• Casey Luskin’s Top Ten Misunderstandings of Biology

    Over at the so-called “Evolution News” site, Casey Luskin presents his Top Ten Problems with Chemical and Biological Evolution (h/t to Dr. Larry Moran). Or, as I prefer to call them, The top ten things Casey doesn’t understand. Links to his original complaints are below. I have to say though, that while he does make a few references, he doesn’t seem to actually have any references to literature that explores the actual topic.

    Casey’s list and my responses are below.

    1. No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup.
    2. Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code.
    3. Step-by-Step Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Needed for Irreducible Complexity.
    4. Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits in Populations.
    5. Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution.
    6. Molecular Biology Has Failed to Yield a Grand “Tree of Life”.
    7. Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry.
    8. Differences Between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry.
    9. Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of Many Specie.
    10. Neo-Darwinism’s Long History of Inaccurate Predictions about Junk Organs and Junk DNA.

    Number 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup

    I’m not even sure what his complain is here. The primordial soup is a fairly well understood concept and the chemical reactions to get biological compounds from non-living sources are well understood. Now, some scientists don’t like the “primordial soup” concept and I can see that. I guess it depends on how you define the “soup”.

    Let’s see…

    Springsteen, G. & Joyce, G. F. Selective derivatization and sequestration of ribose from a prebiotic mix. J. Am. Chem. Soc.126, 9578–83 (2004).

    Powner, M. W., Gerland, B. & Sutherland, J. D. Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions. Nature 459, 239–42 (2009).

    Ruiz-Mirazo, K., Briones, C. & Escosura, A. Prebiotic systems chemistry: new perspectives for the origins of life. Chemical reviews 114, 285–366 (2014).

    Saladino, R., Botta, G., Pino, S., Costanzo, G. & Mauro, E. Genetics first or metabolism first? The formamide clue. Chem Soc Rev 41, 5526–5565 (2012).

    Keller, M., Turchyn, A. & Ralser, M. Non‐enzymatic glycolysis and pentose phosphate pathway‐like reactions in a plausible Archean ocean. Molecular Systems Biology 10, (2014).

    That’s just a few I found with a simple search in my personal library. Every few years there’s an origins of life conference. The last one was a few years ago and had over 200 papers presented.

    Maybe the primordial soup idea isn’t very good, but that doesn’t mean that life was created by god… I mean, a designer.

    Number 2  Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code.

    Once again, a simple search in google scholar would show Casey that he’s wrong. Of course, he’s got a cushy job, making more money than I’ll ever make and he doesn’t have to say things that he can support with evidence. So, I’m guessing there’s not much incentive to actually do research (as we saw with Meyer).

    Koonin, E. & Novozhilov, A. Origin and evolution of the genetic code: The universal enigma. IUBMB Life 61, 99–111 (2009).

    The three main concepts on the origin and evolution of the code are the stereochemical theory, according to which codon assignments are dictated by physicochemical affinity between amino acids and the cognate codons (anticodons); the coevolution theory, which posits that the code structure coevolved with amino acid biosynthesis pathways; and the error minimization theory under which selection to minimize the adverse effect of point mutations and translation errors was the principal factor of the code’s evolution. These theories are not mutually exclusive and are also compatible with the frozen accident hypothesis, that is, the notion that the standard code might have no special properties but was fixed simply because all extant life forms share a common ancestor, with subsequent changes to the code, mostly, precluded by the deleterious effect of codon reassignment.

    Wait, I thought unguided processes couldn’t explain it, but there’s THREE hypotheses for it and a fourth if you count plain ole contingency.

    Now, let’s be clear, the likelihood that we will ever be able to say, “This is exactly how it happened nearly 4 billion years ago.” is very small. Especially with hypotheses that are not mutually exclusive.

    However, and again, that doesn’t meant that a designer did it.

    Number 3  Step-by-Step Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Needed for Irreducible Complexity.

    Bullshit. It can and has. I have posted about that extensively here on this blog.

    For example, the origin of a variety of LEAFY alleles.

    The evolution of associated proteins. That’s right, two proteins that evolved to function together.

    New abilities in digital organisms.

    Color-blindness and gene duplication.

    More gene duplication.

