What does the fossil record say?

[tumbleweed41]

http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html
http://www.weloennig.de/DynamicGenomes.html
http://www.weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf
http://www.weloennig.de/Dollo-1a.pdf
http://www.weloennig.de/Questions.html
http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf​

You insist on "peer-review" - don't you?
In your twisted world, does that not spell "c-r-e-d-i-b-i-l-y?"

Well - check it out!
** means peer-reviewed work.
Pay careful attention to # 12 and 24 - OK?

http://www.weloennig.de/literatur1a.html

Yes, peer-reviewed. In a credible journal of biology, or botany (as that is Loennig's specialty)

The obscure journals published by Global Science Books have absolutly no credibility, although ID'rs are certainly haveing a heyday citing their articles as "peer reviewed".

A clear marker for the reasoning of Loennig's reliance on such journals is his use of the thoroughly debunked "irreducibility complexity" argument. And his citing of Behe's work to support his hypothesis.

 

[wilsoncole]

Timothy Hoover- another proponent of Irreducible Complexity.

Again, not a reputable position to take.

Russell W. Carlson- member of the ISCID, a group which includes Micheal Behe that supports the thoroughly debunked "irreducible complexity" argument.

Hardly a "reputable" position to take.

"Richard Dawkins, the loud-mouthed anti-creationist, says in his recent book The Greatest Show in Earth, “Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. ... No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.”

Mr. Weed,
You're working on the wrong aspect of the question!
Who in the world is talking about "reputable positions?"
ANYONE disagreeing with the ToE is, according to your world-view, not in a "reputable position."

You should be trying to prove that they are not "REPUTABLE SCIENTISTS!"
You have not done that - yet.
So, these reputable scientists are back on the list of evolution doubters!


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[tumbleweed41]

A "reputable' scientist would not align themselves with something so unquestionably pseudoscientific as "Irreducible Complexity".

 

[camanintx]

There is nothing "positive" about sickle-cell anemia and there is no improvement in the organism. They might be immune to malaria - nothing else, but the suffering is intense and the patients rarely live beyond their 40s.

It is not sickle cell anemia itself that makes one resistant to malaria but rather the trait. Those with the sickle cell trait, who have one gene for hemoglobin A and one gene for hemoglobin S, have a greater chance of surviving malaria and do not suffer adverse consequences from the hemoglobin S gene. Sickle cell anemia kills about 20,000 people each year while malaria kills over a million. That seems like an improvement to me.

But if you would prefer an improvement that is more obvious, I suggest you look up the evolution of adult lactose tolerance.

 

[wilsoncole]

Yes, peer-reviewed. In a credible journal of biology, or botany (as that is Loennig's specialty)

The obscure journals published by Global Science Books have absolutly no credibility, although ID'rs are certainly haveing a heyday citing their articles as "peer reviewed".

Mr. Weed,

That is YOUR opinion and it has no credibility whatsoever!

I am going to give you a lot of work to do.

A clear marker for the reasoning of Loennig's reliance on such journals is his use of the thoroughly debunked "irreducibility complexity" argument. And his citing of Behe's work to support his hypothesis.

And, in your usual nastiness, you seek to denigrate and fail to pay attention to the man's work.
Sullying a man's reputation is an evil deed, especially when that man has done nothing to harm you personally.

The following is published in German. Slight problems with the translation, but still understandable in English:
24. Lönnig, W.-E.: and the origin of species. species concept in 1986, 540 p. Published in Science Cologne.(IBSN 3-9801772 - 0-3).
Here, as a peer-reviewed paper "counted as a renowned scientific publishing, which I was offered the job at the time, two positive scientific opinions of anonymous peer reviewers were available - which the peer-review criteria, namely, "subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field" and "This reviewer or referee also referred to the peer review experts should not come from the environment of the author" (see the notes) below are met.

The publisher has to work after some hesitation, but then not accepted because it the financial risk for the 540 (later 622) pages and numerous illustrations appeared at large (main objection at that time: "you are not familiar enough").

