Censorship at abcbodybuilding.com

Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-07-22
User is offlineOffline
Censorship at abcbodybuilding.com

Ok, so here is the story. I stumbled onto a christian bodybuilding website in which members were making the claim that mutations never lead to an increase in genetic information in a forum. I posted that such a claim was wrong and eventually the discussion turned into one regarding evolution. I quickly learned that the "pastor" of this forum was very well versed in creationist propaganda and was managing to get a great number of people to deny evolution based on his claims. I made a few posts and then, the "pastor" Adam Knowlden responded. My account had been banned from the forum at this point and I refused to allow this man to completely misrepresent and undermine evolutionary theory. So, I made a new account and posted a full rebuttal to all his claims and gave as much evidence for evolution as I could possibly come up with. My post, which took me forever to write, was deleted and my entire IP address was banned. Members on the forum stated that I used offensive language or a demeaning tone. None of this could be further from the truth.

So now, I need your help. I've posted my statement below. This will only take a few minutes of your time. You will have to create an account on abcbodybuilding.com (its quick and free), then go to the sanctuary in the forums section, go to the thread titled "how do we know there is never an increase in genetic information," then post my original post which is below. I'm sending this to a bunch of people because I'm guessing that the post will be deleted so it will have to be reposted several times. Please please, if you are going to respond yourself to anything in the forum don't be offensive or demeaning. I really don't want to ruin the site, I just want to get the word out. Here is my post below, Adam's arguments are quoted within it. If you post it as it appears in to box on the website it should come up perfect. Thanks to anyone willing to help!

First off, for full disclosure, I am the same Kobe who posted earlier. Adam removed my ability to respond to anything in the Sanctuary after asking me several questions and asking me to respond. Then I responded with all the evidence and counterarguments I could possible give. I responded to several threads. I didn’t use any bad language or any demeaning language. My posts were deleted and my entire IP address was banned from abcbodybuilding. I’m not holding any grudges, but I couldn’t sit idly while he continues to completely misrepresent and undermine evolutionary theory. This is my original post below…

have never heard this particles to people word play in my life. We're talking about horses right now bro.

I asked for evidence that man evolved from a single-celled organism. I'm provided an article about horses with different toes...I can see this is going to be a long drawn out discussion.

Is that why you decided it would just be easier to make it impossible for me to respond? The reason why I dislike the particles to people line is because it is deliberately misleading. Evolutionary Theory is not concerned with particles forming anything. Evolution is the slow gradual accumulation of small changes through non-random mutation, genetic recombination, and natural selection. Or much more simply, it is the change in inherited traits in a population over time. You were provided with much more than the horses my friend.

Did you watch the video on whales (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2C-3PjNGok)?

It is a PBS documentary which takes you step by step through the discoveries of the fossils showing the evolution of a walking terrestrial animal to a whale. All the fossils were found in geological and chronological order as expected to construct the timeline. Yes they show you many transitional fossils which are clearly the in between stages of the process. Here is a particular example of what is commonly termed “the walking whale,”



Did you look at the articles on geological time scales and the evolutionary timeline?



Both of these time lines are supported by fossils. Never have we found a fossil outside of the expected layer of sediment as predicted by the evolutionary model. Think about that - out of the millions of fossils that human beings have found, we have never found one that falsifies evolution neither geologically, geographically, or chronologically. That is astonishingly statistically significant. It would be remarkably improbably for such patterns in chronology, geographic location, and complexity to happen by chance. Yet these are precisely the patterns predicted by evolution. Also, keep in mind that while the fossil record is limited it does paint a picture of the processes of evolution.

I already gave you this link, but I’m guessing you didn’t look at it:


Look at all the fossils of hominids that we have found.
Look at how they chronologically and geographically form a pattern.


The point of the horse evidence is that it shows that evolution takes place.

Look at the drawing again...we were shown a horse at the top and a horse at the bottom (although I along with several other evolutionary scientists do not agree with that chart). The conclusion of the chart? The horse has changed over time. Guess what? It's still a horse. How is this evidence that a horse has ever been anything but a horse? Providing a chart about how horse toe counts have changed does not demonstrate how a horse evolved from something that was at one time "non-horse".