    Number 4  Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits in Populations

    This is a fundamental misunderstanding of basic biology. This is almost trivial to show. Let’s say that there’s a population of, I don’t know, bacteria. And that population is running along pretty smoothly. But, over, about 20,000 generations, that population has gained some mutations. All of a sudden, almost overnight, a subpopulation has a totally new, never before used source of energy. That population, almost overnight, literally takes over and pushes another population out.

    I wonder where such a thing might have occurred in real life

    It’s not a struggle, it’s easy for even a partially advantageous trait to appear with a large frequency in a population… like we see with sickle cell anemia.

    Number 5  Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution

    The abrupt appearance of fossils in the fossil record is a trait of the time and the processes of fossilization. What Casey seems to be saying here is that, if you don’t have the bones of every single one of your dead ancestors, then you can’t prove that you exist. Or something like that. I honestly expect better from someone with a master’s degree in Earth Science.

    I’ve talked about how Casey’s buddy Meyer misrepresents the fossil record anyway here, and here, and here.

    This isn’t exactly new stuff either. The limits of fossilization have been well understood for well over a century. But I guess, it’s easy to ignore the relevant research in order to keep a cushy job.

    Number 6  Molecular Biology Has Failed to Yield a Grand “Tree of Life”

    I don’t think that there is a single tree of life that can explain every living thing that has ever existed on our planet either. It doesn’t mean that a designer did it.

    Here’s the thing. When we’re talking about organisms, on the early Earth, that behave similarly to bacteria today, then it’s almost impossible to derive a single tree-of-life. When one bacteria can consume another bacteria, then take it’s genes, then the idea of one population being the descendant of another population kinds of goes out the window.

    However, once we get to multicellular critters, I think we’re in much better shape that Luskin thinks we are.

    Number 7  Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry

    Convergent evolution is one of the best examples of evolution. Organisms with a very, very distant relationship look similar when they are in the same environment. This is makes perfect sense with evolution in that the things that work get passed on to the next generation.

    But we have to be very careful here. While an ichthyosaur and a dolphin look similar at a very high level (pointy on one end, fat in the middle, and flat at the other end), the details are massively different.

    I wonder if Casey has the same misunderstanding of convergent evolution as Meyer does?

    Number 8  Differences Between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry

    Huh? The differences between vertebrate embryos are expected due to evolution. In fact, it’s the entire reason behind Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body which everyone should read. This is some of the best evidence for evolution there is.

    Number 9  Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of Many Specie

    I don’t know why it’s the job of a theory about the diversity of life to explain the various travels of life. But apparently Casey, hasn’t been reading my blog. The Monkey’s Voyage does a much better job explaining this than Casey’s ideas do.

    Number 10  Neo-Darwinism’s Long History of Inaccurate Predictions about Junk Organs and Junk DNA

    Hmmm… science changes when new information comes in. So?

     

    What’s really sad is that there is nothing new in this list that hasn’t been debunked for decades. My own writings on these subjects may be about recent research, but these ideas have been a part of evolutionary from almost the beginning. All of the issues have been worked out and dealt with long ago. We know the fossil record isn’t perfect, doesn’t mean it’s useless.

    Now, let me turn the tables Casey… if you dare (and we both know you don’t). Why don’t write a detailed explanation, with evidence, for how ID answers these questions better than science does.

    Please tell us Casey, how the animals from Noah’s Ark got all over the world and from all over the world to the ark. Why don’t you tell us how ID predicts what we should expect from convergent evolution. Or how life came to be in the first place.

    I won’t hold my breath.

    Category: CreationismEvolutionOrigins of LifeScienceSkepticism

    Tags:

    Article by: Smilodon's Retreat

    • RexTugwell

      I’m not holding my breath either, Smiley. He’s probably never even heard of Smilodon’s Snoozefest to begin with.

      Yeah, sickle cell anemia. Ain’t evolution grand?

      Btw, what’s with all the grousing about DI jobs and salaries among you people? Just because you made poor decisions in life doesn’t mean you should be envious of others. Behe chose science as a career and he can support 9 children. Of course it does help to write best-selling books. How’s yours coming along? 13 Reasons To Doubt sucks while Darwin’s Doubt has been #1 in Amazon’s Paleontology catagory for the past week almost 2 years after publication.

      • SmilodonsRetreat

        Yeah, well. I have ethics and am trying to write a book that tells the truth instead of lying like Meyer and Luskin.