Shortly thereafter, I registered the SCIENCE PUBLISHING COLOGNE (with all the formalities necessary for this office by), working with International Standard Book Number (ISBN) to give out to others, such. - (See the positive reviews, by Ernst Mayr, H. van Waesberghe and K. Napp-Zinn on my homepage.)

Prof. Walter Nagl, Cell Biology, University of Kaiserslautern, "You really have the problem EVOLUTION looks much better than most scientists, today the talk about evolution."

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kuhn, biology, University of Saarbrücken: "The book is a gold mine and I hope it continues to deserve attention is given to." StD.

Fritz Richter, Bensheim: "The will provided by work-up of the entire conceptual sector - including the abundance of the listed original passages from the voluminous literature - are for me a treasure trove of first quality throughout. And of course, not only in regard to the interesting subject, but also practically in terms of working-level courses in biology, two of which I currently lead."

Prof. Dr. SL, Zoology, University of K.: "Very well managed is the subject of how many living species there are. It is absolutely right answer to this question depends on the adoption of the respective species concept on to.

Skillfully shows you that different authors, even if it the theory of evolution accepted equally, different responses to the matter in a way and to some extent self-contradictory even. I regret that such criticism from the ranks of evolutionary biologists is. Very skillfully contact with Examples auseinder who repeatedly as an argument for the status nascendi listed are types of.

At common evolutionary literature Are these examples, in fact, too smooth shown much, and in fact, keep to the often not strict enough to agreed definitions (see continue the discussion in the next edition p. 588).

Dr. F. Footwear, Curator, Botanical State Collection in Munich, sent me a reprint of Hieracium in 2002 with the note: "Thank you for your 'Artbegriffs' chapter in which I've read a lot." - H. van Waesberghe: " ... a better reference book on the species problem is not to be found anywhere ... recommendable as an original, instructive and reliable contribution "- Theor. Appl. Genet. 79 , 431st - Perhaps a general comment on my theoretical work that usually so large numbers of experimental data amounts to the basis are in:
The immense importance not only of but also the theoretical work of science is experimental one immediately clear when looking at Einstein's work on relativity theory thinks or at Max Planck's work on quantum theory ("When [Philipp von] Jolly led Planck the only experiments of his entire scientific activity by (diffusion of hydrogen through heated platinum), but soon he turned to theoretical physics " -( Max Planck).
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Literaturverzeichnis

DARWIN'S FAILED PREDICTIONS:
Darwin's Failed Predictions - A Response to PBS-NOVA's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial"



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[Gunfingers]

Mr. Weed,

That is YOUR opinion and it has no credibility whatsoever!

I am going to give you a lot of work to do.

Actually it's pretty solid. The purpose of the peer review process is to open the publication to criticism from other experts in the field. By publishing in creationist periodicals they are specifically avoiding criticism, instead merely subjecting their publications to an echochamber. It would be like a doctor saying his new medicine worked perfectly, but the only people who checked his studies were his wife and his banker. Even if we assume that they had the expertise to judge the quality of the studies, they are still very biased.

 

[wilsoncole]

A "reputable' scientist would not align themselves with something so unquestionably pseudoscientific as "Irreducible Complexity".

Mr. Weed,
Some very reputable scientists such as Werner VonBraun, worked on Hitler's nefarious projects.
Instead of speculating, you should be trying to prove that they are not "REPUTABLE SCIENTISTS" not what they would or would not do.
You have not done that - yet.
WHEN are you going to get around to it?

So, these reputable scientists are back on the list of evolution doubters!

You are being pulverized, but you won't "holler "'Nuff!"

"The myth of 1% human-chimp genetic differences"

Darwin's Failed Predictions - A Response to PBS-NOVA's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial"


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Actually it's pretty solid. The purpose of the peer review process is to open the publication to criticism from other experts in the field. By publishing in creationist periodicals they are specifically avoiding criticism, instead merely subjecting their publications to an echochamber. It would be like a doctor saying his new medicine worked perfectly, but the only people who checked his studies were his wife and his banker. Even if we assume that they had the expertise to judge the quality of the studies, they are still very biased.

Mr. Fingers,
Do you actually believe that "peer-review" work is only done in the United States?
So - to be "credible," one MUST be published in pro-Darwin periodicals? Get real!