Ok, so now you are against the theory of speciation as well? Refer to Diane Dodd’s experiment on Drosophila. She conducted a lab experiment in which she separated a population of fruit flies into two. She placed one group in an environment with maltose-based food and another in an environment with starch-based food. After 8 generations she had two completely different species. They could not interbreed. Speciation is a fact of genetics. When a population becomes divided such that gene flow can no longer occur and the separated populations are subject to separate environmental selectors speciation occurs. This is not the only type of speciation. Many different types of speciation have been well documented in nature and in laboratory settings. The following link provides information on about 20 different speciation experiments:


Here is a video on how a small molecular change can cause speciation:



From the point of the first self-replicating life forms to the emergence of human beings is a process that takes 4 billion years.

Conjecture bro. You haven't provided any evidence to support this.

Fine, you want me to be exact and well referenced? It happened somewhere between 4.4 billion (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6817/abs/409175A0.html;jsessionid=1DB6F5FCA6436E994D0EA6AF036A8D4B) and 2.7 billion years ago (http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/3/153).


Nevertheless, throughout the entire evolution of a biological system each mutation must provide the organism with a particular advantage.

I've already discussed mutations. Please see my other posts.

Ok.. this is from your earlier post:

Information-losing mutations such as a mutation disabling the control gene or pump can confer resistance. However, this tends to make the bacteria weaker in natural conditions. A mutation is not new information. Its a copying mistake in the genes.

You are right that mutations are a copying mistake in the genes. The errors of transcription are what lead to mutations. As for the idea that all mutations make the bacteria weaker… well that’s clearly contradictory to the laws of genetics. Have you ever taken genetics Adam? Do you understand how genes code for polynucleotide sequences? It’s pretty simple. Each three base pairs in the DNA make up a codon, which codes for a specific polynucleotide sequence (or a stop codon or silent). There are only four possible base pairs for each position. Sometimes when DNA is being replicated an error occurs and the wrong base pair is inserted. This causes a change in the polynucleotide being translated. Now usually you are right, by sheer statistical chances alone, most mutations do hurt the organism (or are neutral). The organisms that are less fit because of a non-random mutation are more likely to be selected against. Sometimes the mutation does lead to a benefit to the organism. These organism are more likely to survive and replicate in the future generation. Here are a few examples of possible DNA mutations:


Now why would you think that all mutations would make an organism weaker in natural conditions? That only makes sense if you are assuming that the organism is already perfectly adapted to its environment and the environment is unchanging.

Now you’ll say “provide laboratory proof.” Then, I’ll say:


Don’t like studies involving microscopic organisms? How about some that show beneficial mutations in humans?


But you can spare yourself the science papers if you watch these videos, which I’ve already provided for you once:

Qualitative Analysis

Quantitative Analysis

The second half of the second video shows a study by Dr. Thomas Schneider, which was published in 2000 in Nucleic Acids Research. This study simulates a small genome containing a gene that codes for a DNA binding protein and a stretch of DNA containing 16 sites that if that protein binds to any of them the organism will gain a fitness advantage. The result of this simulation clearly shows that natural selection coupled with random mutations will lead to a steady increase in information over generations.

Now earlier after watching the first video, you said:
Secondly, it absolutely floors me up that their only evidence is bacteria resistance and from that we're supposed to infer man evolved from a single-celled organism. That's a giant leap of faith IMHO.

This is a pretty good point, but the laboratory experiments are designed to show that evolution happens, that is a natural occurrence. A laboratory experiment can not show us what happened in the past. It shows us that evolution is a real process.
Here is a study in which Boraas induced multicellularity:

[color:"red"] Evolution of a Unicellular Organism into a Multicellular Species
Starting from single celled animals, each of which has the capability to reproduce there is no sex in the sense that we think of the term. Selective pressure has been observed to convert single-cellular forms into multicellular forms. A case was observed in which a single celled form changed to multicellularity.
Boxhorn, a student of Boraas,writes:
Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella. "
Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102. [/color]

Now once you understand that mutations can be advantageous and that speciation does occur; there should be no reason why you wouldn’t be convinced that evolution can happen. You also should be able to comprehend how evolution leads to the divergence of species. Once you have been convinced that it can happen; the fossil record, genome studies, genetics studies, molecular biology studies, comparative anatomy, vestigial structures, and comparative embryology show you that it DID happen.