        I could be rich, but not be being a liar.

        And yes, evolution is grand. Because the same trait that may give sickle cell also protects from malaria. Something that creationists never understand… it’s all relative.

        • Joe G

          No, you have ignorance and that is all you have.

        • RexTugwell

          Oh I understand the benefits of sickle cell Smiley. I also understand that given the scarcity of large-scale examples, sickle cell anemia has become the poster child for Darwinian evolution. I understand that such a fatal disease brought on by a single point mutation is the best that evolution can muster in the past 10,000 years of human history.

          Behe puts it quite nicely in his book

          It is crystal clear that the spread of the sickle gene is the result of Darwinian evolution — natural selection acting on random mutation. In fact, it’s so transparent that the example of the sickle gene is nearly always used to teach biology students about evolution. Even in the professional literature sickle cell disease is still called, along with other mutations related to malaria, “one of the best examples of natural selection acting on the human genome.”

          [Warning: ellipsis ahead. For the sake of brevity, I excluded the intervening text. I can provide it upon request so as not to be accused of quote mining or grammatical abuse.]

          The defense of vertebrates from invasion by microscopic predators is the job of the immune system, yet hemoglobin is not part of the immune system. Hemoglobin’s main job is as part of the respiratory system, to carry oxygen to tissues. Using hemoglobin to fight off malaria is an act of utter desperation, like using a TV set to plug a hole in the Hoover Dam. Even leaving aside the question of where the dam and TV set came from — which is no small question — it must be conceded that this Darwinian process is a tradeoff of least-bad alternatives. The army in its trenches is suffering loss upon loss. No matter which way it turns, in this war fought by random mutation and natural selection, it is losing function, not gaining.

          Emphasis mine

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Then you are wrong. There are a ton of examples of positive mutations. You have been given plenty of examples before and voluntarily choose to ignore them. That’s not my problem. It’s yours.

            The reason it is used so frequently is because it is simple for people who don’t have firm grasp of evolutionary principles to understand and deal with. It teaches the things that creationists constantly get wrong.

            A) That mutations never result in a benefit. The Sickle cell shows that mutation can.

            B) That you can determine the benefit or detriment of a mutation by only looking at the DNA. This is not true because THE ENVIRONMENT is what determines whether a mutation is beneficial, negative (unless it kills the organism outright), or neutral. The mutation that resulted in HIV immunity was totally neutral for several thousand years, until HIV began attacking humans.

            Since, Rex, you have been given this information before, I can only assume that your continued use of these claims is that you A) refuse to learn anything that disagrees with your opinion on the subject or B) you are willfully lying.

            • RexTugwell

              Don’t patronize me, Smilodon. Who’s the one willfully lying?

              Creationists constantly claim that:
              A) mutations never result in a benefit?
              WRONG
              B)you can determine the benefit or detriment of a mutation by only looking at the DNA.
              WRONG
              I know of no one on either side of the debate that makes those claims.

              CCR5, the deletion mutation that confers immunity to HIV, is a broken gene. Behe mentions it in his book.

              Beneficial? Yes
              Deleterious? No
              Well within the edge of evolution? Yes
              Will it lead to some new molecular machine? Not holding my breath

              I ask again: Ain’t evolution grand?

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Yes, I constantly have creationist saying that mutations are never beneficial. Heck, there’s a few here on this very blog that have said so. I know one creationist who claims that speciation doesn’t happen. Does every creationist claim so? No… usually after I provide them example.

              It doesn’t matter if the gene is broken or not. In an environment with HIV the mutation provides a benefit. I’ve provided plenty of other examples of beneficial mutations.

              Will this lead to some new molecular machine? Maybe, define new.

              Does it have to be totally unique? In which case, you are asking evolution to provide evidence for creationism.

              Can it new a modified copy of a previous gene? In which case, that’s trivial to show.

              So, as with everything when arguing with creationists, YOU need to define your terms. Then I can either provide an example or tell you why your issue is a non-issue.

              But you won’t, because they you lose the greatest power of creationists… changing the method of the argument.

              Just like you’ve done here.

              You’r original claim was refuted. So you tried to cry about how others are mean too. Then you tried to distract by accusing me of being a liar. It’s a nice try, but just note, for the record, that abandoning your original claim is just saying that I was right and you were wrong.