Additionally:
"Shortly thereafter, I registered the SCIENCE PUBLISHING COLOGNE (with all the formalities necessary for this office by), working with International Standard Book Number (ISBN) to give out to others, such. - (See the positive reviews, by Ernst Mayr, H. van Waesberghe and K. Napp-Zinn on my homepage.)"

Who is Ernst Mayr?

I am going to give you a lot of work to do.

Human evolution remains a mystery
Darwin's Failed Predictions - A Response to PBS-NOVA's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial"



(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[newhope101]

Mr. Fingers,
Do you actually believe that "peer-review" work is only done in the United States?
So - to be "credible," one MUST be published in pro-Darwin periodicals? Get real!


Additionally:
"Shortly thereafter, I registered the SCIENCE PUBLISHING COLOGNE (with all the formalities necessary for this office by), working with International Standard Book Number (ISBN) to give out to others, such. - (See the positive reviews, by Ernst Mayr, H. van Waesberghe and K. Napp-Zinn on my homepage.)"

Who is Ernst Mayr?

I am going to give you a lot of work to do.

Human evolution remains a mystery
Darwin's Failed Predictions - A Response to PBS-NOVA's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial"



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

Oh dear, these evolutionary desperados are still at it.

I so love to see this sign of desperation and stupidity from self claimed academics with the intelligence of a plant.

Any other creationist or any of you teetering on the brink take note of the desperation and futility of this bunch of would be’s if they could be.

This lot assert that there is no credentialed scientist in the whole world that is sceptical about TOE or any tenant relating to it.

It is pointless speaking to brick walls that refer to themselves as educated and scientific so instead I’ll leave a message for anyone that has more intelligence than a plant.

That poor bloke Gonzalez I spoke to was sacked as a credentialed researcher because of his beliefs. Hence once you stop accepting TOE in any way, any credentialed researcher is automatically discredited. Hence discreditation is a bias.

Here is another example for this lot to waste their time on. Knock yourselves out!

Ariel A. Roth (born 1927) is a naturalized American zoologist and creationist who was born in Geneva, Switzerland. He is a leading figure in the field of flood geology, having been involved and published extensively on the creation-evolution controversy.[1]
After receiving his PhD in Biology at the University of Michigan, Roth pursued research in invertebrate zoology and on fossil and living coral reefs funded by NOAA, the National Institutes of Health, and other government agencies. He obtained additional training to facilitate his research in Radiation Biology, Geology and Mathematics at various campuses of the University of California. He has been long time member of the Geological Society of America and the Society for Sedimentary Geology. Roth has published many articles in both scientific and popular journals and lectured world wide.[2]
B.A. Pacific Union College, 1948, Biology
M.S. University of Michigan, 1949, Biology
Ph.D. University of Michigan, 1955, Biology
Director, Loma Linda University Research Team for underwater research on coral in the Bahamas 1973, 1974 (Sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; lived on the ocean floor for 1 week)
Editor: ORIGINS journal 1974-1996
Keynote speaker, public hearing, House Education Committee, State of Oregon 1981
Witness for the State of Arkansas: Evolution-creation trial 1981
Visiting Professor of Biology, University of Eastern Africa, Baraton 1995
Visiting Professor of Biology, Spicer College, India 1995
Adjunct Professor of Science and Religion, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 1993–1996
Visiting Professor of Biology, Caribbean Union College 1997
Lecturer for the William A. Osborne Distinguished Lecture Series, Caribbean Union College 1997
Member, Loma Linda University Councilors 2000-
Recipient: Charles Elliott Weniger AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE 2003
Roth, A.A. 1986. Some questions about geochronology. Origins 13:64-85.
Roth, A.A. 1988. Those gaps in the sedimentary layers. Origins 15:75-92.
Roth, A.A. 1995. "Retro-progressing." Origins 22:3-7.
Roth, A.A. 1995. Three kinds of science. Origins 22:55-57.
Roth, A.A. 1995. Fossil reefs and time. Origins 22:86-104.
Roth, A.A. 1996. The age of fossils. Dialogue 8(2):23.
Roth, A A 1996. False fossills. Origins 23:110-124.
Roth, A.A. 1998. The disadvantage of collective ignorance. The Record (Australia), August 29, 1998, p.3.
Roth, A.A. 1998. Origins: Linking Science and Scripture. Review and Herald Publishing Association.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Roth
http://origins.swau.edu/who/roth/default.html
&#12288;
&#12288;
So you see there are actually highly credentialed scientists that do not uphold TOE. This is a fact. Roth’s research papers are cited. You may not agree with him. But who cares? Your researchers cannot agree with each other now on many issues, that’s just the way it is with your evo science. Disagreements and common thinking have the robustness of my flavour of the month theory.

