Re: General Response

Joel Duff (
Thu, 27 May 1999 15:22:49 -0500


I'm assuming that these posts of yours are joke. I can't imagine that you
expect to be taken seriously. Certainly I can't . You have slammed people
for there lack of knowledge but if you are hoping that your supposed
credentials will make us bow in your honor I can say for myself that I am
not impressed nor has much of what you said indicated that you truly have
an understanding of what your talking about. I think that many of us
could pick apart much of what you have said but really, what would be the
point. You have made it abundantly clear that you will not correspond with
any sense of normal conversation. I strongly suspect that you are
bluffing about numerous things and if you are not I could see how that
could be terribly upsetting that I would think that. It has nothing to do
with your wishing to remain anonymous but rather with your conduct. Hey,
its fine with me if you want to remain anonymous but you would think that
anyone in your position (and with your presumed intelligence) could see how
others might be skeptical and would therefore be more gracious and
forgiving and carefull in ones form of argumentation. Not so apparently,
your writing only fuels the fire that only you have the ability to put out!

Joel Duff

PS. looking forward to your comments on the bombadier beetle, I've been
doing a little research on them myself. Please don't forget to include all

>Several of you have suggested that my colleagues were fired because they
>were bad scientists. I find that a fantastic claim since none of you know
>them. Indeed, you made that claim simply because they oppose evolutionary
>theory, that's how deep your biases run. Actually, however, they were
>excellent scientists. One discovered evidence which showed that the genes
>which code for the variable and hypervariable regions of immunological
>proteins could not have been produced by gene duplication and mutation,
>but were in fact present in the form of pseudogenes from the very
>beginning, simply waiting to be activated when a new disease appeared.
>The other discovered several mammalian pseudogenes that in fact needed
>only a single mutation to begin coding for enzymes that would make it
>possible for eukaryotic cells to digest synthetic polymers like nylon or
>metabolize toxic chemicals like PCBs. Their joint conclusion based on the
>sequencing and study of those pseudogenes was that t!
>hey could only have evolved silently (without expressing any protein
>product), which is a violation of evolutionary theory, OR had to be
>present from the beginning waiting to be expressed when the diseases
>appeared or nylons and PCBs were invented, which refutes evolutionary
>theory. Either way their work was devastating. The chairman tried to
>persuade them not to publish, or at least to modify the data to conform
>with evolutionary theory. They refused and submitted their work for
>publication. He retaliated by seeing to it they were denied tenure, then
>getting them fired. He also convinced the journal to reject their
>publications. And that is how evidence contrary to evolution is
>suppressed by desparate and frightened evolutionists.
>By the way, my own work supports theirs, but needless to say for now my
>publications are written to conform with evolutionary theory. Some day,
>however, I'll be able to tell the true story.
>Several of you have demanded that I provide evidence to backup my
>recollections about the unscientific behavior of evolutionists, then when
>I do you dismiss it out of hand. THAT is a perfect example of what I am
>talking about. Because I am a declared anti-evolutionist you
>evolutionists automatically reject anything I have to say. Some of you
>are naive enough to believe evolutionist propoganda that all
>anti-evolutionists are liars. Others of you know the truth and are
>engaging in the standard coverup. Either way, your demand is obviously
>hypocritical since you'll never believe me or admit that I am right. So
>why make the demand at all?
>No doubt the reason is to destroy my reputation before I even get a chance
>to make it. Or to find a way to get rid of me before I can do any real
>damage to evolution. Since I have declared myself anonymous, I cannot
>provide the kind of proof that y'all demand or I would compromise that
>anonymity. That allows you to imply that I am lying. If however I
>provided the proof you wanted you would be able to find out who I am and
>then pressure my department chair to get me fired. So I am caught between
>the Devil and the deep blue sea no matter what I do.
>That alone should tell you I have no reason to lie. After all, why would
>I deliberately put myself in that position? But if you need another,
>being a Christian I know it is a sin to lie. Therefore, why would I
>jeopardize the fate of my immortal soul just to win a silly debate? As a
>Christian though I am ready to bear the slings and arrows of outraged
>evolutionists to bear witness to the truth. Y'all know in your hearts
>that what I am saying is true, even those of you hoodwinked by
>evolutionist propoganda. So you have no choice but to destroy me at all
>Some of you have demanded that I reveal what I think is wrong with
>evolution. Well, I've already done that, but your knee-jerk reactions
>were to dismiss it with the usual rhetorical clap-trap instead of
>providing evidence to show that I am wrong. What does that say about your
>biases against the truth?
>Part of the problem is also that there are only about 3 of y'all who would
>really understand a full-blown biochemically-based scientific refutation
>of evolution. For the rest I have to use baby talk, but that is never
