"Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is the constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every college campus…… To my own amazement....... Dr. John C Sanford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford)
This entire paragraph has absolutely NO substance to it. Not only is he simply bemoaning, I suspect he is projecting
. A real scientist wouldn't write a paragraph like this. WHY is it bad? WHAT is incorrect about it? HOW could it be improved? Furthermore, of course
it's universally taught....evolution doesn't work differently in the bible-belt than it works in Europe or California. The same holds true for Gravity and every other discipline in science. Duh.
"When we come to examine the simplest known organism capable of independent existence, the situation becomes even more fantastic. ... This unique sequence represents a choice of one out of 102,000,000 alternative ways of arranging the bases!
One out of 102,000,000. Remember that he said this
We are compelled to conclude that the origin of the first life was a unique event, which cannot be discussed in terms of probability."The University of London cell biologist Dr. Ambrose
Oh so AFTER he just discussed the origin of life in terms of probability, NOW he says that it CAN'T be discussed in terms of probability. Nice. Well done.
Furthermore if the ODDS of life originating naturally are 1 out of 102,000,000, how does that PROVE that life can't originate naturally? Seems to me it proves the opposite
. That's what it mean when you "give odds".
This goes over Creationist heads every single time. They just don't get this part.
Using a little algebra we can see that 41,000=10600.
No algebra in the world, except creationist homeschooling algebra, says 41,000 = 10600.
Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros!Frank B. Salisbury, evolutionist biologist
Oh! So he meant 10600
= 41,000. Nope, still fail
, this time by a much larger margin.
Human Genome Project Supports Adam, Not Darwin
No, it doesn't, stop embarrassing yourself.
John Mattick of the University of Queensland commented about how “The Genomic Foundation is Shifting” in his brief essay for Science. “For me,” he began, “the most important outcome of the human genome project has been to expose the fallacy that most genetic information is expressed as proteins.”
Oh my god. Actual scientists are working to improve our understanding of genetics? Say it ain't so. You just posted a paragraph where a scientist wrote a scientific paper saying "Hey guys, maybe we're doing step #923729 improperly. Maybe we should consider [factors x, y and z] into the equation."
That how science works. HELLO?!? How would this support your position ANYWAY?
Finally, where is the peer-review? What do other scientists think? Are his arguments supported? Has the scientific consensus changed? Just because he wrote it doesn't make it true, scientist or not.
"These observations suggest that we need to reassess the underlying genetic orthodoxy, which is deeply ingrained and has been given superficial reprieve by uncritically accepted assumptions about the nature and power of combinatorial control.
In another essay in the 18 February issue of Science, Maynard Olson [U of Washington, Seattle] asked, “What Does a ‘Normal’ Human Genome Look Like?” Olson did not wish to get embroiled in old debates about nature vs. nurture other than to acknowledge that they still exist despite the publication of the human genome. Instead, he asked what factors are minor players in human variation. One of them, he said, in a statement that might have raised Darwin’s eyebrows, is “balancing selection, the evolutionary process that favors genetic diversification rather than the fixation of a single ‘best’ variant”; instead, he continued, this “appears to play a minor role outside the immune system.” Another also-ran are the variations we most often notice in people: “Local adaptation, which accounts for variation in traits such as pigmentation, dietary specialization, and susceptibility to particular pathogens is also a second-tier player.” The primary factor is another eyebrow-raiser for Darwinists:
What is on the top tier? Increasingly, the answer appears to be mutations that are ‘deleterious’ by biochemical or standard evolutionary criteria. These mutations, as has long been appreciated, overwhelmingly make up the most abundant form of nonneutral variation in all genomes.
REALLLLLLLY??! (everyone read that quote carefully)
If you exclude the NEUTRAL mutations, you're mostly left with BAD ones? Well no shit Sherlock. GOOD mutations are exceedingly rare, but the majority are NEUTRAL (the quote even implicitly acknowledges that)
This isn't news, or a revelation, or "increasingly" apparent. It's FACT. It's been fact since Day-1.
Did you catch that? These are phenomenal admissions in a secular science journal. Mattick showed how many ways the evolutionary geneticists were wrong.
Good. That's super. Now we know MORE. It's called LEARNING. Try it.
Olson’s revelations are even more shocking, and, in a way, delightful – for those who believe that the Bible, not Darwin, tells where man came from. Olson essentially said that Darwinists should pack up and go home, because the factors that they have counted on to explain human complexity are minor players.
Nope, only Creationists read it that way. Actual scientists, for whom the information was intended, read it differently.....and likely many of them think Olsen has it wrong for reasons: [x, y and z]
Then he said that most mutations are harmful, bad, deleterious, regressive, plaguing each individual person. NO, HE DIDN'T. HE SAID THAT MOST WERE NEUTRAL.