,
(1982).

ON Evolutionists and the Evidence they offer in support of evolution

" I probably will be chastised by them [his more cynical evolutionists colleagues] for writing this preface, as if in doing so I give aid and comfort to an enemy of true science. ... I do so because the book has virtue as criticism of evolutionary theory.


"It has virtue even though its criticism is loaded like the proverbial pair of dice. ... He [creationist W. R. Bird] rolls the dice with style. He rolls them over and over again with the same result. I may be too optimistic to expect my colleagues learn much if anything from Mr. Bird's effort. But there is something in his book for all of them...


"Mr. Bird is concerned with origins and the evidence relevant thereto. He is basically correct that the evidence, or proof, of origins- of the Universe, of life, of all major groups of life, of all the minor groups of life, indeed of all of the species- is weak or nonexistent when measured on an absolute scale, as it always was and will always be.


"He is correct also that what evidence there is, is sometimes, even often, exaggerated by evolutionists. Yes, they load their own dice, for they too, are human. They, too, play to the gallery, to the jury, to the judges. Were they entirely wise rather than adversarial, they would never have claimed to do the impossible: to have proved the correctness of their views by offering evidence of the origin of things. One might just as well attempt to prove stability by offering as evidence a pyramid balanced on its apex." Evolutionist, Gareth J. Nelson, Chairman and Curator, Department of Herpetology and Ichthyology, The American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, 10024. Preface to W.R, Bird's book, 'The Origin of Species Revisited'.


Evolution as anti-Science:

HL Lipson writes in his published paper 'A Physicist Looks at Evolution' (31 Physics Bulletin 38, 1980) rejects macro evolution. He says:
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of it's ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwins theory. I do not think they do. ...To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."

Lipson, an agnostic physicist, goes on to show that the scientific discoveries not only failed to support macro-evolution, but that, at the same time, the evidence also supports creation theory. He concludes:
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."

In his November 5, 1981 address at the American Museum of Natural History, Evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson, Curator of the British Museum of Natural History stated at the AMNH address the following with regard to macro-evolution:

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge... Well, What about evolution? Well we are back to the question I have been putting to people, "Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?" The absence of answers seem to indicate that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge..."

Dr. Guiseppe Sermonti, Professor of Genetics at the University of Peruvia, former director of the Genetics Institute of the University of Palermo, Senior Editor of the Biology Forum, and co-author and paleontologist Dr. R. Fondi (Dopo Darwin, 1980) (Nature, 1982) stated that:


"The result we believe must be striven for can therefore only be the following: Biology will receive no advantage from following the teachings of Lamarck, Darwin, and the modern hyper-Darwinists; Indeed, it must as quickly as possible leave the narrow straits and blind alleys of the evolutionistic myths and resume its certain journey along the open and illuminated paths of tradition."


Muggeridge, Malcolm, The End of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1980), p. 59
"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

P. 62
"I think that I spoke to you before about this age as one of the most credulous in history, and I would include evolution as an example. I'm very happy to say I live near a place called Piltdown. I like to drive there because it gives me a special glow. You probably know that a skull was discovered there, and no less than five hundred doctoral theses were written on the subject, and then it was discovered that the skull was a practical joke by a worthy dentist in Hastings who'd hurriedly put a few bones together, not even of the same animal, and buried them and stirred up all this business. So I'm not a great man for bones."

[QED]

Natural Selection can not be the cause for evolution because it can only select traits that already exist.

Then please explain why, when the logical principle that underlies natural selection is modelled (for example by Evolutionary programs like Avida, it does cause evolution. (Thanks are due to Fisherking for bringing Avida to my attention).

[Furrowed Brow]

1)Bart Reply: They are not Chimp Chromosomes, the evolutionary scientists are being deceptive when they call them that,

Please quote any evolutionist who has ever said that the 98% of DNA that humans share with chimpanzees are chimp chromosomes.

what you will find them saying is that the DNA is shared, and thus a common ancestor. Which bit of the comparison between chimp and human DNA are biologists lying about?

