It looks like a homemade piece of shit website full of unsubstantiated theories to me.

 

Okay, I was thinking my last post, going after the guy's credentials, was kind of ad hominem.  I mean, everybody's arguments should be judged on their own merits regardless of lack of formal credentials or willingness to pad your resume.

 Maybe you can help me out, Mental Eclipse, since I wasn't able to locate any actual information on Greenberger's site (other than his bios).  Which of his arguments did you find especially persuasive?  I'd be surprised to hear anything new, but also pleased.

To all you pathetic fools who are on the web all day, yet can't do a simple search to verify data that's right in front of your nose, here it is -- Josh Greenberger listings:

(Many publications only keep a small amount of data readily available at any given time, so these listings may certainly be only the tip of the iceberg.)

New York Post: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22josh+greenberger%22+nypost.com&hl=en&newwindow=1&filter=0

New York Times: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22josh+greenberger%22+nytimes.com&hl=en&newwindow=1&filter=0

Jewish Press: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22josh+greenberger%22+jewishpress.com&hl=en&newwindow=1&filter=0


As far as credentials are concerned, he doesn't make any of the claims you delusionals seem to think he makes. Here's all he says:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A computer consultant for over two decades, the author has developed software for such organizations as NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, AT&T, Charles Schwab, Bell Laboratories and Chase Manhattan Bank. He has been responsible for training technical personnel as well as management in design and programming of applications systems.

Since 1984, the author's articles and letters have appeared in The New York Times, The New York Post, The New York Daily News, Newsday, The Village Voice, The Jewish Press, and other publications. His writings have ranged from humor to scientific to topical events.

Aside from being a science enthusiast since his teens, he has also written several screenplays.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wake up, people!

All of those seem to be "letters" not articles.

 

VERY different thing.

One would think an honest person might have mentioned this.. 

You people are skirting the issue. Instead of seeing what Josh Greenberger says and talking about it in a sensible scientific way, you're attacking his background in some silly and absurd ways. You don't have to be an "expert" to go out to your backyard see a tree and say it's a tree. Josh Greenberger has taken common-knowledge science and shown how evolution does not work. Thus far I have not heard anyone disprove what he says. You all get emotional about this topic in the exact same way that religious people get emotional when you speak out against their god. Evolution is a religion, nothing else. Forget your emotions and address this with verifiable science. After reading the following excerpt from Josh Greenberger's book, please don't tell me what evolution "says," don't tell me what biologists "say," and don't tell me what paleontologists "say." We all know what they say. The question is how do they prove what they say. The FACT is they don't -- what they say is riddled with unverifiable assumptions.


Here is an excerpt from Josh Greenberger's book http://WhoLetTheApesOut.com (a.k.a. "Human Intelligence Gone Ape," published in paperback by NCSY, one the biggest Jewish book publishing organizations, available in bookstores for over a decade, no longer being printed by NCSY but still available in some bookstores and internet outlets):


GENETICS

PRIMITIVE TWENTIETH CENTURY

To most people, science is seen as "today," modern, up-to- date, and perhaps even the promise of futuristic wonders. A generation which possesses supersonic jets, Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM's), space shuttles and sophisticated computers can hardly be called primitive. Or can it

In the midst of all of this state-of-the-art technology, there seems to be a rather primitive theory which, although steadily losing credibility even among those who have adhered to it for a long time, still has many convinced that it is based on science. This theory has proven one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt: although modern technology is nearing Star Wars sophistication, modern man is still capable of some embarrassingly primitive thinking.

To understand how such a theory could have gained any support at all, one must look back at the reasoning which prevailed in the days of sorcery and witchcraft. These notions were certainly not the result of tangible evidence. Obviously, the human mind is highly susceptible to super-human distortions and misinterpretations. Although sorcery and witchcraft per se have gone the way of the horse and buggy, the kind of imagery which facilitates the acceptance of irrational views of reality apparently has not. I'm talking about the "scientific" theory of evolution. If this theory is not honest misinterpretation, it may very well be the most sophisticated hoax ever perpetrated on the human race.

THE TASADAY TRIBESMEN

If you think a hoax on such a large scale is not possible, consider this:

On August 14, 1986, ABC-TV's news program 20/20 aired a segment on the Tasaday tribesmen in the Philippine jungles, uncovering a hoax of monumental proportions.

In the early 1970's, a tribe was found in the Philippine jungles "living" under the most primitive conditions. The Tasaday tribesmen, as they became known, seemed "untouched by modern civilization." Their mode of life resembled modern man's image of cavemen: they hunted for food, wore clothes made of leaves, and lived in caves. Nothing could be more exciting -- and more convincing.

The discovery of a "prehistoric" tribe in modern times was so fascinating that it got front-page coverage worldwide, a book was written on the discovery, and pages of "history" were added to some encyclopedias.

Twelve years passed before it was uncovered that the world had been taken in by a sinister hoax. By the mid 1980's, in attempts to follow up on earlier suspicions, the news media learned that these "tribesmen" were in fact modern-day Philippine natives; they ordinarily wore blue jeans and sweat shirts, smoked cigarettes, etc. They had been put up to this charade by a Philippine official who led them to believe that they would receive financial or other assistance if they "looked poor" for the cameras. In the end, they received no assistance, were abandoned by the Philippine official, and the charade was over.

And so, a "major anthropological find" enjoyed over a decade of "historical significance" before turning into a "major historical fraud." And had it not been for diligent investigation by the news media, this hoax could very well have remained the "anthropological find of the twentieth century" in history books.

THE EVOLUTION OF EVOLUTION

Ever since Charles Darwin published his book "On The Origin Of Species" in 1859, the theory of the evolution of life has undergone changes, updates, and "advances" -- and the theory is still "evolving." By the time scientists are through with this theory, if ever, the "origin of species" may have more versions than species. This may make "natural selection" (of one version) extremely difficult.

The scientific concept of the origin of life on earth begins with the premise that life first appeared billions of years ago with the formation of microscopic organisms out of inanimate matter. In the billions of years which followed, small organisms evolved into higher and more complex forms of life, and one species evolved into another. The chain of events leading from the first single-celled organism to the most complex organ, the human brain, was at first believed to have been a slow and gradual process.

But archaeologists have worn out many shovels trying to uncover evidence supporting evolution. At last count, they had enough bones to make friends with every dog in Chicago and enough fossils to open a mail-order fossil business. But no evidence. No series of fossils or sets of bones show unmistakable intermediate species. If one species evolved into another, "linking" species would have to have existed in profuse quantities at various points in earth's history. But profuse quantities of missing links which could be termed "indisputable evidence" have never been found.

This brings us to a new version of evolution called "punctuated equilibrium." This version of evolution is held by many scientists who oppose the "slow and gradual" version. "Punctuated equilibrium" says that species appear more suddenly and retain their basic forms until they become extinct. Now that sounds a whole lot better. It conveniently does away with the need to find missing links. What's wrong with that? If you can't find the murder weapon, convince the jury the accused shoots bullets through his ears!

And the theory goes on and on, twisting and turning around every discrepancy and contradiction.

If the logic and mechanics of the theory of evolution make much sense to you, you probably haven't scrutinized it too objectively. Hopefully this book, and particularly this chapter, will help you towards that end.

BORN OF IGNORANCE

For one species to have evolved into another, massive genetic changes would have to have occurred throughout earth's history. Probably the strongest thing going for evolution at the time of its inception, over a hundred years ago, was that virtually nothing was known about genetics in that era. Even today, the vast majority of the public, although somewhat familiar with terms like "genetic engineering" and "random mutation," are still pretty much in the dark with respect to this modern branch of science. And with constant exposure to the purported mechanics of evolution, it's no wonder that a theory with so little substance has been able to grab such a strong foothold on society; the average person simply does not know enough to say why evolution does not work.