Do you know the theory of general relativity? Do you doubt it because it cannot be replicated in a laboratory setting? The point is that general relativity is a strong theory because it is in line with laws of physics that we know to be true.

Comparing the theory of relativity to evolution is comparing apples to oranges. The important question is not 'Is it science?' We can just define 'science' to exclude everything that we don’t like, as evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence.

However, we can make a valid distinction between different types of science: the distinction between origins science and operational science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today’s Creation—repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the past—unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events. There is a fundamental difference between how the two work. Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation. Studying how an organism operates (DNA, mutations, reproduction, natural selection etc.) does not tell us how it came into existence in the first place.

I agree with all of this except for the idea that origins can not be verified. This is exactly what the paleontology, geology, and radiometric dating are concerned with verifying. They are to our origins what forensics is to a crime scene.


That evolution has been elevated to the status of an operational theory (and “fact” in the opinion of some) is not due to the strength of the evidence, but in spite of it. Because evolutionary ideas are interpretations of past events, they are not as well-founded as testable scientific theories like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity or Newton’s Theory of Gravity. These theories offer predictable models and the ability to conduct experiments to determine their validity in different circumstances. Molecules-to-man evolution does not offer this opportunity because these events happened in the past. Therefore, evolution is not an operational theory. For these reasons evolution could be considered an historical theory, along with creation models and other origins theories.

Dude, do you only read the opinions of people who use the terms “particles to people” or “molecules to man ?” When everyone thinks alike, no one thinks Adam. But anyway… not all of the evidence for evolution is based on past events. Speciation studies, mutation studies, artificial selection, domestication, etc show that evolution is a part of the natural world just as is gravity.


It is important to recognize that people's presuppositions influence the way they interpret evidence. Evolution is based on a reasoning process that rejects God. Creation starts from the authority of God's Word. Your presuppositions are like a pair of glasses that you wear to look at the world around you.

I agree that presuppositions can ruin your analysis of the evidence, but there are plenty of religious people who believe in evolution. The former pope believed in evolution. Is this because he was looking through the glasses of an atheist? Francis Collins was a key figure in the human genome project. He is a devout Christian, but he can’t escape the facts. He reconciles evolution with his faith.


Evolution fits this definition of theory, but it relies on the assumption of naturalism. In the naturalistic scientific community, evolution has become a theory that is assumed to be an established fact and not an explanation. Evolution is the prevailing paradigm, and most scientists have stopped questioning the underlying assumptions that the theory is based upon. Creationists develop theories, too, in light of biblical truth, but they are not as widely accepted by scientists. All interpretations (theories) of the past are based on assumptions and cannot be equated with facts that are observable in the present. This holds true for creationist or evolutionist theories. (See article 1:3, below, for more on this topic.)

Evolution can be equated with facts that are observable in the present. Also, there is a fossil record that shows very statistically significant patterns geologically, chronologically, and geographically. These patterns are astronomically impossible to have occurred by chance alone, but they do fit the evolutionary model perfectly. Chromosomal similarities in DNA regions which code for nothing between more closely related organisms allows us to understand how animals diverged from one other. These types of similarities occurring by chance alone would be astronomically improbable. This genetic data corresponds perfectly with the dating of the fossils and the geographic radiation of the fossils. The statement you have given above is the equivalent of walking into a crime scene. Dave is lying dead on the floor. Rob is standing right infront of you. He has Dave’s blood all over himself. His finger prints are all over the gun lying on the floor. The obvious conclusion is that Dave committed the murder. However, your boy who made the statement above would say something to the effect that “All interpretations (theories) of the past are based on assumptions and cannot be equated with facts that are observable in the present. This holds true for the notion that Dave did it as well as the notion that the crime was committed by a witch. Therefore, a witch committed the crime.