            • RexTugwell

              Sorry Smiley. You’ll have to clarify. My original claim was that Luskin probably never heard of your Snoozefest.

              You’ve given two very paltry examples of what you claim is the awesome power of evolution which elicit nothing but a yawn and confirm Behe’s First Rule of Adaptive Evolution (“break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain”) Isn’t that what Sickle Cell and CCR5 do? Next example. Maybe something from Lenski’s lab.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Sorry wrong thread. Luskin has heard of my work and chooses to ignore it. He has written about it though.

              I’ve given you dozens of examples, you choose to ignore them. Heck, I wrote about some new ones yesterday.

              I further note that you have not defined a term that I requested. This is a common occurrence with you specifically and other creationists generally.

              Define “new” in the context of genetics.

            • RexTugwell

              A common occurrence is to resort to definition requests when you’ve got no good examples. It happens a lot over at UD.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              1) I continue to remind you that this blog and the literature are full of such examples. You don’t like those examples so…

              2) Until I know what you want to see, then there’s not point me doing research for you, is there?

              Define “new” in the context of genetics and genes.

            • RexTugwell

              Sorry Smilodon, I forgot you were a real scientist. Thank you for asking for clarification of my original statement. I asked “will it lead to some new molecular machine” when I should have said “will it lead to some de novo molecular machine”. Since de novo is found throughout the scientific literature any request for further definitions would be moot.

              So the question becomes, is the poster child for evolution, sickle cell anemia, a promising evolutionary intermediate to some wonderful macromolecule down the road or an evolutionary dead-end? The same can be asked of your other mutation example – CCR5.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Oh, so you’ve read all the literature on de novo generation of new genes then. I’m curious as to how you determined, with your extensive biological knowledge, that those papers should be rejected. Please, enlighten me.

              I want to confirm that de novo generation is what you are talking about. Correct?

              Finally, the future state of genes and alleles is impossible to determine. All that we need to know is that it has survival value in that environment. And they do.

              So yay. We’ve shown that your requirements have been met and now you accept that evolution can generate new genes and alleles. Unless you can debunk ALL of the papers that show de novo generation of new genes and alleles.

              Another few rounds of this and you’ll realize that evolution actually can do those things. You already know that ID is totally bogus.

            • RexTugwell

              “Another few rounds of this and you’ll realize that evolution actually can do those things. You already know that ID is totally bogus.”
              No, when sickle cell and CCR5 are offered to illustrate the power of evolution, I’m more convinced than ever that evolution actually can NOT do those things.

              You’re simply projecting your own wishful thinking. I’ve got a pretty good idea of what evolution is capable of doing and it ain’t much. You wanted a definition of “new”, I offered you de novo (which simply means to the Darwinist “we don’t know where the hell it came from”). Let’s stay in the real world for a bit longer, shall we? Later we can enter the wonderful world of theory, experimentation and fantasy.

              Your real world examples of sickle cell anemia and CCR5 are unimpressive and will never lead to new genes or alleles. Antibiotic resistance is another dead end.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              So, by your logic, I can never walk a 1000 miles, because each step is only 3 feet.

              Got it.

              I guess Lenski’s experiment isn’t valid for some reason. I mean, a completely new trait appeared in a population. But it took 25,000 generations, with tiny changes along the way. But you never think about that. It wasn’t instant.

              You want something to happen within your lifetime, that is constantly observed, when you’re the only one who expects something like that to happen in a few years.

              Tell me, would you even know it if you saw it? I doubt it. Watching the empire state building being built is very different from leaving home for college, coming back 4-years later and it being built, where there was just a parking lot before.

              It’s OK, it doesn’t matter. I know that nothing will convince you. Not because of science, but because of ideology. Heck, you still think Meyer is a good researcher and scientist. Whatever.

            • RexTugwell

              No, I’m afraid you don’t get it. On your 1,000-mile journey, you don’t know the destination, you’re blindfolded, you don’t walk in a straight line and you’re continually running into walls and falling off cliffs. All the preceding facts more accurately describe your little analogy. No?