I am convinced that if the public had had a decent understanding of genetics, and random mutation in particular, before being presented with the theory of evolution, the theory could never have been taken seriously and certainly could never have been accepted as legitimate science.

Furthermore, another thing going for evolution is simply the constant exposure of its ill-founded concepts to the general public. I think it is human nature to become accustomed to an idea after repeated exposure no matter how insane the idea may be. And in the case of evolution, its constant exposure coupled with the general public's lack of understanding of the mechanics of certain genetic properties is what has helped perpetuate this theory.

Here's a rough idea of what a theory might sound like for the first time when you know quite well that the mechanics don't work:

THE WORM-TRAIN THEORY

Scientists took a worm crawling in a railroad yard and put it under a powerful electron microscope. They discovered that a worm's cell magnified three billion times has an uncanny resemblance to a train window. They concluded that if you incubate three dozen worms in a solution of amino acids and carbon compounds for approximately one and a half million years they will eventually evolve into the Long Island Railroad.

THE COMEDY OF SCIENCE

Of course, the above was only a tongue-in-cheek version of a "theory." However, in the following pages I hope to demonstrate how the theory of evolution is not that far removed from such a comical scenario.

EVOLUTION: A GENETIC IMPOSSIBILITY

Genetic engineering, or "gene splicing," is probably the hottest and most fascinating subject in modern medicine. It seems to hold answers to questions raised by some of the most baffling diseases. And it looks more promising every day.

Genetic engineering is the business of altering genes. Found by the hundreds, sometimes by the thousands, within the nucleus of every cell, genes cause the development of characteristics such as hair color, height, the shape of some living organisms, etc. Altered genes can cause an organism or its offspring to take on new dimensions -- its physical characteristics may literally change. Sometimes these changes may be for the good. At other times, these altered genes, generally referred to as mutations, may cause genetic diseases which can destroy the organism. Although the potential of genetic engineering and the extent of its impact on biological systems are far from fully realized at this point in time, science has made great advances in the field.

A MISCONCEPTION ABOUT 'COULD'VE' AND 'DID'

It is human nature to sometimes see the possibility of an event as synonymous with the actuality of an event. This couldn't be more misleading when dealing with the subject of how genetic breakthroughs relate to the theory of evolution.

Many people, evolutionists and laymen alike, are exposed to media coverage on the progress of genetic engineering. However, by not putting the facts into proper perspective, it is easy for one to misinterpret "what is possible" as "what actually happened." That is, the idea that genetic research could confirm some arguments in support of evolution, is one misinterpretation one could easily make if not aware of the ill-founded logic involved. The logic may go something like: if scientists could change the makeup of a species to a considerable degree or change one species into another through genetic mutation in the lab, it could verify evolutionists' arguments that this could have happened naturally in the past.

Not quite.

A faulty logic we must rid ourselves of is: if you could prove that John Doe is the greatest artist that ever lived that would prove that he painted the Mona Lisa. To prove that John Doe painted the Mona Lisa, you'd have to do just that. Merely proving that he is capable of it does not prove that he actually did it. Elephants can shoot water through their trunks, but that doesn't prove African elephants have their own fire department.

No matter what scientists do in the lab in relation to biotechnology, it has little or no bearing on what actually happened in earth's past. Recent biotechnology has produced mixed-breed animals which doubtless never existed in earth's history. Thus, what is produced in the lab says nothing more than that it is possible in the lab. What earth produced in its past is a different story.

A MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM

But the fact that capability does not prove actuality is the least of evolutionists' problems. What modern man has learned thus far about genetic mutation does not only not support evolution but actually deals the theory a devastating and embarrassing blow.

To begin with, it is important that we differentiate between mutations affected by two different means:

RANDOM MUTATION

One, random mutation. This type of mutation comes about in a random fashion, without any preconceived design or plan on the genetic level. According to evolutionists, random mutation is purportedly what brought life from the one celled stage to its present complexity. That is, through a series of beneficial accidents of random mutations, they claim, simple organisms evolved over billions of years into new and more complex species.

'INTELLIGENT MUTATION'

Two, a process we can label "intelligent mutation." Tinkering and tampering with genes in a laboratory would come under this heading. Genes are "recombined" or "spliced" with the intent of affecting a change in the organism or its offspring.

Intelligent mutation has been responsible for two impressive genetic breakthroughs. First, scientists bred red-eyed fruit flies from brown-eyed parents. Second, by combining growth genes from rats with genes in mice, scientists caused some mice to be born twice their normal size.

To one not too familiar with medicine or biology, such insignificant changes may seem hardly worth noting. Therefore, it is necessary to emphasize that it took sophisticated twentieth-century science to affect such seemingly trivial changes. They are nothing short of stupendous achievements.

Again, these are the kinds of genetic manipulations one might wish to point out in support of evolution: "If we can do it in the lab, why couldn't nature have done it by accident on a grand scale in the last three and a half billion years?"

A LUDICROUS COMPARISON

To begin with, comparing intelligent mutation to random mutation is analogous to comparing the skillful incision of a surgeon to the random slashing of a mugger. There is not one recorded case of a mugging victim walking away from his assailant with a successful appendectomy or the successful removal of cataracts. It doesn't take a doctor or a scientist to know that an accident of random cutting will almost invariably leave behind chaos and destruction and never result in any sophisticated surgery.

Consequently, bringing intelligent mutation as an indication that nature could have produced complex species from one celled organisms through a long series of accidents of random mutations is mixing "apples and oranges." Intelligent design is normally the result of intelligence and design. And when the design is of a highly complex nature, as many life forms are, it indicates intelligence of a highly complex nature. Randomness, on the other hand, will generally not produce intelligent or sophisticated structures. Believing that nature accidentally produced complex life forms, in any period of time, no matter how long, is roughly equivalent to believing that the New York World Trade Center was built by a pack of wild mules who kicked an assortment of building material into the right places.

LUDICROUS EVEN WITHOUT COMPARISON

However, the genetic implausibility of evolution comes from elsewhere and has far stronger arguments. And without a solid genetic basis for biological organisms evolving into higher forms of life, the theory of evolution simply disappears into thin air.

So, here's how genetics -- the most crucial aspect of evolution -- does not only not support the theory but actually contradicts it:

SOURCES OF RANDOM MUTATIONS

Modern man has been acquainted with and directly affected by random mutations long before he ever took intelligent mutation seriously. Some sources of random mutations have been around even before we knew how they caused genetic effects. What are they? Carcinogenic chemicals. Cosmic rays. Sources of radioactivity such as nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors, nuclear waste, and medical X-rays.

LET'S TAKE RADIOACTIVITY

X-rays were discovered by the German scientist Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen, making headlines on January 6, 1896. As innocent a discovery as it was at the time, man had unwittingly taken control of a highly potent force -- radiation. These rays would some day become a source of medical cures and also disease and destruction.

It wasn't until about a half century later that man realized the awesome potential of this "invisible light." On July 16, 1945, in a desert in Alamogordo, New Mexico, the United States detonated the first nuclear bomb in the world as a test. The destructive potential of this new weapon was horrifying. It could not only destroy life and an environment in a conventional explosion, but it could also accomplish the same with just its intense heat and radiation. In addition, it could render an environment uninhabitable for years, decades, or even centuries to come.

In that same year, 1945, the United States dropped atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These two bombs alone -- as weak and as primitive as they were by today's standards -- killed over 190,000 people. It became obvious that we had taken control of a power so ferocious that the meaning of the word "war" would never be the same.

Then, as late as April of 1986, the core meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor finally made man acutely aware of the destructive powers of radiation even for peaceful purposes. This accident in the U.S.S.R. spread radiation panic throughout a large portion of the world's population. Once more, man was forced to deal with a nuclear-related situation hitherto unencountered.