Here's a link to the findings of a study by Cornell University. they found a chimp and human DNA are 99% alike. Where are they getting it wrong?

[Bart007]

Natural Selection can not be the cause for evolution because it can only select traits that already exist.

Then please explain why, when the logical principle that underlies natural selection is modelled (for example by Evolutionary programs like Avida, it does cause evolution. (Thanks are due to Fisherking for bringing Avida to my attention).

We already went through algorithyms, you and I, and I did not buy it because these algorithyms require intelligently designed devices, programs, and intelligent human input. And you also were unable to produce the programs and explain how it imitates random chance molecular events aided only by the laws of physics.

I'm not familiar with Avida, so you have a lot of work to do in explaining to me what Avida is and how its intelligently designed hardware and software imitates the forming of molecular configurations leading to life and to complex living beings strictly by imitating random chance molecular events aided only by the laws of physics.

Best Wishes

[Bart007]

1)Bart Reply: They are not Chimp Chromosomes, the evolutionary scientists are being deceptive when they call them that,

Please quote any evolutionist who has ever said that the 98% of DNA that humans share with chimpanzees are chimp chromosomes.

what you will find them saying is that the DNA is shared, and thus a common ancestor. Which bit of the comparison between chimp and human DNA are biologists lying about?

Here's a link to the findings of a study by Cornell University. they found a chimp and human DNA are 99% alike. Where are they getting it wrong?

Sorry Furrow, i do not have any idea what your point is. Please clarify.

I believe it was Underflow who was trying to emphasize these two Chromosomes were 'chimp' chromosomes, and I believe he got that from the scientists who were attempting to censor alternate views to materialistic evolution in federal Court.

My point was that these chromosomes are common to chimps and humans, and that in humans they fused into one Chromosome. I do not believe that Chimps and Humans share a common ancestry, but that we are separately created by one Intelligent Designer, God Himself, using a common design for similar physical traits.

I hope this helps you.

Sincerely

Bart007

[Furrowed Brow]

Sorry Furrow, i do not have any idea what your point is. Please clarify.

I believe it was Undertow who was trying to emphasize these two Chromosomes were 'chimp' chromosomes, and I believe he got that from the scientists who were attempting to censor alternate views to materialistic evolution in federal Court.

Unless I missed it I think Undertow only argues for common ancestry. He has never implied or said anything that leads to a concept of human chromosomes being “chimp chromosomes”. This comes across as a rhetorical device on your part.

My point was that these chromosomes are common to chimps and humans,

And that would be Undertow’s point. And the whole evolutionary point. My point is that your are playing with language to create a straw man evolutionist, if you think evolution means anything else.

So when you say...

They are not Chimp Chromosomes, the evolutionary scientists are being deceptive when they call them that,

I’m saying evolutionists have never said or implied that, and the lie exists in the distortion you are trying to purvey. If you can find me an evolutionist who has said that the chromosomes shared by human and chimps are chimp then I’m going to agree that this is a lie and anyone who implies it should just stop.

…and that in humans they fused into one Chromosome. I do not believe that Chimps and Humans share a common ancestry, but that we are separately created by one Intelligent Designer, God Himself, using a common design for similar physical traits.

Well you can believe that if you wish. But you are saying the evolutionist view is a deception. But you have not shown there is any deception other than one you’ve made up.

[Bart007]

Sorry Furrow, i do not have any idea what your point is. Please clarify.

I believe it was Undertow who was trying to emphasize these two Chromosomes were 'chimp' chromosomes, and I believe he got that from the scientists who were attempting to censor alternate views to materialistic evolution in federal Court.

Unless I missed it I think Undertow only argues for common ancestry. He has never implied or said anything that leads to a concept of human chromosomes being “chimp chromosomes”. This comes across as a rhetorical device on your part.