              BTW, do you have some template you use when replying to me? It seems a lot of your responses follow a cookie cutter pattern.
              Your final paragraph usually starts out with “It’s OK, it doesn’t matter” followed by the lament that I’m beyond hope because of ideology and ending with a jab at Meyer. Even if you never did deliver on your promise to shred Meyer’s every argument, you’ve got to let it go. It’s not healthy.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Meyer makes no arguments and the evidence is provides is simply lies that he made up.

              Ok, let’s extended the analogy. Everything you said is true, but now there are hundreds of thousands of people walking, and every time one of them gets a little further down the road, their offspring start from there. Done.

              I really don’t understand how hard this is. You have to assume that one thing did all the steps, when that’s not the case. I never hear ID proponents talking about populations.

            • RexTugwell

              It’s not hard to understand at all, Smiley. You never hear ID proponents talking about populations because of your self-imposed ignorance of our true positions. There’s a professor of biochemistry up at Lehigh University (it’s been disputed whether he actually teaches classes there or not) who wrote a book about 8 years ago called The Edge of Evolution. It’s premise is based on populations and even with enormous populations, RM/NS just can’t seem to do very much. After 10,000 billion billion organisms, malaria still can’t find a defense against sickle cell.

              Page 153:

              Time is actually not the chief factor in evolution— population numbers are. In calculating how quickly a beneficial mutation might appear, evolutionary biologists multiply the mutation rate by the population size. Since for many kinds of organisms the mutation rate is pretty similar, the waiting time for the appearance of helpful mutations depends mostly on numbers of organisms: The bigger the population or the faster the reproduction cycle, the more quickly a particular mutation will show up.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Shame that your professor doesn’t even know if ID is a mechanistic theory or not…

              Let’s see, he accepts common descent, which means that everything evolved… including so-called macroevolution. His “research” has been proven wrong any number of times by people who actually do experiments.

              And he was very confused about how many bacteria (for example) exist on the Earth. In fact, it was the bacteria population that got him so flustered at the great ID court case, in which that same professor was cited as a reason that ID was not science and not to be taught in science courses in public schools.

              Are you really sure you want to hang your hat on that guy?

            • RexTugwell

              What’s a shame is that you don’t refute what I say in my last comment, so you resort to attacking on Behe. That tells me everything I need to know. Compared to Behe, both personally and professionally, you’re nobody.

              As for Dover, are you sure you want to hang your hat on the decision of a guy who was chairman of the PA Liquor Control Board for 7 years before becoming a judge. Yeah, I’m sure he had a solid grasp of the science involved.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Have you read Behe’s testimony? I have, I’ll get you think link. His cross examination is especially interesting… and directly refutes your claims. Behe is misrepresenting evolution populations and time. Then he’s called on it by the attorney.

              As far as judge Jones, No, I don’t expect him to be an expert on science. That was the job of the defense to make their case as best that they could. The ID proponents MADE this about the science, not the science side. The ID proponents requested that the judge make a decision about science, not the science side.

              The ID attorneys had their chance to present the case for ID and disrupt the case for evolution. They failed on both counts. Dembski chickened out, but not before collecting some nice fees. I didn’t seem Meyer in the mix either. Just Behe, who was destroyed, couldn’t make his case, and couldn’t even say things that weren’t contradictory.

              The judge, as judges do, look at the evidence presented by both sides.

              Shame you’re too blinded by bias to even try to think about the evidence.

            • RexTugwell

              Another cookie cutter response.

              Shame. Whatever. Blah, blah, blah.
              (hey, I sound like you BWAHAHAHAHAHA! )

            • Rikki

              Yeah, it just couldn’t be the case that creationists constantly equivocate and play word games and the only way to move forward in examining their claims is to get them to provide the relevant definitions alongside their assertions. Or when they ask for examples they need to be clear exactly what it is they are asking for. Or that occasionally it needs to be asked just to see if the person inquiring actually understands the subject matter at hand and determine that it won’t be a complete waste of time engaging with the intellectually dishonest or willfully ignorant. Or sometimes to illustrate the creationists penchant for being intentionally obtuse in the use of catch-phrase-talking-points like “information” or “new”.

              Nah, couldn’t be any of those, right ?

              I don’t know how to break this to you Rex. You should try to get over your man-crush on Smilodon. He’s just not that into you.