Evolution also relies heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism—a belief that the present is the key to the past. According to uniformitarians, the processes in the universe have been occurring at a relatively constant rate. One of these processes is the rate of rock formation and erosion. If rocks form or erode at a certain rate in the present, uniformitarians believe that they must have always formed or eroded at nearly the same rate. This assumption is accepted even though there are no observations of the rate of erosion from the distant past, and there is no way to empirically test the erosion rate of the past. However, the Bible makes it very clear that some events of the past were radically different from those we commonly observe today. Noah’s Flood, for example, would have devastated the face of the earth and created a landscape of billions of dead things buried in layers of rock, which is exactly what we see.

I don’t really know how to respond to this argument. Geology and global climate change are not my areas of expertise. I agree that scientists assume (imho reasonably) that the processes of the universe have been occurring at a somewhat relative rate. I would apply this type of idea to the expansion of the universe, gravitational forces, solar expansion, star death, etc. To say that scientists believe that the rate of rock formation and erosion have been constant seems strange since we know that the climate of the earth has changed considerably, not to mention changes in the molecular composition of the atmosphere. But like I said, not really my area…


Do you see why asking to prove this in a laboratory is utterly preposterous?

No, what I'm seeing are excuses why you can't provide any repeatable scientific evidence for your belief. The point is evolution is a philosophy, not science. It's mixed in with science, but evolution in an of itself is beyond the scope of the scientific method. I also think I need to clarify what I mean by evolution. People often think of evolution as "change over time". That's not what I mean when I refer to evolution. Here is what I mean:

[color:"red"] That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a “micro” increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite “macro” changes that involve no new information, e.g., when a control gene is switched on or off.

This is simply not true. Let me reiterate. We have observed the evolution of
• increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
• increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
• novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
• novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)


What is it about this theory that you are so afraid of, Adam? Can you not reconcile the fact that the first Homo Sapiens had parents who were physically very similar to Homo Sapiens with your faith?

First, talk about a strawman, you need to look in the mirror bro. Furthermore, I can assure you if vestigial organs are your evidence for this theory I'm not afraid at all. I know you mean well, but we've discussed these same "evidences" literally hundreds of times over the years. We've debated these topics in depth. You aren't providing me anything that I haven't heard over and over again. Furthermore, you aren't providing me any solid evidence. Basically to sum it up "It just takes a long time". Yup, same arugment, still lacking.

Haha, you accuse me of a strawman and then commit one yourself. I have provided you with nothing but solid information. Here is a video for creationists who claim that the only evidence for evolution is big numbers:


I know I'll be given several articles from wikipedia again and a lesson on logical fallacies and natural selection, so let me save you the time. Just provide me your very best scientific evidence that man has evolved from a single-celled organism. Please don't tell me about time or horse evolution. Just give me the hard scientific evidence. Thank you.

Haha, don’t you mean you’ll save me the time by not allowing me to post anything? It seems that it is a common creationist tactic to ask for one irrefutable piece of evidence that evolution occurred. Well there isn’t one. In order for you to understand it you have to understand many different concepts and look at many different pieces of evidence. Evolution is like a jigsaw puzzle. All the pieces of evidence fit neatly into it with none left over to disprove it. For any rational open-minded person there is more than enough evidence to draw you to the conclusion that evolution most likely did happen. Anyway, you want evidence? You got it…

This article documents 993 measurements of directional selection in the wild. The authors have provided a database of instances of natural selection in the wild, as reported in Kingsolver et al (2001) The American Naturalist 157(3): 245-261: Note that these studies all deal with directional selection, not purifying or stabilizing natural selection, which creationists sometimes falsely claim is the only kind of natural selection that occurs in nature.

Here is an article on the genetic basis for evolutionary change:

Here is an article on speciation occurring naturally in genetics:

This link provides a timeline of all of our hominid ancestors. You can click to observe the fossils, where and when they were found, how old they are, what layer of sediment they were found in, etc.