Who knows why this lot cannot accept this unthreatening fact. It is a minority of scientists that disagree with TOE and yet this lot are basically too threatened to concede this tiny point. Rather they choose to continue to make fools of themselves, which they have successfully achieved.

 

[newhope101]

<B>As Science Digest reported:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."

Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific consensus:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/#3​

</B>
600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).


150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.
http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html


Knock yourselves out trying to maintain that no credentialed scientist could possibly dispute TOE. The only point being upheld here is that many evolutionists and would be self proclaimed scientists have the mind of a plant, and not much more.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This is really stretching it! "A positive effect" is by no means enough to cause dramatic physical changes in any organism.

Depends on your understanding of "positive effect". A positive effect can be that you have a resistance to certain viruses or diseases as well as passing this trait to your offspring.

I see nothing but speculation here.

That's because you appear to be unfamiliar with how science works.

There is nothing "positive" about sickle-cell anemia and there is no improvement in the organism. They might be immune to malaria - nothing else, but the suffering is intense and the patients rarely live beyond their 40s.

I agree to a certain degree. There's nothing "positive" per se about the disease itself. I never said there was. What this is speaking about is the (Sickle Trait) itself. That's why the beginning just gives you a very brief understanding as to what the Sickle Disease is but informs you that if you have the (trait) you are more resistant to Malaria than those that don't have it. This "mutation" is "beneficial"

Those "Beneficial mutations" kill people because they die from the disease! If those are the best examples you've got - Nah!
Nowhere nearly enough to effect physiological changes that result in improvements.

Don't blame me for your ignorance. You're so quick to jump up, barking.....(like a yapping chiwawa)...You failed to understand the quote. It's talking about the "Trait" not the "disease". It is a perfect example of (Beneficial Mutation).

Sickle Cell Disease and Sickle Cell Trait

Sickle Cell Disease
Sickle cell disease is an inherited disorder that affects red blood cells. The most common types of sickle cell disease are SS, SC and S beta thalassemia. Other more rare diseases include SD Punjab, SO Arab, S Lepore and SE disease. Sickle cell disease is a lifelong condition that may result in serious health problems. Complications can include painful episodes (crises), anemia (low hemoglobin), organ damage, infections, lung problems, leg ulcers, bone damage and strokes.


Sickle Cell Trait
Sickle cell trait is a condition in which there is one gene for the formation of sickle hemoglobin and one for the formation of normal hemoglobin. Sickle cell trait occurs in one out of every 10 African Americans. Usually, people with sickle cell trait do not have any medical problems and they can lead normal lives. They do not develop sickle cell disease.

:beach:

 

[newhope101]

Oh dear, these evolutionary desperados are still at it.

I so love to see this sign of desperation and stupidity from self claimed academics with the intelligence of a plant.

Any other creationist or any of you teetering on the brink take note of the desperation and futility of this bunch of would be’s if they could be.

This lot assert that there is no credentialed scientist in the whole world that is sceptical about TOE or any tenant relating to it.

It is pointless speaking to brick walls that refer to themselves as educated and scientific so instead I’ll leave a message for anyone that has more intelligence than a plant.

That poor bloke Gonzalez I spoke to was sacked as a credentialed researcher because of his beliefs. Hence once you stop accepting TOE in any way, any credentialed researcher is automatically discredited. Hence discreditation is a bias.

Here is another example for this lot to waste their time on. Knock yourselves out!