      • Tim Tian

        Hey Rex. Nice doublethink technique. You should become a Ingsoc Minitrue instructor, if it ever becomes 31 years ago.

        • RexTugwell

          I get the 1984 reference but I’m not sure to what you’re referring in my comment regarding doublethink, Tim. Maybe you can explain yourself.

          • Tim Tian

            Well, considering one of your most used arguments for ID is “oh how perfect everything is”(paraphrasing)… Really, excellent. No conflict at all you say?

            • RexTugwell

              ID doesn’t say how perfect everything is. If the word “perfection” is used, it’s used to convey how well something works or how beautiful something appears to be not that an object isn’t suboptimal.
              Try again.

            • Tim Tian

              Nor does evolution, which, in fact, does so less than ID.

            • Tim Tian

              Also, I like your implication. You designer is pretty intelligent to hide behind a veil of stupidity so no one knows he’s there.

              Only a blind engineer would make something barely work.

    • Eddie Janssen

      Has anyone ever thought of the idea of creating a website, duplicating the content of Evolution News and Views of the website of the Discovery Institute and then open a comment section?

      • SmilodonsRetreat

        Thanks for the kind words.

        Actually, there is a small forum where much merriment is made of such things. It’s called After the Bar Closes. This link should take you there: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=54e9f57a03ad31a6;act=SF;f=14

        If not, then go to pandasthumb.org and click on the “forum”.

        We’re a small group of people who post about all the things that EN&V and Uncommon Descent refuses to talk about.

      • RexTugwell

        Eddie, ENV used to have open comments but the crass nature by some on the Darwinist side caused future articles to be closed to comments. On the other hand, Uncommon Descent has open comments and I can assure you that if you comment there you won’t be subject to the verbal abuse that some experience here at Smilodon in Retreat. If there is such abuse toward you, the moderators at UD at least have the courage to enforce their own comment policy.

        • SmilodonsRetreat

          Uncommon Descent OCCASIONALLY has open comments. But stealth banning is common as is the editing of certain users comments. This is well documented.

          I would also add that UD talks mostly about god, jesus, and theology rather than actual science. Most of the science that is discussed by pro-ID characters is fundamentally wrong… as is the math… and the logic…

          So, I disagree with Rex. UD isn’t an “open discussion” site that he makes it out to be.

          • RexTugwell

            “I would also add that UD talks mostly about god, jesus, and theology rather than actual science.”
            That’s just plain wrong.

            I don’t think we’re talking about the same site, Smiley. The Uncommon Descent that I visit is NOTHING like you portray. Some commenters were banned for failing to abide by the policy but not too long ago a general amnesty was declared and all are welcome to comment now.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Barry has banned 49 users since the Amnesty. That was on Feb 8th… and his own words.

              So, I’m well aware of how UD operates. There’s a fairly complete history of bannings at UD that’s been constantly updated since 2007.

              There’s over 4 threads with over 400 pages each that have been tracking comments and discussions on UD for years. The 5th thread is on page 92. It runs from Dec 2013 to present.

              I have posted on UD twice. Both times resulting in a banning. Both times were solely to say, “So and so tried to answer the question asked of them, but was banned before they could submit the answer. The answer is located here: link.:”

              Apparently THAT is against policy, because it resulted in my banning.

              So, yes, I’m well aware how UD operates and if you don’t agree 100% with the moderators there, then you’re gone. It may take some time, but you will be gone.

            • RexTugwell

              And there are those that have lied and claimed to be banned but in fact were not. I remember calling one out on such a lie. Put him in a real Catch 22. That was fun.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Well, I guess trying to distract the issue with… “but other people lie too” is all you have left.

            • RexTugwell

              There’s someone on UD right now called CHartsil. Sounds like a Smiley clone. Doesn’t look like he’s getting banned.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              That’s your evidence?

              LOL

              Of course, that explains why you think that ID is right.

            • Rex, you’re full of it. Since the so-called “amnesty” arrington has banned all but a few opponents, and the only reason he doesn’t ban all opponents is because when he has done so in the past UD was as dead as a door nail. If anything, UD is much worse than Smilodon is portraying. The IDiots at UD (and ENV, etc.) are a bunch of lying, two-faced cowards.