THE COMMON DENOMINATOR

What the above historical events have in common is an introduction of a facet of radiation to modern man. The most destructive aspect of radiation is its ability to cause random changes on the genetic, molecular, and atomic levels, partially or entirely destroying a recipient organism.

Here's an idea of what radiation does:

IMMEDIATE DAMAGE

Exposure of high doses of radiation to limited parts of the body can cause severe tissue damage and eventual necrosis.

Exposure of the entire body to a few hundred "rem" (rem is a unit used for measuring radiation effectiveness) can initially cause nausea. Then, in about a month, the person might begin suffering hemorrhages, anemia, tiredness, weakness, and an increased risk of infection. Although some may survive, others will die as a result of these maladies.

At about 1,000 rem, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may develop within hours of exposure. As these symptoms become worse, they are followed by fever, loss of fluids, severe infections, and finally death.

At about 10,000 rem, the dose to which a worker might be exposed during a nuclear reactor accident, vomiting and diarrhea would occur within an hour, followed by reduced blood pressure, convulsions, and unconsciousness. Death would come within one to three days.

LONG-TERM DAMAGE

The fact that radiation can induce mutations and cause genetic effects has been known for at least fifty years. Studies show that radiation can cause not just one, but a variety of different types of mutations. One of the effects of these aberrations is cancer. The cancer can show up years or even decades after the organism's exposure to radiation. If the organism does not show any signs of cancer, there is still the possibility that cancer may show up in future generations.

Some other disorders or genetic diseases which may show up in later generations as a result of random mutations are: hemophilia, congenital cataract, spontaneous abortions, cystic fibrosis, color-blindness, and muscular dystrophy.

Still other diseases such as diabetes, heart disorders, asthma, and schizophrenia could manifest themselves in later generations as a result of random mutations combined with environmental factors.

THE BENEFICIAL CHANGES

We've just gotten a glimpse of the severe effects of random microscopic changes on biological life. And it seems that no matter at what level these changes occur -- genetic, molecular, or atomic -- the result is almost always the same: deterioration, destruction, and, in many cases, death.

Does this coincide with what evolutionists have been chewing our ears off with for years?

For years we've been hearing stories about how biological life underwent billions of years of random genetic changes. We've been hearing how by accident some of these changes resulted in beneficial mutations. We've been hearing how these beneficial mutations eventually resulted in new and more complex species. Yet, when we look at what random genetic changes -- or any other random changes, for that matter -- actually do to biological life, we find nothing but disease and death. Where are all those beneficial mutations evolutionists have been talking about? Not one patient has ever developed or passed on to future generations better biceps, for example, as a result of radiotherapy. Not one of the thousands of surviving bomb victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has developed a more evolved brain, for example, as a result of exposure to radioactivity. Not one person involved in a nuclear reactor accident has developed a more sophisticated skin, for instance, which is tougher and more durable than average. In virtually every case, random mutations have resulted in havoc and destruction.

Is it possible that modern technology has actually disproven evolution rather than helped it?

Evolutionists in the past have hidden behind the "it took billions of years" routine. Before the nuclear age it may have been necessary to get into a time machine to verify whether, given enough time, random mutations would cause life to evolve. However, with the advent of modern technology's ability to affect massive random mutations relatively quickly, there is no longer a need to dig into the past to see the contrived fallacies supporting the evolutionary powers of random mutation. The answer is right in front of us. Random mutations result in quite the opposite of what we've been led to believe. They result in nothing but illness and fatalities -- not improvements. What's more, the more massive and prolonged the occurrences of these mutations, the greater the havoc and destruction. So what do you suppose would happen to a planet subjected to random mutations for billions of years? Total annihilation!

When you take what we know as fact today about random mutation and try to reconstruct a scenario of those alleged billions of years of earth's history, instead of the fairy tale story of evolution, you come up with a picture which more and more resembles a horrible scene out of a "post-nuke" movie:

Even if earth had already been as populated in that alleged period of three and a half billion years ago as it is today, and had since been affected by billions and billions of random mutations, according to what we know today about random mutation, by now life would probably have been virtually wiped out. With random mutation being the highly destructive force that it apparently is, the process which was supposed to have caused life to evolve is precisely what would have caused, in all probability, such genetic havoc that few organisms would have survived the ordeal. Furthermore, under such circumstances, "survival of the fittest" is a totally ludicrous concept. The word "fit" would have described largely those organisms which were less disease ridden than the rest, a far cry from the "better species" of evolution. And of those "fit" survivors, many would have passed on genetic diseases to their offspring. Even if the "fit" had not been wiped out by the random mutations, their offspring still would have stood a chance of being wiped out by hereditary genetic diseases. Then, any disease-free offspring would again be threatened with annihilation when this entire mutation cycle started over again.

Thus, after billions and billions of years of random mutations, even in the unlikely event that some genes mutated in a way that might have ultimately produced some beneficial changes to an organism, an already populated planet would have been reduced to a few diseased life forms, at best. Those few beneficial genes, if they could even have existed, would have been so overwhelmed by the staggeringly high number of diseased genes necessary to produce just a few beneficial accidents, that they could never have borne any fruit. An organism would have been wiped out long before it had an iota of a chance to change or improve. In a sense, earth would have resembled a planet after a nuclear holocaust.

Now, if a planet began with relatively few life forms, as earth allegedly did, how far would life have gotten? I don't mean how far would evolution have gotten. I mean, how far would those few organisms have gotten before being wiped out by the destructive powers of random mutation? According to what we've actually seen random mutations do in modern times, life never would have gotten off the ground, let alone proliferated into highly complex and healthy species. In all likelihood, earth would have turned into a desolate planet long ago.

Even the mice mentioned earlier who were born twice their normal size as a result of intelligent mutation had a high mortality rate. That is, not only does random mutation produce diseased life forms, but even beneficial mutations can have fatal side effects. So how do you suppose billions of years of random mutations would effect life -- even if they accidentally produced a few beneficial mutations along the way? Start a process of evolution? Destruction sounds more like it.

BASELESS THEORETICS

There is no question that intelligent mutation can effect certain beneficial changes in an organism or its offspring. There is no question that natural hereditary effects can cause a member of a species to be born "bigger and stronger" than the rest -- not as a result of random mutation, but by the manifestation of traits which may have been dormant for generations. There is no question that biological systems can adapt to their environment on a macro level. But to say that adaptation to an environment or any other natural phenomena can result in random mutations which will eventually produce new or more complex species is totally baseless. To say that life started with few life forms and evolved into today's profuse, complex, and generally healthy life forms is contrary to everything twentieth-century science has learned thus far about random mutation. To say that a one celled organism evolved even into a one inch fish is an unrealistic stretch of the imagination which requires a lot of dishonest and twisted reasoning. To say that a human being is the result of an accidental evolutionary process is sheer lunacy.

The very fact that there are billions upon billions of healthy life forms in existence today actually proves the precise opposite of what evolutionists believe -- that life on earth could not possibly have gone through any massive random genetic changes. And without genetic changes, evolution is as dead as a fossil.

Furthermore, if genetic engineering proves anything, it proves that it takes a high degree of intelligence and sophistication to do nothing more than just tamper with existing forms of life. Consequently, creating or even significantly improving a species, requires intelligence and sophistication of an even higher degree. The notion that any random genetic process can create new or more complex species is not science, logic, or even a theory -- it is purely a product of the imagination.

A MATHEMATICAL IMPROBABILITY

Even without genetic considerations, the ludicrousness of evolution can be expressed in terms of simple mathematical probabilities. If, for the sake of argument, a process -- random mutation -- will develop life in billions of years and the same process will destroy life within a human lifetime, which will happen first? The destruction? No, it will not happen first -- it's the only thing that'll happen. In the time that life is suppose to develop, it will be destroyed literally millions of times over -- nothing can ever get to the point of developing.