Ariel A. Roth (born 1927) is a naturalized American zoologist and creationist who was born in Geneva, Switzerland. He is a leading figure in the field of flood geology, having been involved and published extensively on the creation-evolution controversy.[1]

Roth has published many articles in both scientific and popular journals and lectured world wide.[2]

B.A. Pacific Union College, 1948, Biology
M.S. University of Michigan, 1949, Biology
Ph.D. University of Michigan, 1955, Biology
Director, Loma Linda University Research Team for underwater research on coral in the Bahamas 1973, 1974 (Sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; lived on the ocean floor for 1 week)
Editor: ORIGINS journal 1974-1996
Keynote speaker, public hearing, House Education Committee, State of Oregon 1981
Witness for the State of Arkansas: Evolution-creation trial 1981
Visiting Professor of Biology, University of Eastern Africa, Baraton 1995
Visiting Professor of Biology, Spicer College, India 1995
Adjunct Professor of Science and Religion, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 1993–1996
Visiting Professor of Biology, Caribbean Union College 1997
Lecturer for the William A. Osborne Distinguished Lecture Series, Caribbean Union College 1997
Member, Loma Linda University Councilors 2000-
Recipient: Charles Elliott Weniger AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE 2003
Roth, A.A. 1995. Fossil reefs and time. Origins 22:86-104.
Roth, A.A. 1996. The age of fossils. Dialogue 8(2):23.
Roth, A A 1996. False fossills. Origins 23:110-124.
Roth, A.A. 1998. The disadvantage of collective ignorance. The Record (Australia), August 29, 1998, p.3.
Roth, A.A. 1998. Origins: Linking Science and Scripture. Review and Herald Publishing Association.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Roth
http://origins.swau.edu/who/roth/default.html
&#12288;
&#12288;
So you see there are actually highly credentialed scientists that do not uphold TOE. This is a fact. Roth’s research papers are cited. You may not agree with him. But who cares? Your researchers cannot agree with each other now on many issues, that’s just the way it is with your evo science. Disagreements and common thinking have the robustness of my flavour of the month theory.

Who knows why this lot cannot accept this unthreatening fact. It is a minority of scientists that disagree with TOE and yet this lot are basically too threatened to concede this tiny point. Rather they choose to continue to make fools of themselves, which they have successfully achieved.

Here is another example

Hugh Ross (creationist)

Hugh Norman Ross (born July 24, 1945) is a Canadian-born Old Earth creationist and Christian apologist. An astronomer and astrophysicist, he has established his own ministry called Reasons To Believe, that promotes forms of Old Earth creationism known as progressive creationism and day-age creationism. Ross believes that science teaches an old age of the earth and an old age of the universe, though he rejects evolution and abiogenesis as explanations for the history and origin of life.[1]

Ross was born in Montreal and raised in Vancouver, Canada. He earned a BSc in physics from the University of British Columbia and an MSc and PhD in astronomy from the University of Toronto; and he was a postdoctoral research fellow at Caltech, studying quasars and galaxies. Ross was the youngest person ever to serve as director of observations for Vancouver’s Royal Astronomical Society,[2]
He spoke at the 2008 Skeptics Society' "Origins Conference" at California Institute of Technology alongside Nancey Murphy, Victor Stenger, and Leonard Susskind.[3]

Creationism

Ross believes in progressive creationism, which posits that while the earth is billions of years old, life did not appear by natural forces alone but that a supernatural agent formed different lifeforms in incremental (progressive) stages, and day-age creationism which is an effort to reconcile a literal Genesis account of Creation with modern scientific theories on the age of the Universe, the Earth, life, and humans.[6]




Ross has written many articles and over 50 creationist apologetics articles, and he has written or collaborated on the following books:

• The Fingerprint of God. Orange, Calif.: Promise Publishing, 1989, 2nd ed. 1991, 3rd ed. 2005
• The Creator and the Cosmos. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993, 2nd ed., 1995, 3rd ed. 2001
• A Matter of Days, Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004
• The Origins of Life, Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004 (with Fazale Rana)
• Who Was Adam? Colorado Springs, NavPress, 2005 (with Fazale Rana)
• Creation as Science, Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2006
• Why the Universe is the Way it Is, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2008
• More Than a Theory, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2009

Now let's see if there is more intelligence operating here than chlorophyll. Do you all STILL maintain that not a single credentialed researcher rejects TOE?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You insist on "peer-review" - don't you?
In your twisted world, does that not spell "c-r-e-d-i-b-i-l-y?"