            • RexTugwell

              Wrong. UD has been quite active with Darwinists freely posting their comments for the past week. Stop your lies.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Again, that’s a VERY different claim that the original claim. Are there any goal posts you don’t move?

              “Some commenters were banned for failing to abide by the policy but not too long ago a general amnesty was declared and all are welcome to comment now.”

              That is simply false. As I have stated below and the documentation is available to support.

              But you stopped talking about it…

            • RexTugwell

              Sorry Smiley, can’t stay; I’m wanted back on earth.

            • Hey rex, why don’t you go to AtBC (follow the link below) and try to tell everyone there that “all are welcome to comment now” at UD? Go head, liar.

              http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=54f7bb4645d8f120;act=ST;f=14;t=5141;st=930

            • RexTugwell

              Hey hole truth, imagine me yawning as I read your link.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              So you feel that the evidence that refutes your claim is yawn worthy.

              That explains every single interaction with you so far. And why there’s no point in continuing with you. You absolutely refuse to learn. You are right and there is nothing in the universe that will convince you otherwise.

              I’ve asked you multiple times to submit your evidence and you don’t. I’ve asked you multiple times for the page number of the evidence from Meyer’s books, you don’t provide that.

              What is it you are even here for?

    • Eddie Janssen

      Oh, by the way, keep up the good work. It is much appreciated.

    • As to your complaint number 1 Organic Chemist Professor A E Wilder-Smith handed Richard Dawkins his hat in a debate at the Oxford Union in 1986 when he explained why it is impossibility for the necessary chemicals to bond in ” a warm little pond” or “primordial soup.”

      Since that time Richard, whilst willing to debate with “theistic evolutionists” runs a mile when challenged to debat with Ph.D scientists who are creationists – most telling why.

      • SmilodonsRetreat

        Maybe in 1986… 30 years ago. But it’s not possible any more.

        http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2015/03/19/common-origins-of-rna-protein-and-lipid-precursors/

        http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2013/07/30/new-research-protocells-and-evolution/

        http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2013/02/18/weaknesses-of-evolution-part-1-origins-of-life/

        https://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/origins-of-life-darwins-little-warm-pond/

        In other words, all of the pieces of life can be found in a variety of environments and can easily come together in basic, well understood chemical reactions.

        The only people talking about it seem to be creationists and if he used the SLoT argument, then it deserves to be ignored.

        If the Second Law of Thermodynamics prevented the origin of life, then it would also prevent babies growing up. Which it doesn’t.

        • The very best hypothesis for the Origin of Life is the RNA World Hypothesis.

          I studied this a couple of years back at St. Andrews University and the course Professor was quite openly a Darwinist – I’m a former atheist – and he is also very open and honest. At the end of course I offered a critique of the RNA hypothesis including the recent work carried out by John Sutherland and his team at Manchester.

          The Professor readily agreed with and accepted my critique of the RNA World Hypothesis and said: “It doesn’t work. It’s not the answer.”

          Additionally, if you are open minded enough to do some objective research free from the lens of Darwinism into this you may want to check out what analytical chemist Professor James Tour has to say on the subject.

          So, when you say that “all the pieces of life can easily come together in basic, well understood chemical reactions” in “warm little pond” “a primoridial soup” or “hydrothermal vents” your assertion is not based on the hard science facts and evidence.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            “It is best to be silent and be thought an idiot than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”

            That is to say, you shouldn’t say things as fact that experts in the field have shown (for several years) to be incorrect.

            It is painfully obvious that you didn’t read any of the links I provided since each and every one of them contains one or more links to and explanations of research that shows what you are saying is simply wrong.

            Catch up to the current understanding of origins of life research, then come back.

            • LOL

              I wondered how long it would take before the personal attacks would start because I happened to disagree. Didn’t take long at all.

              The Professor at St. Andrews University, a Darwinist, and who is a recognized expert in this very field would disagree with you.

              So I guess that you wilfully choose to be blind to what this particular expert and others has to say and choose to believe what others such as Richard Lewontin has to say because “oof our a priori beliefs we ust not allow a Divine foot in the door.”

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              It’s not a personal attack to tell someone that they are not current on the latest research.

              You have yet to actually state any scientific evidence. You obviously haven’t read the actual research I provided.

              If you have evidence of the supernatural, then provide it. But no one else has.