Even the question "Given billions of tries, can a spilled bottle of ink ever fall into the words of Shakespeare?" has become obsolete as a result of modern man's understanding of random mutation. Till now, this question pointed out odds so astronomical that it rendered the event a virtual impossibility. Now, it's not even a question of beating ridiculous odds. Now we're shooting dice which deteriorate with each throw and eventually self destruct. That is, we're shooting dice (genetic "messages&quot which deteriorate (cause genetic diseases) with each throw (of random mutation) and eventually self destruct (the host organism). Thus, instead of, "Can you beat such ridiculous odds?" the question now becomes, "After relatively few tries, will you have any ink, paper, or dice left with which to try again?" Since the very life that is supposed to evolve will be destroyed in the process, it is impossible for the process to even go on for any required length of time. This makes it highly questionable, to say the least, that a trial-and-error method of genetic mutations could beat even realistic odds -- forget about the preposterous odds proposed by evolutionists. Therefore, whether life could develop in an environment (of genetic mutations) where even fully developed biological systems cannot survive is really no more a question of odds than whether a cow could survive underwater long enough to conceive and give birth -- it's simply impossible.

EVOLUTION OF ART

The insanity of evolution is also apparent in the more aesthetic aspects of man. How could qualities such as artistry, abstract thinking, and appreciation of music have become traits common to an entire species? According to the mechanics (or imagery) of evolution, it would have been a great wonder if such qualities, so meaningless to the survival of purely physical and biological systems, would have evolved in only a minute fraction of a species. Yet, to be present -- to one degree or another -- in virtually every human being? How? This should never have happened.

The existence of such aesthetic human qualities as emotion, humor, and intellect cannot be explained biologically, no matter how ridiculous you want to get. Why, for example, did nature give us a sense of humor? How did nature even know what a sense of humor was? And how did a sense of humor render humans more "fit to survive?" There are millions of plants and animals without a sense of humor which have obviously survived. There are even humans without a sense of humor who seem to survive. How did such a quality ever evolve

MODERN SCIENCE

Evolution is certainly not the run-of-the-mill theory. For an unproven and outdated theory, it is taken rather seriously by a great number of people. Those who see through its faulty reasoning, biases, misinterpreted findings, and obvious defiance of common sense and logic, see it as just another feeble attempt to undermine and tarnish the rational person's ideals. It should be placed in the same category as sorcery and witchcraft. Such notions have one thing in common -- bereft of any plausible logic, they are "understood" only by those determined to believe in them. The most significant difference is that no one ever had the gall to call sorcery and witchcraft science.

It's ironic how, in a nuclear age, some of the same people who live with the constant fear of life on earth being catapulted into oblivion by a nuclear holocaust, can still believe that an aspect of this highly destructive nuclear force -- random mutation -- is the mechanism which brought us here. In Darwin's days they new nothing about genetics, and certainly nothing about the unimaginably destructive nature of random mutation. But what about today? A theory which originated over a hundred years ago -- in times of relative scientific ignorance -- should have been abandoned by now. Instead, it seems that, the stronger the evidence against evolution becomes, the more determined are some individuals to believe in it.

SCIENCE FICTION

At this point, it should be at least somewhat obvious, even to those who have taken evolution seriously at some point, that the scenario proposed by this insane theory does not work and certainly could never have occurred. One may even find it puzzling how a concoction such as evolution could ever have been accepted as science in the first place. I think that if evolution can be called science, there should be several other equally qualified scientific topics included in science text books -- the physics behind Superman's X-ray vision, the story of how the power of speech evolved in Mickey Mouse, and the chemical composition of Batman's Shark Repellent Spray. If we're going to have fun theories, let's really make them fun.

First, I've seen Josh Greenberger's articles and letters. He has had many published articles, some of them going back to pre-internet days and are not available by those publications on the net. Then, many of his articles are now independently available on the web; one of several sources are: http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Josh_Greenberger

Second, it's one thing to have a letter published here and there. Josh Greenberger has had literally dozens, of not hundreds, of published letters on just about every major New York newspapers and then some. That's a whole different story. That's no small feat -- someone must believe he has something of value to say.

First of all, I have no idea how difficult it is to get published by I do know that the article you posted mimics another article from his site.  Does he just copy the same information over and over and submit it to different sources?  In his article about evolution being outdated, he used radiation as an example to refute evolution.  After reading it I had diarrhea and vomiting. 

Secondly, I will give him $4.95 to get the fuck off the internet.  Seriously, you can read lots of free stuff right here about evolution.  Deludedgod has provided a ton of material and he actually is qualified to talk about evolution.  You can find more information here.

Linkboy- What evidence for evolution have you yourself ever investigated? Specificaly from the perspective of proving evolution. By that I mean looking not at what people say against evolution, but at what actual evolutionary biologist and many other experts from many different fields say about the subject.

I just get the impression you've investigated one side, but not the other. Hope I'm wrong though and would love to hear why.

Thank you. 

Well, I would refute it line by line, but it's so fallicious I'll just paraphrase:

 

This is his general argument:

Evolution is based on random mutation 

mutations come from radiation and carcinogens.

Atomic bombs cause radiation

Radiation from atomic bombs mutated genes

These mutations were harmful

Therefore the vast majority of mutations are harmful

Therefore populations would die out before mutations took effect

Therefore evolution does not work

 -------

 First off, the majority of mutations happen due to copying errors. Mutation by radiation is very rare and often causes cancer because it is purely random. Mutation by copying error is generally small enough to cause minor changes in an organism either helping or hurting it, but most are nonfatal. This is because DNA has a very good error-checking system.

Second, organisms aren't routinely exposed to the amounts of radiation you would recieve from an atomic bomb or direct gamma rays. The radiation would generally be in very small doses, and I like I said before radiation plays an insignificant role in the kind of mutation needed for natural selection.

 Finally, a good deal of species and organisms did die off. But the ones that adapted to their environment survived and multiplied. A good example is this: your hand sanatizer that totes "KILLS 99.9 PERCENT OF BACTERIA!" is actually acting as a selection pressure to evolve antibiotic resistant bacteria. By killing 99.9 percent of them, the remaining .1 percent likely had some kind of antibacterial resistance. They will use up the resources of their now dead brothers, and the next time you use the soap fewer will be killed. If you repeat this for several generations you will eventually get a population of bacteria that has evolved to resist the antibacterial soap completley.

The sheer idiocy of the qualities of theist responses in this topic would take more time than I currently have available to ridicule. I'll have to rip them apart tomorrow, unless Deludedgod does himself before then. I might do so anyway after the fact if I have extra time.

He hasn't said anything that hasn't been ripped apart a thousand times on this forum, let alone the internet. And in case you didn't know, a programmer who spends half his life writing editorials so he can claim he's been in 3 newspapers doesn't have any credibility when speaking of scientific matters. I'm a scientific enthusiast, and enough of one to know he's talking out his ass. I also have editorials in newspapers, though I'm not dense enough to claim expertise in a subject as a result.

That's not what he's saying, so it really doesn't matter.

Which is completely impossible, and proves he doesn't know shit from a hole in the ground.

Either you haven't looked around the forum much, or.....Wait for it....

You'd get emotional too if you constantly were told you're a liar who's going to burn for all eternity by idiots who make you wonder how our species got this far up the ladder.

Liar. Evolution is fact, and incapable of being a religion.

If you knew what they said, you wouldn't be here making a fool of yourself.

The FACT is that evolution has been proven fact for decades. What theists say is riddled with strawman logical fallacies and unverifiable or proven false assumptions.

