Since others have shown that Susan is simply blowing smoke, I will confine my
comments to a few of her responses.
#### What a tempered response from the 'professor.'...
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?
Junk genes that just happen to be able to code for proteins that can
metabolize human-made chemicals and polymers that never existed in nature?
Just how naive are you?
#### Hmmm - maybe not naive enough to believe that such things have been
found by a respected researcher whow as the victim of a conspiracy headed by
the department chair?
How could nature "anticipate" man-made chemicals? How could a gene that can
metabolize PCBs "evolve" without ever having to express a protein product or
if there were never any PVBs around to select for it? How could such a
neutral gene survive millions or billions of years without being eliminated
by genetic drift? Try using your head for once instead of just spouting out
#### How *would* an inactive gene go for so long without significxant
mutations? Surely, your 'friend' must have also discovered the mechanism?
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?
I have copies of the unpublished manuscripts, but I am not going to give them
to anyone as openly hostile as you are. As for publishing elsewhere, you
evolutionists have made that impossible. My colleagues now have reputations
as creationists, so they cannot get published in any scientific journal.
#### Of course! The conspiracy strikes! We evilutionists control the
journals - why there are even oaths that must be taken to ensure that nothing
doubtful of the dominant paradigm will ever mar the hallowed pages - oh,
wait, THATS in creationist journals!
because this is an e-mail list which discusses the creation/evolution debate.
It is still rank hypocracy to demand proof from someone whose word for its
truthfulness you'll never believe. By the way, all you are doing is
reinforcing my impression of your immaturity and naiveta. Why don't you just
#### Yeah - I guess it is just immaturity that someone does not accept
without question the words of a conspiracy monger that will not actually
provide evidence of his claims.
*snip angry bile from paracelus*
I never knew I had such power.
You must be playing dumb. From what I have said, you should realize that all
you would have to do is tell my department chairman that I am a design
theorist, and he would take the necessary steps to have me kicked out of the
#### Of course! Thats the way it works!
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 chapter?
No true Christian has lied to you, but you simply refuse to accept what they
say is true, so you assume they must be lying. I mean, how could you be
wrong about anything?
#### No 'true christian', eh? So tell us - were you a 'true christian before
or after this amazing conspiracy-silenced discovery?
I'm pleased that you are taking the high road and not descending into ad
I could never compete with you.
give it a try. I have a couple of dictionaries on my desk.
Knowing what a word means tells you nothing about its biochemical
significance. So you find out that "decarboxylation" means to remove a
carbon dioxide group from a molecule. What does that mean from a biochemical
standpoint? Can you tell me why that would happen? What the purpose for it
is? What enzymatic mechanisms accomplish it? If not, then you would have no
better idea of what I was saying if I used the term decarboxylation than if I
said "flippenonthegingatz". Without teaching you what I have learned in 30
years of research and education it would be a waste of my time.
#### 30 years? And you're resorting to posting conspiracy nonsense on an
internet email group?
You haven't looked. I've seen it and I'm not a scientist.
This from someone who didn't know that radiocarbon dating is accurate out to
100,000 years. Such arrogance. Young lady, I am a scientist and I've looked
and I can't find it. If in your omniscence you know of such evidence then
produce the citations. Otherwise stop wasting my time.
#### LOL!!! YOU telling HER to produce citations!!!
modern apes and modern man evolved from something that is not like either one.
In other words a squirrel? Please talk sense. Even paleoanthropologists
accept the the "common ancestor" of apes and man was an ape. So man evolved
from apes. End of discussion.
#### My - so authoritative.
dolphins do not superficiallly resemble sharks--certainly not to a biologist.
Of course they do, or do you deny convergent evolution?
#### Superficially - from 50 yards away maybe. I suppose it depends on how
loosely you define 'superficial.'
humans and chimpanzees only have a 2% difference genetically. That isn't
Even Jacob Bronowski, an ardent evolutionist, accepted that humans were
fundamentally different from apes. Read his lecture "The Long Childhood" in
_The Ascent of Man_.
#### Well - one guy - an 'ardent evolutionist' at that - states his opinion
in a book and EVERYONE must agree!
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.
When you can't prove my true position wrong, turn it into a strawman and
prove that wrong. Typical evolutionist tactic.
### Projection is an all too common creationist tactic.
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
Read what Behe said about hemostasis. That most of its different parts could
be lost and yet it would still function as long as the IC core remained
intact. In other words, the function of hemostasis transcends its different
parts, so that some parts can be lost without loss of function, but that a
few key parts are needed to create that transcendent function.
#### Ahh - conditional IC.
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?
I also know that man has achieved technological and artistic wonders that no
ape has ever been able to duplicate in the same length of time. So obviously
our "genetic similarity" means zip.
#### Obviously. Why, we have art? Therefore, we're not at all like chimps.
Why, we live in buildings - chimps don't, therefore, we're fundamentally
ddifferent. We write books and use computers - chimps don't, therefore we
are not related. Brilliant deductions. Are you SURE you're a molecular
biologist - because I don't think a MB would make such silly pronouncements
as "So obviously our "genetic similarity" means zip."
it has been thoroughly demonstrated that apes have abstract reasoning.
In your dreams perhaps. Then why aren't the chimpanzees holding lectures on
Jane Goodall? Why aren't the gorillas wring papers on Diane Fossey?
#### Why, because we're 'fundamentally different' - remember? Susan's dreams
don't enter into it - chimps have indeed been observed utilizing abstract
reasoning skills, even in controlled environments, and no amount of human
chauvenism or anthropocentrism on the behalf of ideology driven creationists
will change that.
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.
So much for you having any claim of knowing what you are talking about. End
### I was about to say the same, based on your genetic similarity comments.
End of discussion.