              The Professor can provide the evidence too. Stating it, in a debate or online is meaningless. Until you provide evidence. You haven’t even said what make OOL impossible. So, I can’t talk about the science with you.

              Run along.

            • You’re trying to sell the concept that non-living chemicals
              in “a warm little pond” “primordial soup” or “hydrothermal vents” somehow by unguided undirected processes managed to bond.

              To back-up your assertion (for the RNA World Hypothesis) you
              make reference to work carried out by John Sutherland and his team.

              I made reference to Sutherland in my earlier post. To
              further elaborate on this point.

              In my critique to my course Professor of the RNA World I
              made mention of Sutherland and the Professor told me that he and Sutherland were old friends and that he was indeed very aware of his work in this field.

              I’ll reiterate that the Professor said of the RNA World hypothesis to include the work of Sutherland: “It doesn’t work. It’s not the
              answer.”

              Firstly, you choose deliberately so to ignore the very
              significant fact that Sutherland and his team were conducting highly intelligent guided directed controlled experiments in the ideal environment of a laboratory based on knowledge acquired and passed on from previous generations of study.

              You do see the very significant difference between
              intelligently designed experiments to achieve a specific end goal and the Darwinian notion of unguided undirected random chance meaningless purposeless chemicals colliding, do you not?

              Secondly, for the sake of the argument let us assume that
              those lifeless chemicals did bond in an aqueous environment (even though Chemist Richard Dickerson says such an event is nigh impossible) just how long would the bond last without a membrane?

              According to the Professor at St. Andrews University
              less than one second!

              Just how on Planet Earth did a membrane, to enclose that
              supposed bond of chemicals, come into existence inside of one second?

              You made certain references and I have suggested that you
              may want to check out what analytical chemist Professor James Tour has to say on the subject – evidently you have not done so. Are you too afraid to have your hypothesis ( you oversell in saying it is much more and that it actually happened
              and that I have to tell you is very poor salesmanship) exposed to the light of hard facts and evidence?

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              1) Saying it again doesn’t make it true. You have to actually provide evidence. Saying things is not evidence. No matter how much you believe them.

              2) Yes, scientists conduct intelligently designed experiments… that’s how science works. You can’t just do random things and expect repeatable results. I need to point out however that just because the EXPERIMENT was designed, the RESULTS are not.

              3) BTW: Name one chemical in your body that isn’t lifeless.

              4) “You do see the very significant difference between
              intelligently designed experiments to achieve a specific end goal and the Darwinian notion of unguided undirected random chance meaningless purposeless chemicals colliding, do you not?” No, I don’t because you are confusing several different things. You seem to understand nothing about chemistry. I would suggest you read up thermodynamics as it affects chemical reactions.

              5) “Secondly, for the sake of the argument let us assume that
              those lifeless chemicals did bond in an aqueous environment (even though Chemist Richard Dickerson says such an event is nigh impossible) just how long would the bond last without a membrane?”
              Really, so you think that no chemical reactions take place in an ocean? Wow. Not much I can say there….

              6) “Just how on Planet Earth did a membrane, to enclose that
              supposed bond of chemicals, come into existence inside of one second?”
              Again, you need to read about the current research in OOL. You might find something interesting… like the things that you think are deal breakers are actually meaningless.

              7) “ou made certain references and I have suggested that you
              may want to check out what analytical chemist Professor James Tour has to say on the subject – evidently you have not done so. Are you too afraid to have your hypothesis ( you oversell in saying it is much more and that it actually happened
              and that I have to tell you is very poor salesmanship) exposed to the light of hard facts and evidence?”
              Post some peer-reviewed research and I’ll look at it. I suggest YOU do the exact same and look at the stuff I posted… years ago.

              Son, this is, almost literally, a litany of the arguments I’ve dealt with for over a decade now. You haven’t said a single thing that’s new.
              Here, I wrote this 2 years ago, read it: http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2014/04/28/laboratory-experiments-are-intelligently-designed/

              Of course, that’s based on another post I wrote on the blog I had before this one.

              You haven’t said anything unique. And OOL researchers are happily ignoring your claims and continuing their work and making discoveries… all unaware (and not caring) that you think it’s impossible.

              STATE A REASON. What chemical reaction that leads from non-life to life is chemically impossible? What is your evidence?