I'm really not expecting to see anything new here, but whatever. I have some spare time today.

Oops. Sure didn't take long for him to make an idiot of himself. One paragraph or less. For one thing, the facts of evolution are probably responsible for his and your very existance, since the entire foundation of medical knowledge is based upon it. For another, the fact of evolution has been gaining credibility every nano-second that goes by for the last 50 odd years or more. It's been proven through multiple scientific fields, yet this loser has the sheer arrogance and stupidity to claim there's no facts backing it up.

It sure has proven this, by showing all the idiots who think scientific fact can be argued against with immaterial and unprovable concepts.

You just described the rise of religion and belief in gods. Congrats.

Which is why we have religons.

Not even close. On all counts actually. Sorcery and witchcraft are practiced by almost every single religion on the planet. And as for horse and buggies, I suggest a trip to Ahmish areas in the states. I'm sure they can be found in other nations as well.

Obviously, since religions still exist.

Nope, you're talking about religions. You just have deluded yourself into believing otherwise.

See christianity for the greatest and most sophisticated hoax in history, that we know of at least. Though personally I call it a scam, since a hoax is usually benign.

Whoa horsey. I thought that the title "genetics" was going to be a lot of talk on genetics, and how it supposedly proves evolution wrong. Instead we get....nothing. *Sigh*

Not that I'm surprised, mind you.

It would be the height of ignorance to assume a global hoax could not happen, since we see the Muslims, Jews, Christians, and all the other magical religions all saying their religion is real even though we know it is fiction.

I vaguely remember hearing something about this, but such a hoax pales in comparison to religion. One fake tribe compared to a global empire based on deceit and fiction? Please.

I can't wait for the day our species wakes up to the fact that all religions are just as false as this hoax was.

Of course it has. You think Darwin had molecular microscopes and the massive accumulation of knowledge of species alive today along with the fossil record that has expanded exponentially since then? How laughable. Since you don't know anything about science, I'll be happy to tell you that such is how science works. It constantly evaluates itself and modifies itself as more knowledge is gained. As some things are specified and others disregarded as mistaken. Unlike religion, which is set in stone and unchangeable. Which is incapable of modifying itself to new ideas, as it claims providence over all possible ideas future, past, and present.

Indeed. We don't know everything.

Wake up call for the uneducated theist: There's only one version of accepted evolution. It will change as we find out more about how it works. But there will always be one version and only one version which is accepted.

Theists made up a few so they could muddy the waters, but the scientific community has consistantly ignored those false ideas, since they are false.

Natural selection is part of evolution, not a theory on it's own. My my how the theist always proves how little they know of what they disregard.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. I thought we were talking about evolution here, not abiogenesis. Stick to the subject at hand.
I'll also inform you that no theories as to the origin of life has of yet been proven. I'll also inform you that your entire body is made up of inanimate matter. So you're way out of bounds on this crap.

And it is, depending on the time scale you're looking at.

Not even a numerically stateable fraction of the life that existed has been fossilized, but then I'd never expect a creationist to be able to understand such a simple concept.

All of it is evidence. You think you can say that fossils aren't evidence just because you want to, and give no proof that it's not evidence in the process? Yes, I see how this is going.

Every life form in existance is an unmistakable intermediary. But again, I wouldn't expect you to understand such a simple concept.

This is quite amusing, since less than 1% of all life fossilizes. But yet again, I wouldn't expect you to understand such a simple concept.

Pretty good at lying without providing anything to support the lie. It's a good thing I have so much free time today, or I'd be annoyed that I even bothered to start this simplistic refutation of ignorance.

This is really quite amusing. You keep presenting portions of the overall evolutionary theory as evolution in their own right, which is patently false. But once more, I wouldn't expect you to understand such a simple concept.

See above.

The reverse is actually what is true. If you don't understand the logic and mechanics of evolution, you probably haven't scrutinized it too objectively or carefully.

*Rolls on floor laughing*
You have yet to say one single thing that isn't complete bs. If it keeps up much longer I'll just stop bothering to refute the crap and do something slightly more productive. Like take a shit in the toilet.

Which shows you know nothing about genetics. Big surprise there. Not.

Actually that was one of the things working against evolution.

Like yourself, for example. And all other creationists, for another example.

You're speaking about religions again, not evolution. Would be nice if you stopped confusing the two, since they aren't remotely similar to each other. I'm going to start skipping crap and see if there's any meat in this post whatsoever. As much fun as it can be to make fun of an idiot, it does start to wear thin after awhile.

Woops. I sure skipped a lot of substanceless crap there. Good thing my mind is now immune to theist stupidity, or I may have lost a few IQ points there. But now there's something actually presented as proof against evolution, instead of a bunch of words that really don't say anything at all. However, there is a problem. Mutation really isn't all that random. So this whole paragraph is based in a faulty idea of what evolution is. Which makes it a strawman. Which means it defeated itself.

What's actually priceless about this is that nothing was presented to suggest random mutation doesn't exist or is incapable of sustaining the evolutionary theory. How amusing.

On to the next.

False analogy. They events are not comparable in any way.

It doesn't take a genius mathematician to show that if something has a factor of probability, it will almost certainly happen eventually. Which is not to say this is even a valid argument in the first place, since once again you're setting up a strawman.

Nope. There's nothing intelligent about our "design". What kind of intelligence would put in organs that not only don't do much good for the life form, but can actually cause the life forms death? The pretty stupid kind. There's nothing intelligent about the crap presented as intelligent design. Merely a whole lot of crap.

You really need to look into chaotic math and quantum phsyics. Since you are laughably wrong.

Not even close. Another false analogy.

You'd better hope so, cause so far you've said nothing about nothing. But I'm willing to bet that you'll not show any of these so called stronger arguments, or perhaps that you will, yet they will be as fundamentally flawed as that which you've already stated.

This doesn't even make sense, let alone disprove anything.

Ooops. More random mutation bullshit, which has little to do with evolution, as mentioned above. *Skips ahead again*

*Stops skipping when noticing that the entire portion dealing with radiation can be blown away with a single word*

Cockroach.

Oops again. There wasn't anything else that had anything to do with real evolution and it's combined mechanisms in that post. Ah well. No big surprise there.

Nothing there comes from a peer reviewed science journal, and most of them are mere editorials. Lying editorials at that. And you really consider this guy admirable? How pathetic.

It is not a different story, though it also isn't a small feat. All you really have to do is write more letters and send them to more papers. Even complete idiocy can be posted as an editorial in a paper. And the reason isn't generally because the editor thinks there was something of value within it. It's because the editor acknowledges the comedic value of brainless and unsupported assertions of magic and bullshit.

So that's it from Linkboy eh? Too easy. Next.

How unfortunate. Congratulations on a perfect waste of $5. You should have bought a pack of smokes or perhaps some cyanide for personal use. Better value for your dollar.

You must really like tv eh?

Your understanding of the facts of the matter are obviously just as distorted as Greenbergers to suggest such a thing.

*Snort*

No shit sherlock. News flash for you: No evolutionary biologist in recent history would suggest that radiation is a primary motivator for evolution. The fact of the matter is that Greenberger talking about it in such detail merely shows how little he really knows about evolution in the first place.

See above.

You are simply wrong.

Which goes to show how little tiny changes can make huge differences. But you idiots can keep ignoring natural selection all you like. You're making me feel sorry for you though.

I'd say this is the most ludicrous thing you've said yet, but I'm not so sure it actually is. A deformed species? What drugs are you smoking? Seriously? Mutation happens on individual levels. Not on an entire species in one generation. You find a girl with legs on her head attractive? Didn't think so. You think others do? Didn't think so. So how exactly is she going to pass the genes that put legs on her head when no male finds her attractive and reproduces with her?