Did I ask specifically for peer review? No.

I asked for a credible source. That means a source that isn't a personal website written on and monitored by one person, nor a website that has a clear, biased agenda. National Geographic, for instance.

Well - check it out!
** means peer-reviewed work.
Pay careful attention to # 12 and 24 - OK?

http://www.weloennig.de/literatur1a.html

Congratulations - the scientists you've linked to has two peer-reviewed pages up.

Now, could you also find me the papers he submitted for peer review on pub med central?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Mr. Weed,
Some very reputable scientists such as Werner VonBraun, worked on Hitler's nefarious projects.

So?

Instead of speculating, you should be trying to prove that they are not "REPUTABLE SCIENTISTS" not what they would or would not do.

It already has been done. They support irreducible complexity, which is a pseudoscience and has been utterly debunked.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

O
This lot assert that there is no credentialed scientist in the whole world that is sceptical about TOE or any tenant relating to it.

Newhope, this is the last time I am going to ask:

Can you quote a single instance of anybody on this website saying anything close to that?

If not, then you are lying. Also, you're moving the goalposts. It started out as "you say no reputable scientists disagree with evolution", then it became "you say no reputable scientists dissent from evolution", then "you say no reputable scientists is skeptical of evolution", and now it's become "you say no reputable scientist is skeptical about evolution or any tenet relating to it".

Newhope, you are a desperate, grasping liar.

 

[Amill]

Ross believes in progressive creationism, which posits that while the earth is billions of years old, life did not appear by natural forces alone but that a supernatural agent formed different lifeforms in incremental (progressive) stages, and day-age creationism which is an effort to reconcile a literal Genesis account of Creation with modern scientific theories on the age of the Universe, the Earth, life, and humans.[6]

Lol and his creative process just happened to look similar to this?

 

[newhope101]

Depends on your understanding of "positive effect". A positive effect can be that you have a resistance to certain viruses or diseases as well as passing this trait to your offspring.



That's because you appear to be unfamiliar how science works.



I agree to a certain degree. There's nothing "positive" per se about the disease itself. I never said there was. What this is speaking about is the (Sickle Trait) itself. That's why the beginning just gives you a very brief understanding as to what the Sickle Disease is but informs you that if you have the (trait) you are more resistant to Malaria than those that don't have it. This "mutation" is "beneficial"



Don't blame me for your ignorance. You're so quick to jump up, barking.....(like a yapping chiwawa)...You failed to understand the quote. It's talking about the "Trait" not the "disease". It is a perfect example of (Beneficial Mutation).

Sickle Cell Disease and Sickle Cell Trait

Sickle Cell Disease
Sickle cell disease is an inherited disorder that affects red blood cells. The most common types of sickle cell disease are SS, SC and S beta thalassemia. Other more rare diseases include SD Punjab, SO Arab, S Lepore and SE disease. Sickle cell disease is a lifelong condition that may result in serious health problems. Complications can include painful episodes (crises), anemia (low hemoglobin), organ damage, infections, lung problems, leg ulcers, bone damage and strokes.


Sickle Cell Trait
Sickle cell trait is a condition in which there is one gene for the formation of sickle hemoglobin and one for the formation of normal hemoglobin. Sickle cell trait occurs in one out of every 10 African Americans. Usually, people with sickle cell trait do not have any medical problems and they can lead normal lives. They do not develop sickle cell disease.

:beach:

Now that it has been established that there are credentiaed scientists that reject TOE the thread can move on, finally.

It appears the only example of beneficial mutations that has been offered by evos is 'immunity' and examples of benifits in relation to disease. This is a fairly pathetic attempt to defend TOE. It is similar to your researchers getting a fruitfly to grow legs off its' head and calling it a new species and evidence of speciation that will lead to macroevolution.