Proof for evolution in the human genome:

This next link shows the fossil transitions from reptiles to mammals:

Here is an entire database on transitional fossils:

Here is another article on transitional fossils:

Here is a study that traces the gene divergence between vertebrates and invertebrates:

How do the actions of individual genes contribute to the complex morphologies of animals and plants? How widespread are these genes taxonomically? How many genes are involved in the morphological differences observed between species, and can we identify them? To what extent can empirical data and theory be reconciled? This next study provides an overview of some recent attempts to answer these questions, answers that have taken us to the threshold of understanding the mechanistic basis and evolutionary factors that underlie morphological innovation.

Research on how the placenta evolved:

Here is molecular evidence for evolution:

Here is a link showing the evolution of several female reproductive proteins in mammals

Here is a link to the fossil record database. All the information is there for you to scrutinize.

Here is an article on 29 evidences for common descent

More Evidence for Common Descent
• Anatomical homologies- Throughout the domains of life organisms show a distinct pattern of constraints based on homology in development and construction of the body. Tetrapods have five digits because the ancestor of tetrapods had five digits. When a tetrapod does not seem to have five obvious digits a review of their development will show that they start out with 5 and that they fused together later to form fewer numbers. All organisms use the same 3 letter code for translating RNA into proteins, the choice of which letters represent which amino acids is an inherently arbitrary event, however the code is shared because the last universal ancestor to life had that code.
• Endogenous retroviral insertions - These are inactivated viral genes that were inserted by ancient retroviruses. In order for a retrovirus to be inherited in all members of a species many highly improbable events must happen. The virus must insert into a gamete cell, it must mutate so it is inactive, that gamete cell must be used to make an embryo that lives to reproduce and whose genome fixates into the population. This is a very rare event, and ERV's are usually species specific and insert themselves nearly randomly into the genome of the host. The fact that we share ERVs with simians is proof we share a common genome. Even more than that, phylogenetic trees can be constructed based on the pattern of ERVS, humans share more ERVs with chimps than either share with Gorillas. This is absolute proof of common descent.
• Pseudogenes - Shared errors is a powerful argument for a common source. If two text books describe the same event in similar language it's possible they just both converged on the same wording. But if they both share the same grammar or spelling errors it becomes impossible to say they did not derive from a common source. There are genes that no longer code for a protein due to a mutation or error. Species often share the same pseudogene, with the same inactivating mutation. A famous example of this is the L-gulonolactone oxidase which synthesizes vitamin c. All simians including humans share this pseudogene but the guinea pig which also has an inactivated L-gulonolactone oxidase gene has a different mutation.
• Embryology - The pharyngula stage of embryonic development appears to be highly conserved over time. At this stage it is difficult to tell the difference between various vertebrate species. This conserved state screams common ancestry, and the field of evolutionary development, which is highlighting the role of such things as HOX genes, has expanded our knowledge of embryo ontogeny to amazing new levels of detail. All thanks to acknowledging the fact of common descent.
• Chromosome fusion - Chimpanzees have one more chromosome than humans do. If it is true we share a common ancestor we should be able to figure out what happened to that chromosome. Researchers have found it. Chromosome 2 in humans is actually the fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes. At the end of each chromosome is a marker called a telomere which usually appears only on the ends. But in human chromosome 2 it also appears in the center, marking where the two ends fused. Another knock down win for common descent.
• Convergence - The phylogenetic trees constructed using anatomical homology, DNA homology, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviral insertions, and many other methods all converge on a similar looking tree. There are slight differences but the general relationships of the trees are intact. If all of these methods were flawed you would not expect each of them to converge on the same tree.

theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
an excellent refutation,

an excellent refutation, but it wouldn't be prudent for us to do what you asked. I don't think this forum wants to be marked with trolling and invading another board.

 Look, you have to realize here, you're dealing with people who are supressing rational thought. Throwing a bunch of evidence at them is just going to make them angry, mainly because their entire knowledge of evolution is a complete strawman. Just the fact that he asked you "show me scientific evidence that man evolved from a single celled organism" shows that he has no idea what he's talking about. He probably wouldn't accept anything less than a laboratory experiment detailing the complete evolution from e.coli to homo sapien.