*Waits for it*

*Snort*

You guys are really good at lying aren't you?

Look in the mirror. And by the way, don't bother going to some religious site to study evolution. That's like asking Hitler to teach you about the Jews.

The "rules" as you put it weren't made up, they were discovered. Big difference there.

This is just nonsensically idiotic. Good way to end it at least, since there's nothing else left to rip apart.

Response to Vastet:

It's a shame you spent so much time saying so little. What you demand of others, you do not supply yourself. You talk about peer review -- show my peer review that describes how evolution works on the genetic level. Oh, I'm sure it's been covered many times -- so have the disproofs of evolution been all over the internet and also laid out very clearly in many books even before the internet came into existence.

Throwing these claims around is easy. I've seen the "proofs." They go in circles and prove nothing. Telling me that the sun, for example, comes up every day doesn't tell me how the system works. All it tells me is that you've recorded its course of action, not what makes it take that course of action. (Please don't start telling me how the solar system works -- this was just an example.)

Evolutionists keep describing what biological systems do. "Survival of the fittest," "natural selection," and all the rest of this nonsense. But no one has ever yet described how a species spawns a new species on the genetic level without destroying itself with that same genetic process.

The proofs of a random evolutionary process are simply not there. And if you're not talking about randomness, then you are talking about some predesigned course. I don't care if you call it nature or God, unless you can describe the genetic details of how an organism can mindlessly create itself and come to life, you're not talking science -- you're talking hocus pocus.

The bottom line is evolution is a fanatical religion without a god. Those who believe in it are determined to believe in it no matter what they're shown. The fight to support evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with science or logic. It's an emotional fight to support one's personal interest to live one's own lifestyle -- a search for the truth has absolutely nothing to do with the support behind evolution.

You make this very clear with your argument: "You'd get emotional too if you constantly were told you're a liar who's going to burn for all eternity ... " I understand being annoyed at this. But does this give evolution a scintilla of truth? I don't think so. This is just childish stuff.

You say you're not "dense enough to claim expertise." That's because you simply have not developed any kind of expertise. I can't vouch for how dense you are. What does your personal accomplishments, or lack of, have to do with someone else's?

Petgrad, could you please cease being a myopic, intelllectually dishonest, ignorant prat?

If you wish for expertise or credentials...thats fine. I have more scientific qualifications than you have fingers, the crown jewel of which is molecular biology, but for this particular field, I also did evolutionary developmental biology. Now, seeing as most of what you said was vilitrolic rhetoric and garbage as opposed to genuine argument, it was difficult to extract genuine points, but from what I could discern, all of them were swiftly and cleanly blasted in two in these short essays I wrote here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/proteomics_and_its_applications_for_evolutionary_mechanisms_indisputable_proof_of_evolution_and_...

http://www.rationalresponders.com/reading_the_common_descent_endogenous_retrovirals_and_mitochondrial_dna_a_very_short_page

http://www.rationalresponders.com/blood_clotting_and_evolution_a_critique_of_one_of_behes_four_arguments_of_irreducible_complexity

Nope. I just have plenty of experience talking to complete wacko's who actually claim these kinds of things. Considering how few posts you've had here, you can hardly expect me to read your mind and know all of your beliefs on the spot.

You're precisely the reason this fantasy called evolution has gotten to where it is today. All sorts of people clamber for titles and credentials, while substance gets lost in the shuffle. I read Greenberger's work and find that he makes some strong points. A very small percentage of the responses here are of substance, and the few that are do not address the key issues he's brought up.

It's like a kid beats you up and all you have to say is that he doesn't have the credentials to fight you. Hello? He beat the crap out of you!

What makes it all the more embarrassing is that some guy without your credentials has thrown such a monkeyrench into your evolution machinery that all you can say is, where are his credentials? 

Go back to school and retrain yourself to think in practical terms, and not with a Star Trekie mentality.

Since you weren't paying any attention at all, he was completely obliterated decades ago. His very points are based on a fictional idea of what happens, or a blatant lie. Most of you creationists weren't paying attention in grade school, or you'd see how much a fool of yourself you make by defending that guy.

Ah, so you're a dimwit. It all makes sense now. You're simply incapable of understanding simple and complex scientific proofs, and lack any capability to tear them apart, so all you do is say they're wrong even though it's the proof of evolution right in front of your face.

Says the moron who can't come up with anything to invalidate it.

Perhaps if you'd paid the slightest attention at all you'd see that fool Greenbergers entire argument is hot air.

Accurate to some degree.

And here's your problem.

Are you seriously denying the deformations found in nature and mankind every day? Or perhaps you are suggesting that we should see all sorts of deformations in the fossil record(which doesn't explain the above deformations of course). In which case you suffer from the delusion that fossils are a common occurrance, and that we have a complete detailed history of the entire earths biology. The fact is that we have less than 0.0001% of all the life that existed on earth fossilized today, whether we've found it and dug it up or not. And that we have found deformities here and there anyway, even in living species. Even in ourselves. A 10 second google search can show you the proof. But you're too intellectually dishonest to even see how bad you are embarrassing yourself. At least you give us something to point and laugh at.

 

Obvious troll/10. 

Okay, I suspect this isn't going to do any good, since you already know all the answers, but I beg to differ on the "strong points" characterization and I have extra time today. Many of these arguments were weak when the Creationists made them on Answers In Genesis, and they’re even weaker when Greenberger presents them under the pretense that they’re his own ideas.

I'll take on each of Greenberger's essays in a different post.

1. Greenberger's article on fossil dating only mentions carbon dating, revealing that he doesn't know the 5th grade science fact that carbon-14 dating is only one of dozens of forms of radiometric dating. Carbon dating only works on things up to about 50K years old, so it isn't used on fossils.

Greenberger's argument is based on the assertion that scientists need to assume a constant rate of decay for Carbon isotopes (meaning radioactive isotopes). This is a very tired old talking point from our friends at Answers in Genesis, not even original to Greenberger. It's also a strawman fallacy: the validity of radiometric dating has been confirmed by decades of correlating independent data points.

But you don't have to take my word for it. As with all things in science, all the data from stratographic analysis and radiometric dating every published is freely available at a good library.  The same data is available to everyone so that anyone can look at and criticize it and find errors if they are there--that's a basic tenet of science.

If Greenberger had wanted to actually make a critical analysis of the data about radiometric dating and show these supposed inconsistencies instead of spouting inaccurately plagiarized creation-science arguments, he could have done so.  Instead he chooses the dubious persuasive tactic of presenting a conclusion with no supporting evidence.  Interesting choice.

This Greenberger essay also contains a briefly plagiarized version of the creation science argument about the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. I'm not going to bother to dignify this old saw with a link to any of the innumerable sites that show and explain transitional forms because it's clear that Greenberger's essay is also using the old Creationist tactic of constantly redefining "transitional" in a way that (1) is not supported by the understanding of how evolution actually works and (2) has conditions such that its requirements can never actually be fulfilled.

Greenberger's (again plagiarized) references in this essay to comparisons of fossils as being like inkblot tests reveals his total ignorance of the exhaustive mechanics of homology. If he actually wants to criticize homology, some actual examples or other support of some kind for his argument would make a stronger case than a bald assertion. The creationists tried this argument in the Kitzmiller v. Dover court case and were soundly beaten (you can see the video of Miller’s debunking on youtube).

“Is Evolution an Outdated Theory” is based on one key assumption on which the rest of the argument depends.  Unfortunatley, in the continuing tradition of Greenberger’s strawman construction project, the assumption is not from evolutionary theory.

 

 

For the fifty billionth time, EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM.  Natural selection is a *non-random* process by which random variations and environmental pressures combine over time to produce increasing orders of complexity and diversity without the need for a creator.  Your best resource for this reasoning is Dawkins's "Mount Impossible" book.