My point was that these chromosomes are common to chimps and humans,

And that would be Undertow’s point. And the whole evolutionary point. My point is that your are playing with language to create a straw man evolutionist, if you think evolution means anything else.

So when you say...

They are not Chimp Chromosomes, the evolutionary scientists are being deceptive when they call them that,

I’m saying evolutionists have never said or implied that, and the lie exists in the distortion you are trying to purvey. If you can find me an evolutionist who has said that the chromosomes shared by human and chimps are chimp then I’m going to agree that this is a lie and anyone who implies it should just stop.

…and that in humans they fused into one Chromosome. I do not believe that Chimps and Humans share a common ancestry, but that we are separately created by one Intelligent Designer, God Himself, using a common design for similar physical traits.

Well you can believe that if you wish. But you are saying the evolutionist view is a deception. But you have not shown there is any deception other than one you’ve made up.

Here, from Undertow post on page 1 to which I replied. Evolutionary scientists statement in their succesful efforts to censor Intelligent Design.

"We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."

[Undertow]

Reply to Undertow.

(1) Bart: "Why are evolutionist so gullible to loaded explanations that allege common ancestry without any hard science behind it, just story telling.

(1) Undertow: Gullible enough to see clear sequence similarities between human chromosome 2 and two chimp chromosomes? It fits within the common descent paradigm perfectly. You can't deny that.

(1a)Bart Reply: They are not Chimp Chromosomes, the evolutionary scientists are being deceptive when they call them that, and so are you for repeating it. (1b) The Nazi's were good at this type of propaganda when they wanted to convince the German population that Jews were genetically inferior and were far closer to being chimp than being human.

(1c) Evolutionists have long stated that the DNA of Humans and Chimps were less than 2%. Based upon this, we would expect most of the Chromosomes to match, especially since we have 2 legs, 2 eyes, nose, heart, lungs, five toes, etc. etc. A mouse has 90% of their DNA matching Human DNA. These similarities are due to similarity is biological structure and function.

(1d) With Intelligent Design, one would expect similarity in the basic design of the automobile: 4 wheels, a battery, an alternator, a steering wheel, an engine, a gas tank, a trunk, etc.. No one would look at the minor differences and assume that auto's came into existence by materialistic evolution from a common ancestor.

(1e) With respect to the fused human chromosomes in question, it is perfectly legitimate to say that all humans alive today descend from a common human ancestor in whom the Fusion took place. To claim it took place in some unknown ape species that is not common to chimps and the other living apes is an absurdity that can only be credited to force fitting the evidence into the evolutionary scientists personal prejudices. This is why I despise many evolutionary scientists, they destroy science with their fairy tales based upon their unwarranted pre-suppositions.

(2) Bart: After I took in the argument, it took me a mere minute or so to see the false assumption in the evolutionists argument.

However, to be fair to you, I did go through all your sources, listened to the video, etc., to ascertain I did not miss any hard science showing common ancestry between human and chimp, and not the human 'Chimp' that posts on this forum.


(2) Undertow: What false assumption? That human chromosome 2 is the result of a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes within our linage and that we share common ancestry with chimps based on the sequence similarity? How is common ancestry anything but plausible based on these assumptions? How are these assumptions false? Demonstrate it to me.

(2a) Bart Reply: The simplest explanation is indeed, that if there was indeed a fusion of these two Chromosomes in Humans by chance mutation, then the fusion occurred in a human who is the ancestor to all existing humans. There is no evidence of common ancestry here. (2b) It is evidence of a common Intelligent Designer. It obviously did not occur in a common ancestor of humans and chimps.