>near as effective. So its a Catch-22.
>If you do a search in MedLine you would find that Behe has coauthored some
>33 papers in such journals as Biochemical and Biophysical Research
>Communications, the Journal of Molecular Biology, Nucleic Acids Research,
>Biochemistry, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
>Biopolymers, the Journal of Biological Chemistry and the Biophysical
>Journal. If you read those papers you find that almost from the beginning
>he was discussing irreducible complexity. In fact, you can see the idea
>"evolve" right up until the time he published his book. What is
>interesting is that no unbiased biochemist who has read Behe's theory has
>found anything wrong with it, and that's partly because he refined it
>through his research and his publications. Only those people who are
>devoted to the evolutionist doctrine oppose it, yet they can never find
>anything wrong with it. So they make pseudoscientific arguments or
>personal attacks. It's really quite sad.
>Some of you have attempted to refute irreducible complexity by saying that
>it has been shown that IC systems can evolve, but I've never seen anything
>like that in the scientific literature. I see scenarios and speculations
>and just-so stories, but not one piece of hardcore evidence. Where for
>example are the IC systems being synthesized in the lab? If they can be
>evolved so easily, why can't we make them from scratch on our own? Where
>is the evidence that demonstrates how a flagellum or the IC core of
>hemostasis evolved? There is none, because it doesn't exist. Show me the
>Some of you have taken me to task for saying that man evolved from apes.
>You claim that the real way to say it is that man and ape shared a common
>ancestor. But what was that common ancestor if it wasn't an ape or some
>other primate? A squirrel maybe? Get real. The common ancestor of
>modern apes and man was itself an ape. Ergo the evolutionary position
>should be that man evolved from apes. All this talk about "sharing common
>ancestors" is just a smoke screen to hide this simple fact. Once it is
>realized, however, the ridiculousness of it becomes easy to see. Man may
>superficially resemble an ape just as dolphins superficially resemble
>sharks, but this is simply the use of a similar design strategy. Even
>evolutionists do not deny that, or at least I have never heard an
>evolutionist suggest that sharks and dolphins share a common ancestor
>simply because they look alike. Yet man is so fundamentally different
>from apes despite these superficial similarities that it is i!
>mpossble for man to be simply an "evolved" ape.
>I'll deal with this in another post this weekend.
>Some of you have misrepresented Behe's definition of irreducible
>complexity to try to argue that humans can still live with certain parts
>missing. The definition Behe gives is for strict application to molecular
>systems, but a more general definition of IC would be that the function of
>a system transcends its collected parts. Put another way, an IC system is
>more than just the sum of its part. This allows for the possiblity that
>some parts can be lost without significantly affecting the system because
>the function that system performs is not based on the sum of its parts but
>is an extension of those parts. Where the strict definition comes in is
>that there are a few key core parts that if lost will cause the function
>to break down, though redundancy of design can allow the function to
>continue in a less efficient manner. As such, a human can still be an
>effectively functioning human if he looses an arm, a leg, an eye, some
>teeth, etc., but if he looses his brain he ceases!
> to be human. Of course the brain itself is a collection of parts only a
>core of which are IC, but its function transcends those collected parts,
>so it is as a whole IC. It can loose parts without suffering a
>significant loss of function, but if the IC core is damaged or lost then
>function is severely compromised. And the function of the brain in humans
>is to reason. A human who looses the ability to reason ceases to be human
>even if he is still alive.
>It has also been naively suggested that humans are simply quantitatively
>more advanced than apes, that we have more genes or we do more with what
>few extra genes we have. According to design theory, however, humans are
>in fact qualitatively different from apes. It is irrelevant if we have
>lots more genes than genes or only a few very different genes, in the end
>humans can reason abstractly whereas apes cannot. It would be easier to
>prove this if it turned out that humans and apes were genetically
>identical, but it is nonetheless true even if it turns out that we are
>very different. If it turns out that we are very nearly genetically
>identical as Rich Daniel suggests, all this means is that as David Tyler
>has already pointed out genes simply do not control everything as the
>atheists would like people to believe.
>The only truly reliable methods of dating past events are carbon-14,
>dendrochronology and uranium series dating, but these are good only back
>to about 350.000 years. Based on this and other information I believe
>that any date for the age of the earth older than 500,000 years is
>questionable, and that its oldest possible age cannot exceed 10 million
>years in any event, based on geophysical evidence such as that proposed by
>Lord Kelvin and astrophysical evidence such as the faint young sun
>paradox. I believe the earth is only a million years old, but that is
>just a personal opinion.
>FREE! The World's Best Email Address
>Reserve your name now at