 Anyone who actually understood the basic dynamics of natural selection and how it overcomes the odds of randomness by being non-random would not even bother to make the rest of this irrelevant argument about radiation and mutation and genetics. Greenberger is just parading his ignorance here.   If you’re going to challenge the theory seriously, you must challenge the actual theory, and not the one you want it to be.  None of this presents the slightest challenge to evolutionary theory—just like it doesn’t when Answers in Genesis presents the exact same arguments on their Web site too.

 

By  the way, if we’re having a pool on which poster on this thread is actually Greenberger incognito, I call dibs on “gregsen” for his nearly-identical argument and similarly overinflated prose stylings.

 

Highlights from “Is Evolution…Outdated” also include a brief nod to AiG’s new “no new information” talking point and several repetitions of the Discovery Institute’s totally unsupportable bald assertion that actual biologists disagree with evolutionary theory.

Greenberger’s “Einstein and God” is about 70% biographical notes about Einstein cribbed from some unnamed source (note to Greenberger: it’s traditional to give credit to your sources).

 

The other 30% of the essay makes this argument:

 

1. There are things about the universe that can’t be understood

2. Einstein understood some of these things by intuition

3. Einstein’s things turned out to be true

4. God is a thing about the universe that can’t be understood

5. Therefore we should intuitively not try to understand God

 

Aside from the fact that the conclusion is a non-sequitur, it’s also a false analogy.  The things Einstein understood intuitively were based on observations and evidence and underwent rigorous experimental testing and confirmation.  Einstein was able to figure these things out *in spite of* people’s common sense prejudices because it was what the evidence indicated.

In contrast there is no good empirical evidence for the existence of God.  This essay is an anti-intellectual polemic that encourages people not to think about, question, or seek evidence of God, which is exactly the only way that you can accept his existence.

Do you have a genuine objection or perhaps are the words in the essay such as “the” much too big for you? As I explained in the essay, the nature of the proteome and the molecular genetics which I work with every day can only be explained via evolutionary mechanisms. When the genetic mutations in question occur, they leave extremely distinct signs which indicate homology hence indicating common descent.

Why don’t you just concede that this is way over your tiny little head?

As I explained before, albeit that your incredibly small brain has difficulty with, evolution is not a series of random events. Mutation is a random event, evolution is the act of mutations being selected out as either deleterious or useful.

Again, you lack the brainpower to make a basic distinction. Firstly, it is true that 99% of species have gone extinct. However, it is also true that 99% of all species are and have been protozoa, and 99% of those have been prokaryota. These, despite stringencies attached due to their high sensitivity to exon mutation, can undergo speciation at relatively rapid pace due to a technique called vertical transfer, which, should you have read the endogenous retrovirals page, you would know what that was, however, as that page may have had too many big words like “the” in it, I forgive you not reading it, or at least, certainly not understanding it.

Wrong, although I suppose I cannot and should not expect anything else from either of you. Any deleterious mutations in bacteria, which constitute the vast majority of species present or not, will destroy the organism, since they have no junk DNA. Eukaryota, due to high volume, carry a great deal of superfluous genetic baggage hence many deleterious mutations can be survived as mere neutralities. First, genetic code has an excellent repair system which targets and repairs point mutations. You see, if you had bothered to read to essay, as in “read” not “look at”, you would have realized the evolutionary mechanisms employed depend mostly on mutations known as recombinations and duplications. The “mutations” which you and your intellectual anal sex partner are referring to are known as point mutations, which are usually always bad or neutral, and are the target of the genetic repair process. Any speciation event which produced an in utero deformation via a deleterious mutation, if not destroyed by the repair process (certain mutations, unfortunately, like the trinucleotide insertion in Huntington’s, can slip past) would have been swiftly eliminated by natural selection, if of course, you are referring to the small number of extinct species which are actually multicellular Eukaryota, since none of the other domains of life have the capability to survive extensive deformation.

As I explained before, the mechanisms of evolution which strive to improve upon the genome do not drive from imperfect to perfect. Evolution is mostly about adding to the genome, and novel recombination of preexisting DNA, what you are referring to is point mutatory mechanisms, which are usually neutral, or most deleterious. However, rates of point mutation are extremely low, due to the extreme stringency of the genetic repair systems. Deforming point mutations that occur in utero can obviously only occur in Eukaryotic multicellular organisms, since it will destroy prokaryota and protozoa. Those which are not destroyed by the checking mechanisms (which occur at all levels, meiosis and mitosis) are destroyed by the brutality of natural selection. There is no such thing as a cladogenesis speciation break which is driven by deleterious mutation. Your boy Greenberger doesn’t know jackshit about evolutionary developmental biology.

Problem? Its not a problem, as I have explained on countless occasions. This is very simple. Speciation mechanisms occur due to population dynamics of divergence when populations get split geographically or an environmental change causes an agenesis phase-out. Since the drive is unidirectional, the parameters for deleterious and beneficial mutations are the same for a sample of organisms. Regarding evolutionary population dynamics there are two ways to look at genetic flow. One is the way Richard Dawkins does, which is only at the level of the gene, or PZ Myers and Stephen Jay Gould, who argued for selection at the level of the population. Since I am a molecular biologist, I tend to agree with Dawkins more, since in my experience, selective mechanisms only do take place at the level of the gene. However, regardless of which way you look at it, it is absolutely impossible for an in utero deformation to be incorporated into a speciation break. Deleterious mutations are always eliminated, never incorporated. Beneficial mutations will act at the level of the population and the removal of deleterious mutations will too, but the addition of deleterious code necessary to create an in utero mutation will never be incorporated at the level of a population.

Maybe you should bother to study evolutionary developmental biology, population dynamics and molecular biology before taking an intellectual shit all over this forum.

Sure. We can do that. The process in Eukaryota is very slow and a typical phylogenic break takes several million years, but we can use prokaryota, since, via vertical transfer by bacterial macrophages, they can undergo speciation much faster, although since they aren’t diploid, the definition of a bacterial species is usually arbitrary ie past a set threshold from the original species. Actually, you prove the generation of a new species every time you catch the common cold. It’s useful to use the immune system’s antigen generators as markers for when a bacteria/macrophage has evolved sufficiently, since past a certain genetic marker, the antigens cannot recognize the binding site anymore. If a bacteria provokes an immune response, we can use that as a guide. The best way to do it is isolate two colonies of bacteria in environmentally different areas, as different as possible given the sensitivity of them. However, larger speciation events can be observed in the wild, although that is more difficult. A list of observed speciation events is shown here. {While you’re there, regarding bacterial evolution, check out the famous example of the addition of nylon hydrolysing enzyme]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html

Since geneticists can now read the genome and flag and track any evolutionary homologies, we can track speciation that we weren’t around to observe. As I explained the genetic evolutionary mechanisms which add information to the genome, contrary to what you and your lover Greenberger believe, are not what you refer to as “mutations” since, being ignoramuses, you are referring to point mutations. If you read the results of the test I provided on the second article, you would realize that such mutations are almost always neutral or deleterious. The neutral ones, which, given the superfluous nature of the genome, occur quite often, are used as clocks to track rates of evolution. Since I work in proteomics I find them extremely annoying since they make it difficult and time consuming to isolate homologous proteins, however, I understand that in evolutionary biology, they are extremely useful since the rate, which has been catalogued by molecular biologists and which I provided an example of, is consistent with known evolutionary timescales.