(2c) But what if we found this same fused chromosome in an ape that is considered far removed from chimp and man. (2d) Would evolutionists finally admit that this whole evolutionary stuff is all bunk, the product of imaginations wishing evolution to be true? Of course not, evolutionary scientists, materialists, athiests, have far too much at stake to ever deny evolutionism, regardless of the data. Their answer would be that the chimp is still the closest relative to humans and that distant ape with the fused Chromosome is simply convergent evolution. This is the bullshit that the Theory of Evolution thrives on. (2e) They were correct at Wistar in 1966, no matter what contradictory data the evolutionary scientists encounters, he can always adjust the data to keep it from falsifying "Evolution the Fact." In this case, they would simply label it 'convergent' evolution. The Theory of Evolution is an unfalsifiable Tautological Theory, akin to UFO's and their intergalactic proctologists. In fact UFO's are more scientific than the the Theory of Evolution, it has many eye witnesses. As science, Evolution (i.e. common ancestry of all creatures extant and extinct) never did ring true.

(3) Bart: No I did not miss anything. The fact is that no ape has this fused chromosome. Only humans. Fact is the Chimps, apes, ... have physical characteristics that are closest to humans, and the most similar body plans ought to the most similar chromosome structure.

(3) Undertow: Correct, no non-human primates have this fusion, suggesting it happened after the separation of our respective lineages.

(3a) Bart Reply: The 'after separation of our respective lineages' part is mere speculation and story telling, and not science.

(4) Bart: Did these evolutionists ever consider the possibility that humans once had the 48 chromosomes just like apes and that all humans alive today share a common ancestry with human ancestry that had THEIR two Chromosomes fused together. This is a better explanation than conjuring up some unknown imaginary common ancestor between humans and chimps based on the assumption of evolution.

(4) Undertow: You can hold this view if you like and totally neglect sequence data of two independent chimp chromosomes. The evolution position encompases all the data.

(4a) Bart Reply: Deny it as you wish, precise exactness of the sequence data the humans and Chimps chromosomes is evidence of intelligent design for same body structure design. (4b) The ID position encompasses all the data, the evolutionists are projecting their evolutionism bias's on the data, they never presented any sound evidence that would justify their assumption of 'common ancestry.' (4c) The evidence goes for ID, the Chimps, and the other of apes, do not have this fusion.

(5) Bart: It is also amazing how evolutionary scientists jump at the chance to plant their evolutionary assumptions right into their 'science' results.

(5) Undertow: These assumptions, or hypotheses lets call them, have been tested by alligning them to the genome data at hand. Low and behold, the data fits, therefore the hypotheses are supported. A little more than what the word assumption suggests, no?

(5a) Bart Reply: No, not at all. I've been in full agreement all along that the Chromosomes allign perfectly. Above, I described how an intelligent designer provides the same physical operational sequence to reproduce common body structures. Only bias against the possibility of an intelligent designer could lead to a forced conclusion of 'sola common descent'. (5b)The Theory that an Intelligent Designer starts to become very plausible when one considers that both the origin of life, and the materialistic evolution from a bacteria to human is falsified by our current state of science. (5c) This is because Intelligent design can do something the evolution (chance mutations and necessite) can never do, impose limitations on the Laws of Physics and Chance, to bring about the highly specified molecular configurations needed to program the operation of biological functions of the known reproducible lifeforms on our planet.

(6)Undertow: Come on, actually come up with an argument of substance on your own without bearing a grudge. I don't think you feel this is wasting your time, I think you're intimidated that someone actually took you up on your offer with substantial sources. Come up with an argument encompassing more data than my arguments do while citing sources

(6) Bart Reply: You're a believer Undertow, a true believer of the faith. Science has nothing to do with your faith in evolutionism.

(1a) You aren't understanding what I'm referring to. I stated "Gullible enough to see clear sequence similarities between human chromosome 2 and two chimp chromosomes" The chimp chromosomes I was referring to are those from chimpanzees (like there are any other kind of 'chimp chromosomes'?) and in suggesting common ancestry, they are compared to human chromosomes 2 for the sequence similarities to be analysed.

(1b) Relevance?

(1c) Yes, our DNA sequence is very similar and yes, the sequences of our chromosomes is very similar. What's the issue here?