Can none of you come up with anything better than bacteria mutating into bacteria, fruitfly's evolving into fruitflys and adaptive changes such as immunity and resistence to disease?

As usual you evolutionists are only showing that organisms have the ability to adapt and become immune to some diseases. So what? This is in no way any sort of evidence for evolution.

I don't think any creationist disagrees with that. You are offering really pathetic evidence for TOE.

Has any bacteria sprouted a limb or the beginnings of an eye or anything at all that would take it out of the category "Bacteria"? No you haven't.

Again here your very own researchers have given evidence in thehere and now that 70% of mutations have deleterious consequences...and still you will continue to go around in circles in some sort of denial.

No one disagrees with an organisims ability to adapt but it is limited.You really do not know the difference in relation to the evidence you provide, do you?

Polymorphism as described here involves morphs of the phenotype. The term is also used somewhat differently by molecular biologists to describe certain point mutations in the genotype, such as SNPs (see also RFLPs).
Polymorphism (biology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Genotype - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you need to do is provide evidence that 'genomic regions of accelerated evolution' can fix in a population despite the high incidence of fatality, less fitness, or sterility in relation to large scale mutations. Unfortunately all you have are theories, your evidence does not back your theory. In fact your researchers could not get one lousy allele to fix over 600 generations of fruitfly for just one beneficial train of ' accelerated development". That is your evidence and it does not back your theories so far. A shame perhaps and may not mean that it cannot be done. However for now it hasn't been illustrated and the evidence thus runs contrary to your hypothesis. Like it or not.....accept it or not..that my dear, is the fact of it all.

You have not provided any evidence at all of beneficial mutaions outside of immunity and resistence to disease. I want to know how an organism can morph into both hyppo and a whale. More to the point, you cannot provide this evidence, as the research is not out there. All you have, apart from theory, is research indicating that 70% of drosophilia mutations were very very bad. You must be one of those evos that have difficulty acknowledging your own reseach. I don't blame you in a way. I'd say denial is your best defence as you have no better to offer as illustrated by your posts and pathetic attempts to demonstrate the contrary.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

But who cares? Your researchers cannot agree with each other now on many issues, that&#8217;s just the way it is with your evo science. Disagreements and common thinking have the robustness of my flavour of the month theory.

Great, you make it seems as though there some grand problem when scientist don't agree. No one doubts that at all and it's to be expected. It's one of the best ways for the various fields to progress. As a creationist I thought you would appreciate the various debates scientist have concerning the natural world considering Creationist are not a cohesive bunch with most of you falling one way or another as to how your religious book should be interpreted.

Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Young Earth creationism
Old Earth creationism
Gap creationism
Day-Age creationism
Progressive creationism
Neo-Creationism
Intelligent design

Talk about flavor of the month......:thud:

 

[wilsoncole]

So?

How come such a smart man like you cannot get the point?

It already has been done. They support irreducible complexity, which is a pseudoscience and has been utterly debunked.

Hitler's racial and Social Revolution programs have been debunked, too.
Does that mean that Werner VonBraun was not a "reputable scientist?"

Now - do you get it?

THE ABRUPT APPEARANCE OF BIOLOGICAL FORMS
Darwin's Failed Predictions - A Response to PBS-NOVA's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial"


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How come such a smart man like you cannot get the point?

Your point being that all credentialed and respected scientists are Nazis?

Or, did you not actually have a point?

Hitler's racial and Social Revolution programs have been debunked, too.
Does that mean that Werner VonBraun was not a "reputable scientist?"

What are you talking about? Can you name any scientific theories or hypotheses that VonBraun supported that were, at the time, widely known to be pseudo science and debunked?

Again, Wilson, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel, mixing metaphors and getting your entire argument into a tangled, confused mess.

THE ABRUPT APPEARANCE OF BIOLOGICAL FORMS
Darwin's Failed Predictions - A Response to PBS-NOVA's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial"

Hooray! The old "misrepresenting the Cambrian explosion" argument!

Too bad your link fails to mention that the Cambrian explosion lasted over six million years - it was hardly "abrupt".