The other way to do it is artificially, where we can speed it up, using something known as an GA panel. I’m not a computational biologist, so I cannot bore you with the details, but I believe the full details can be found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html

And statistically, if we are talking about speciation, I would not rely on archeology. Firstly over 70% of the planet’s biomass is protozoa, and the bast majority of species, both present or not, are prokaryotam, which don't display deformation in the way you describe as there is no in utero development. Secondly, of the multicellular Eukaryota, an infinitesimal fraction are actually fossilized. Now, I have studied evolutionary population dynamics for many years and I have never heard of a deleterious in utero mutation managing to be transposed from individual to population set and incorporate itself into the phylogenic break during a specation event. Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell me which speciation mechanism you are referring to regarding the gene flow of deleterious deforming code mutations? Anagenesis, cladogenesis? And for that matter, which of the four methods of gene flow is Greenberger referring to? Peripatric, allopatric, parapatric or symaptric. Knowing this will make crushing him easier for me, so kindly tell me. If neither of you know what those terms refer to, you shouldn't even be bothering to argue. You and your friend are conjuring up nonsense out of thin air.

Until the propagation of diploid organisms, obviously, the notion of male and female did not exist. Genetic tracking has revealed the origin of animal sexual reproduction to have occurred after the transition to multicellular non-plant Eukaryota in the Ordovician period. Note that actual “sexual reproduction” which is merely a non-scientific way of referring to diploid horizontal transfer, predated chromosomal gender separation by multiple orders of magnitude since certain protozoa such as the yeast can undergo both binary fission and sexual reproduction. Anyway, algae clumps, the progenitors of multicellular plants, were necessary for the generation and maintenance of the oxygen-based atmosphere. The original multicellular organisms were a class of Porifera called sponges. Sponges are chimera, but can also undergo sexual reproduction. The first case of chromosomally distinct male and female (in Eukaryotic evolution, chromosomal polymorphism is an unusually uncontrolled process, most evolutionary mechanisms are rigidly controlled and hence patterned). It is believed that chromosomally distinct genders broke off here, since sponges are hermaphroditic, like most ancient life forms. Nonetheless, the two distinct chromosomal components for the two genders are believed to have originated with the first multicellular organisms, and separated via chromosomal polymorphism. To this day, evolutionary biologists are unsure as to the evolutionary advantage of sexual fertilization. We know why separate gamete fusion is advantageous, since it promotes Darwinian variety and avoids the possibility of two defective genes matching like in incest relationship. This is why the line of mobile multicellular organisms broke off from the hermaphroditic sponge, with the separation of the two pre-existing chromosomal components for the two genders. This is believed to have occurred during the Neoproterozoic. And it was not “billions of random mutations”. A gender is not going to be generated out of scratch. The genetic mechanism to create genders was chromosomal polymorphism. The genetic code arrayed on the sex chromosomes containing the necessary instructions to determine the sex of an organism only exists in the animals, since other kingdoms which undergo sexual reproduction are hermaphroditic, and as I said before, polymorphidssm, being unusually varied and uncontrolled by the rigid control standards of evolutionary mechanisms, varies from species to species, and on a karytotype array, is quite uunpredictable. In humans, this, of course, is represented by the X and Y chromosomes, both being the product of chromosmal polymorphism.

 However, if you are referring to the more dated advent of two unrelated haploids of the same species undergoing genetic transfer and fusion to form a diploid offspring, this concept dates back to protozoa, obviously, as it is prevalent throughout the Eukaryotic domain. The most notable example involves the budding cycle of yeast, which can undergo binary fission (to form a haploid) or starvatio-induced fusion and sporulation to form two diploids and finally, four haploid offspring, at which point the cycle can be forced to repeat in laboratory-controlled conditions or in nature. 

Because, unlike you two, I studied it for sixteen years, wake up every day and use it at work. Important work, like siRNA research into targeting and curing Huntington’s.

First of all “PhD” is not a meaningless titles. Second of all, I presume you call it gibberish because you lack the cranial capacity to understand the large words in the essay such as “I”. Could you please stop being a myopic intellectually dishonest prat, perhaps cease having intellectual anal sex with this unqualified buffoon, and perhaps make a real objection to my writing instead of blustering like an idiot.

The fact that you had no scientific objections to my writings (as you could not provide any, only whining) sends a good sign, however. As you can see, I went through your idiocy line by line and ripped it apart. You blustered, whined, bitched, spluttered, cried, but I did not see a genuine scientific objection to any of what I wrote, most notably the 11 times I mentioned in the essay as we can see, this function provides excellent evidence for evolutionary mechanisms and common descent. So perhaps, instead of being such a crybaby little bitch, you will chin-up and do me the courtesy of taking the time to do a line-by-line critique and make genuine scientific points, exactly as I did for you. 

I've been wondering why you keep using the phrases "intellectual dishonesty" and "myopic." You're last message cleared that up: You seem to have a serious case of "projection" (the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself).

To the suggestion that it might help evolution's case "if someone in a lab actually repeated the evolution scenario and produced a new species through random mutation" your reply was, "Sure. We can do that. The process in Eukaryota is very slow and a typical phylogenic break takes several million years..."

Several million years? And you say "Sure. We can do that" with a straight face?

Who can do that? You or someone you know will be around in a few million years to show us it can be done?

Talk about intellectual dishonesty! The proper term is probably snake oil salesman.

And then you go back into your microorganism cubbyhole, "...but we can use prokaryota, since, via vertical transfer by bacterial macrophages, they can undergo speciation much faster ... etc." Are you actually so completely ignorant of anything outside your little world of microbes that you cannot intelligently address any issue in any real, practical terms?

We do not live in a world of only microorganisms. We do have such things as zebras, monkeys, donkeys, intellectual fools with advanced degrees, birds and giraffes. Your subjective evaluations do NOT constitute "proof." To prove that experiments on microbes can be extrapolated to the macro world you have to do just that -- prove it! You keep swimming around in that soup of make-believe in your lab. Come out for a breath of fresh air.

Show me a life form that's currently changing into a zebra or a monkey! Just one! I'm not asking for Jurassic Park.

Out of the billions of life forms on earth today, you can't show me EVEN ONE animal that's changing into a new species? How can you even make your asinine claims?

We even have millions of fossils. Not one of them show an unmistakable transitional form that does not require a serious stretch of the imagination. We would need millions of transitional forms to prove evolution. Even a handful would not prove anything. But not to be able to produce even one? I know your microbe theories and experiments say "it happened." But where's the proof, fool?

Your assertion that I "... had no scientific objections to (your) writings ..." is almost comical. You mean if your lab experiments show that people have three legs and I raise an objection to this, after going out into the street and observing that people have only two legs, my observations and logical deductions are not legitimate or scientific enough because I didn't go into a lab and tinker with microbes and proteins? Does the word myopic come to mind? Your remark is just plain witless and moronic, something I'd expect from someone who probably gets an erection when he sees a petri dish. It sounds like your brain is still in the early stages of evolution.

Your grossly biased and deceptiveness methods are so typical of evolutionists. Your work "can only be explained via evolutionary mechanisms" by whom? By you? By other colleagues who accept evolution first and look for "proofs" later? Why don't you stop "explaining" and start "proving." Thus far you've proven only that you're a highly educated fool who can ignore facts like the lowliest of dimwits.


("Experiments" that come close to duplicating earth's early stages, yet produced no life whatsoever: http://www.a1articles.com/article_34702_51.html)

Aww. There, there. You can have all the faith you want.

 Since you really don't want evolution to exist, how about you just put yourself in the hands of a faith healer the next time you're sick. That way, you don't have to burden your mind with the knowledge that medical science is based on our vast knowledge of biology, which in turn would not exist without our vast knowledge of evolution. So don't worry about taking that antibiotic. No, no. Don't touch it. Head on down to your local church and have them lay on hands. You'll be better in no time and you won't have to live with the hypocrisy.

(mod edit - post removed due to violation of rules - specifically 'sock puppet' and antagonism)