(1d) Relevance? Automobiles aren't alive, they don't have DNA that mutates and they aren't subject to natural selection, thereby making the assertion that we wouldn't conclude the similarities between cars as having come about through evolution obvious. By the way with intelligent design, if the designer attempts not to fool us humans into thinking that we are related to chimps, he would see no need in making a codon bias and would make our genomes 66% or less similar allowable by the redundancy of the genetic code. Indeed he shouldn't even need to make the code redundant. Indeed he shouldn't even need to make all organisms on the planet have the same genetic code at all! He would not insert some endogenous retroviruses, SINES, LINES and redundant pseudogenes in the same loci for chimps and humans. Indeed if he were at all intelligent, there would be no such thing as a redundant pseudogene. These are the things that evolution explains where ID offers no more than an unfalsifiable appeasement of belief.

(1e) The claim is not that it happened in some unknown ape species, it's that it happened in our lineage. Let me simplify it as best I can: Is common ancestry a valid explanation for the fact that human chromosome 2 is highly sequentially similar to two independent chimpanzee chromosomes? If not, why not? If so, it is evidence for the common ancestry of us and chimps.

(2a) The evidence for common ancestry comes in with the uncanny similarity between human chromosomes 2 and two independent chimp chromosomes.

(2b) How so?

(2c) Relevance? This is not the issue at hand. But for the record, if the same fused chromosome as our chromosomes 2 was found in a completely unrelated species then yes, evolution would have a lot of explaining to do and would possibly be falsified.

(2d) You are wrong of this character judgment for me (because I can speak for myself) and I'd argue for all other scientists. Scientists are interested in what the evidence has to say. You're also assuming here that evolutionists would act dogmatically and try and rationalise evolution in light of contradictory evidence with none of your basis in example or evidence yet all of your basis in all meaningless rhetoric, again.

(2e) Could you provide some examples of the contradictory data from some sources? The rhetoric is boring me and again and highly irrelevant of the actual line of evidence being discussed here.

(3a) The data suggestes that we and chimps are related and thus our lineages split. See the rest of the evidences I provided. Why is it not science? Finding a fused chromosome in the human genome was a test for evolution. There must have been 2 independent chimp chromosomes of homologous sequence based on the fact that they and all other great apes have 48 chromosomes and we have 46. It was so, the hypothesis was verified and it has become evidence for common ancestry.

(4a) ID is an unfalsifiable cop out. How did you test that the precise exactness of the chromosomes is evidence for ID of the same body structure design? On what basis do you claim this as evidence for ID?

(4b) Did you just copy what I said and replaced evolution with intelligent design? I'd like to see how ID explains the other lines of evidence I presented. Why do we have viral genes in us? Why do we have redundant genes in us? Why do we have some 'Alu' sequences in the exact same positions in the genomes of humans and chimps? Why do some of the viral genes and redundant pseudogenes in us reside in the exact same position as in chimps? How does intelligent design explain these counter intuitive genetic elements? If the design is so intelligent, why was there even a fusion in the human linage? Did the intelligent designer fall asleep for a few million years and go "oh! s***, forgot to fuse the chromosomes!"? Can you falsify my hypothesis that the intelligent designer fell asleep after making the mistake of not fusing human chromosome 2? No, of course you can't, because it's unfalsifiable, untestable and thus not science.

(4c) How is this evidence for ID?

(5a) No, intelligent design is not science, it's an unfalsifiable cop out. How do you know that "an intelligent designer provides the same physical operational sequence to reproduce common body structures"? Did you test this at all or are you assuming it? You've claimed numerous times of evidence for ID. How does similarity evidence an intelligent designer? Do you think it evidences evolution at all?

(5b) I don't know what's worse, the fact that this is an outright lie, that you provide no basis for this claim or that again, this is wholly irrelevant to the line of evidence we were supposed to be discussing.

