Re: General Response

Susan Brassfield (
Thu, 27 May 1999 16:44:26 -0600

>. . . 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!
they could only have evolved silently (without expressing any protein
product), which is a violation of evolutionary theory,

No it's not. I'm no geneticist, but even I have heard of this.

>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.

wait a minute! devastating? I've heard of this. It's no big deal and, as
far as I know, reasonably well understood. We have lots of "junk genes"
which can sometimes be activated. So what?

>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
>them fired. He also convinced the journal to reject their publications.

how convenient. We can't ask for where the stuff was published. Can you
supply a copy of the original paper? Why didn't they resubmit elsewhere?

>standard coverup. Either way, your demand is obviously hypocritical since
>never believe me or admit that I am right. So why make the demand at all?

because this is an e-mail list which discusses the creation/evolution
debate. duh.

>No doubt the reason is to destroy my reputation before I even get a chance to
>make it.

since "" is a phony address, how is that possible?

>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.

I never knew I had such power.

>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?

I often wonder about that. I've caught many creationists in lies over the
years and wondered at the time--*why*. Why lie? Why is Genesis so
important, that it's ok to violate one of the commandments in the very next

>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 costs.

I have a feeling we couldn't decipher your home address if you discussed
your evidence in generalities. How about giving it a try?

>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 . . .

I'm pleased that you are taking the high road and not descending into ad

>Part of the problem is also that there are only about 3 of y'all who would
>understand a full-blown biochemically-based scientific refutation of
>For the rest I have to use baby talk, but that is never near as effective.
>So its a

give it a try. I have a couple of dictionaries on my desk.

>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.

You haven't looked. I've seen it and I'm not a scientist.

>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.

modern apes and modern man evolved from something that is not like either one.

>Man may superficially resemble an ape just as dolphins superficially resemble

dolphins do not superficiallly resemble sharks--certainly not to a biologist.

>Yet man is so fundamentally different from apes despite these superficial
>similarities that it is impossble for man to be simply an "evolved" ape.

humans and chimpanzees only have a 2% difference genetically. That isn't
"fundamentally" different.

>I'll deal with this in another post this weekend.

you should actually read
before you tackle it.

>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
>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

After I read the first sentence in this paragraph, I was about to go get a
copy of Behe's definition of IC for you to read, when I then read your
second sentence. Which is self-contradictory. We were using Behe's
definition. Now you are telling us that you have your own definition. Which
is nothing at all like Behe's. ok.

>Put another way, an IC system is more than just the sum of its part. This
>for the possiblity that some parts can be lost without significantly
>affecting the

that is exactly *not* what Behe is saying. He is saying that if any part of
the system is absent, then the whole thing collapses. The system is
"irreducible" which means no parts can be removed--the system can't be

>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.

if you are a molecular biologist I'm the Queen of Romania. Why is the first
book of the Bible so important that you must defend it by violating a
commandment from the second book?

We don't have extra genes. We have the same number of genes. Some of the
genes (only 2%) are different than those of chimpanzees. We are more
genetically similar to chimpanzees than some spieces of finch are to each
other. But as a biologist you probably already know that--right?

>According to design theory, however, humans are in fact qualitatively
>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

it has been thoroughly demonstrated that apes have abstract reasoning.

>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.

The Queen of Romania speaks:
carbon-14 dating only goes back to about 10,000 years. As a scientist I'm
surprised you don't know that.

>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?

I often wonder about that. I've caught many creationists in lies over the
years and wondered at the time--*why*. Why lie?

Queen Susan


Life is short, but it's also very wide.