Comments on: A Creationist Blog Quote Mines Peer Reviewed Research about Protein Evolution

By: guy

guy — Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:40:16 +0000

my name is guy and i study biology.

first- i think have a very strong evidence for design in nature

a) we know that a self replicate robot that made from dna need a designer

b) from a material prespective the ape is a self replicate robot

a+b= the ape need a designer

or even a self replicat watch.the evolution side always say that a watch need a designer because it cant self rplicat. so if we will find a self replicat watch we need to say that is made by itself

plus: if a self replicate car cant evolve into an airplan, how can a bacteria can evolve into human ?

the evolution say that small steps for milions years become a big steps. but according to this a lots of small steps in self replicat car (with dna) will evolve into a airplan.

but there is no step wise from car to airplan

evolution say that common similarity is evidence for common descent. but according to this 2 similar self replicat car are evolve from each other

according to evolution a car can evolve in a close room, beacuse a human can evolve in a close room and make a car

check also this great site:

http://creation.com/
what you think? yours sincerely

By: JoshB

JoshB — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 07:02:19 +0000

Actually, it is easier to understand “church” and spirituality in reference to Evolution. If true scientist are thinking outside the box they will eventually concur that spirituality, the mind, God, and consciousness, are all very relevant to modern man. So they to have evolved in our species. Otherwise, they exist pre-man. though I doubt that, (I have never seen field mice dance, or use complexity within there nesting procedures, you get my point). So my point is that I don’t think that “questions” about God could come from an idiot. Here is my scenario for you: You study a chimpanzee for years and one day he looks at you and says; “I see you everyday sir, so where is God?” Straightly you believe that this chimp is a genius. Yet, many human ask “where is God” and a scientist, especially one who is Atheist, will turn up their scientific nose at them and laugh behind closed doors. I find this to be a great irony and wish that Darwin were still around. He was an Agnostic you know.

By: Rob Evans ,B.Sc.,M.Sc.

Rob Evans ,B.Sc.,M.Sc. — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 23:38:24 +0000

Dear Greg Laden’s Blog:
I am always amazed how hard some narrow-minded “People of God”? are prepared to go to attack other people, such as “Scientists” who, like Galileo, have created blasphemy to remark against the almighty Church by telling the truth. To me, such People who, like robots, believe whatever they are told are not qualified to criticise anyone.
For example, just before I was to meet a long-lost relative of my wife’s family who are all Catholic, I came up with a very simple topic and I asked her if she had read any good books lately? To my absolute horror she replied, “The Priest will decide all I need to know”. Hitler would roll over in his grave and smile!
Way back, during the Crusades, Christians rode a very long way to kill Moslem’s because they had the queer idea that this would “Please God” and earn them a place in Heaven. I thought one of the Christian ten Commandments was “Thou shall not Kill”. Can anyone explain this one to me? Ignorance carried to extreme is very dangerous and needs to be carefully controlled. Rob Evans, Jan. 7, 2011.

By: Lorax

Lorax — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 20:00:24 +0000

The issue of point mutations being too slow to be effective can be addressed numerous ways. Lateral gene transfer in the bacteria is one. Whole genome duplication (WGD) is another. Homologous recombination is nice and all, especially for hairless apes, but many eukaryotes don’t do the whole sex thing and appear to do quite well (better than the aforementioned apes). Personally, I think WGDs are much underappreciated in much of evolutionary biology.

By: Marion Delgado

Marion Delgado — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:50:35 +0000

Good enough is good enough, but when it comes to ESS’s, better is better

But since creationists are also wrong about the God-mandated perfection of existing organisms, sometimes an organism just has to be less of a mismatch for its niche than the other organisms that just happen to be there. It doesn’t have to outrun a bear, it just has to outrun them.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:09:36 +0000

Good enough is good enough, but when it comes to ESS’s, better is better. But this is probably too subtle to be grasped by those seeking to prove god by twisting evidence.

By: Dunc

Dunc — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 13:35:58 +0000

we see many systems that are far from perfect, either because they are in transition, because we are missing some competing evolutionary factor that overrides selection in the feature we are observing, or because, in the end, evolution…

… isn’t about “perfection”. “Good enough” is good enough.

By: NMLevesque

NMLevesque — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 06:25:01 +0000

When a creationist quote mines I have to wonder what’s going on in there brains. Did they just skim over something and blip they spot a section that sounds like it affirms their beliefs–copy paste and voila another distorted misrepresentation is born? As much as that is possible due to the nature of their opposition and often utter lack of education on the subject at hand, I would think some of them know exactly what they’re doing.

By: Dan Satterfield

Dan Satterfield — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 05:18:09 +0000

Greg,
I see this type of thing frequently in blogs that deny climate change. There are legions who search through papers trying to find something that disproves AGW. Most understand almost nothing of what they read, but often will misinterpret a paragraph as supporting their “political” position. They then post it in a blog and it gets repeated across the denialosphere.

Even after it is long repudiated by those who actually understood the paper, the myth will linger for years. Kind of sad really, some of these people could use all that time to actually learn some real science.