(5c) How convenient. If you propose that the intelligent designer can manipulate natural laws then not only is ID a cop out and unfalsifiable, but now you've just made it well and truly impossible to test at all.

(6) Again, irrelevant and wrong. You're making a character judgment because I took you up on an offer to supply evidence for common descent. The fact that you are predominantly using meaningless rhetoric which is at times wrong and at other times highly irrelevant to the issue and that you end up by accusing me of being a 'true believer' and having 'faith', which has nothing to do with the line of evidence, says a lot about your position.

I'm interested to hear your rebuttal of the other lines of evidence I've put forth.

[Furrowed Brow]

Thank you Bart007. And now we get near the nub of the semantic issue.

We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.

The ancestor was ape or ape like, not chimp.

Ah but you are just playing with names FB I hear you cry. Well no. If you are going to criticise the evolutionary theory then how can your criticism be taken seriously if you are criticising a caricature.

So when you make the accusation

The Nazi's were good at this type of propaganda when they wanted to convince the German population that Jews were genetically inferior and were far closer to being chimp than being human.

Are you sure you are not heading down the propaganda path yourself? And are you doing your utmost to avoid self serving twists of logic to score political points; twists that really which amount to empty rhetoric.

Lets look at an example of what I mean.

With respect to the fused human chromosomes in question, it is perfectly legitimate to say that all humans alive today descend from a common human ancestor in whom the Fusion took place.

And so far you are in complete agreement with evolutionary theory. However I'll repeat my questions of an earlier post. What did humans look like prioir to the fusing? A bit ape like da ya think? Ok lets throw out the idea of common ancestry for a nanosecond. What is a legtimate expectation for pre fusion human morphology?

To claim it took place in some unknown ape species that is not common to chimps and the other living apes is an absurdity

Why an absurdity? Well it is easier to call it an absurdity if you call the ancestor a chimp. Little changes of word just loosen up the target to take a hit. Don’t ya think.

Ok lets look at a couple of arguments you put forward to support the absurdity claim

Evolutionists have long stated that the DNA of Humans and Chimps were less than 2%. Based upon this, we would expect most of the Chromosomes to match, especially since we have 2 legs, 2 eyes, nose, heart, lungs, five toes, etc. etc. A mouse has 90% of their DNA matching Human DNA. These similarities are due to similarity is biological structure and function.

MOST of the chromosomes do match. What are you arguing against?

With Intelligent Design, one would expect similarity in the basic design of the automobile: 4 wheels, a battery, an alternator, a steering wheel, an engine, a gas tank, a trunk, etc.. No one would look at the minor differences and assume that auto's came into existence by materialistic evolution from a common ancestor.

If the object is constructed out of DNA, then no matter how complex the object, or how it functions, then we have an historical DNA lineage to uncover and explain. So no one, not even us evolutionists thinks a car design is subject to biological evolution. Again what are you arguing against? This argument by analogy is thrashing at shadows that only exist in the mind of an anti evolutionist propagandist.

that can only be credited to force fitting the evidence into the evolutionary scientists personal prejudices.

This is the evolutionary "prejudice". There is DNA. A physical phenomena that can be accurately analysed and described. The DNA has structure, and due to mutation genetic code can be seen to change from one generation to the next. The first prejudice is that this is an ongoing process. The second is that the evolutionist imposes no a priori limitations upon what changes can be realised, and thus what changes can be seen in the morphology - other than limitations of time, circumstance, environment, selection pressures, chemistry, physics and logic.

This is why I despise many evolutionary scientists, they destroy science with their fairy tales based upon their unwarranted pre-suppositions.

I think you need to let go of that hate there Bart007. Propaganda and hate are a potent mix.

You think evolutionary theory is a fairy tale? Hmmm. I don’t think you actually said very much at all about the real evolutionary theory yet.

[Undertow]

Furrowed Brow:

In a way I think we've been duped. You see my exhaustive response? You see the bold? That's the only part of that response which actually relates to the line of evidence I presented and which was largely ignored in favour of other lines of argument by Bart. Everything else was just rhetoric and response to said rhetoric; nothing more than styrofoam in a cardboard box. Wasted ATP. This cuts to the core of people such as Bart. There is no substance. There is less regard for matters of fact than there is for throwing doubt at evolutionary biologists with a perception of them as something they are either not, something they possibly are only to be known through assumption, or something they are yet exaggeratingly so. It's rhetoric in favour of what is; fact. Rhetoric in favour of what can be tested or what has been tested. Rhetoric in favour of looking past the rhetoric to debate substance. It gets tiring.

The issue is simply the use as human chromosome 2 as a line of evidence for common ancestry with chimpanzees. The chromosome is known to have resulted from the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes in our lineage i.e. in our own ancestry. The chromosome is known to have taken us from 48 chromosomes, in line with the other extant great apes, to 46 chromosomes. The test came in when it was absolutely necessary, if the other great apes (chimps in particular, as they are hypothesised to be our closest extant relatives) are our closest relatives, to find two seperate chromosomes analagous in sequence to human chromosome 2. They were found and thus human chromosome 2 is used as a line of evidence for our common ancestry with chimps. The theory that we are part of the great chain of evolution and not the product of any other process could have been demonstrably falsified with the phenomenon of human chromosome 2 if it didn't line up with the hypothesis.

In my view, this factually based reasoned argument is justified. The scientific community agrees, as is evidenced by a snapshot of papers I provided, one of which from the journal Science.

All killer no filler. As I said, the rhetoric starts to get tiring. I just needed to get that off my chest.

[QED]

Natural Selection can not be the cause for evolution because it can only select traits that already exist.

Then please explain why, when the logical principle that underlies natural selection is modelled (for example by Evolutionary programs like Avida, it does cause evolution. (Thanks are due to Fisherking for bringing Avida to my attention).

We already went through algorithyms, you and I, and I did not buy it because these algorithyms require intelligently designed devices, programs, and intelligent human input. And you also were unable to produce the programs and explain how it imitates random chance molecular events aided only by the laws of physics.

Bart007, I put in bold you claim about what natural selection cannot do. That's all I want to address for now. Natural selection is one proposed principle for the ordering of biological molecules according to the laws of physics. It is stated in algorithmic form because it has been identified as a logical principle. As such it can be modelled in any number of ways to see if, counter to your claim about the principle, it is indeed capable of innovation -- capable of making intelligent looking design selections. This point alone is important without extending it from the general case to the specific biological case. Perhaps you would concede to the logical principle of natural selection not being confined to the selection of pre-existing traits, but being capable of innovating in its own rights? Probably not, in which case we can continue to work on the models known as Genetic Algorithms.

In these I have shown you that the logical principle of evolution by natural selection is routinely modeled and used to generate novel, human-competetive, patentable designs. Your answer to this so far has been that it's all a product of human intellect. Such a sweeping write-off comes no where near achieving your aims when others have examined this question in detail in the topic specially created for that purpose Can designs be evolved without intellectual contamination? and failed to contradict the assertion that they can. I've noticed a marked reluctance for people to take up this invitation lately (one that I've extended several times this week). If you can see it clearly enough in your own mind how the intelligence apparently embodied in the algorithm is actually entirely due to the intellect of the designer of the algorithm, then I would encourage you to explain it to me in that topic.

The field of Genetic Programming is becoming almost as wide and complex as its biological counterpart. I have presented you with a couple of Google search results rather than select any particular article because I can see the core of the debate getting lost in the intricate details of the research -- it should suffice for you to see that people do actually get useful products out of their applications (unless you suspect that all of the links Google comes up with are fraudulent ) . I think that the essential ability of an algorithm to innovate can be discussed at a such level that we can work it through Gedanken style. I only wish I could get someone to take me up on it here.