Of Crocodiles, Snakes and Birds

Reporting the content of the Times Higher Educational supplement was not a mistake.

Your wild rant that they do not know as much about evolutionism as you - was a huge blunder. Why don't you SHOW yourself to be more well-read or informed than they are?

 

When UTEOTW reads the Times Higher Educational Supplement and then says to ME " this was only your lack of understanding speaking" we SEEE CLEARLY that UTEOTW's gloss over of facts and details has never served him - and clearly is not serving him here!

No amount of "revisionism" is beyond UTEOTW!

 

TIMES Higher Education Supplement
Neo-Darwinists were quick to claim that modern discoveries of molecular biology supported their theory. They said, for example, that if you analyse the DNA, the genetic blueprint, of plants and animals you find how closely or distantly they are related. That studying DNA sequences enables you to draw up the precise family tree of all living things and show how they are related by common ancestry.

This is a very important claim and central to the theory. If true, it would mean that animals neo-Darwinists say are closely related, such as two reptiles, would have greater similarity in their DNA than animals that are not so closely related, such as a reptile and a bird.

Fifteen years ago molecular biologists working under Dr Morris Goodman at Michigan University decided to test this hypothesis. They took the alpha haemoglobin DNA of two reptiles -- a snake and a crocodile -- which are said by Darwinists to be closely related, and the haemoglobin DNA of a bird, in this case a farmyard chicken.

They found that the two animals who had _least_ DNA sequences in common were the two reptiles, the snake and the crocodile. They had only around 5% of DNA sequences in common -- only one twentieth of their haemoglobin DNA. The two creatures whose DNA was closest were the crocodile and the chicken, where there were 17.5% of sequences in common -- nearly one fifth. The actual DNA similarities were the _reverse_ of that predicted by neo-Darwinism. 5
Even more baffling is the fact that radically different genetic coding can give rise to animals that look outwardly very similar and exhibit similar behaviour, while creatures that look and behave completely differently can have much in common genetically. There are, for instance, more than 3,000 species of frogs, all of which look superficially the same. But there is a greater variation of DNA between them than there is between the bat and the blue whale.

...

Times Higher Education Supplement
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...31&postcount=5

Times:
Further, if neo-Darwinist evolutionary ideas of gradual genetic change were true, then one would expect to find that simple organisms have simple DNA and complex organisms have complex DNA.

In some cases, this is true. The simple nematode worm is a favourite subject of laboratory study because its DNA contains a mere 100,000 nucleotide bases. At the other end of the complexity scale, humans have 23 chromosomes which in total contain 3,000 million nucleotide bases.
Unfortunately, this promisingly Darwinian progression is contradicted by many counter examples. While human DNA is contained in 23 pairs of chromosomes, the humble goldfish has more than twice as many, at 47. The even humbler garden snail -- not much more than a glob of slime in a shell -- has 27 chromosomes. Some species of rose bush have 56 chromosomes.

So the simple fact is that DNA analysis does _not_ confirm neo-Darwinist theory. In the laboratory, DNA analysis falsifies neo-Darwinist theory.

 

Richard Milton: "Dawkins was writing letters to newspaper editors alleging that I am a secret creationist and hence not to be believed. "

(Bob notes: This according to the RULE of atheist darwinsts)

This kind of behavior culminated in March 1995 when a British weekly newspaper, the Times Higher Education Supplement commissioned me as a freelance journalist to write a critique of Darwinism and trailered the article in one of its editions, by saying 'Next Week: Darwinism - Richard Milton goes on the attack'.


Dawkins contacted the editor, Auriol Stevens, falsely alleged that I am a secret creationist, and covertly lobbied against the publication of my article, although he had not seen it.

----------------------------

Hey I can see a little of UTEOTW in the methods and practice of that atheist darwinist - Richard Dawkins.

 

UTEOTW's ranting aside --

Richard Milton is starting to look more interesting all the time ...

It is easy to see why the Times Higher Ecucational Supplement asked him to do a critical review of atheist darwinism.

Enjoy!

 

In 1995, a TV film was shown on both sides of the Atlantic entitled Too Close to the Sun, dealing with the highly controversial subject of cold fusion. The film was admirably balanced and included interviews with both experimenters and 'skeptics'. Halfway through, the film showed an interview subject who is a distinguished senior American physicist from an equally distinguished American research institution. There's nothing unusual about such an appearance -- except that this scientist appeared in silhouette, his identity disguised.
Remember, this was not "60 Minutes" but a science programme, and he was no Cosa Nostra bag man but a professional scientist. He was concerned that if his institution discovered he had been spending research funds on a forbidden subject like cold fusion, then his research grant, or even his tenure, might be in jeopardy.
Sadly, as explained in these pages, his fears have been fully justified by recent events:-

• Eric Laithwaite became a 'non-person' after he addressed the Royal Society on anti-gravity.
• Forrest Mims lost his Scientific American job after telling the editor he didn't believe in Darwinism.
• Jacques Benveniste was dismissed by his Institute for investigating homeopathy.
• Warwick Collins's biology career ended when be publicly identified a flaw in Darwinist theory. ​
• Robert Jahn was demoted by Princeton for investigating paranormal phenomena in the lab. ​
• The Times Higher Education Supplement commissioned an article criticising Darwinism but censored it following intervention by Richard Dawkins. ​

More data compliments of Richard Milton!

What a great guy!!​

 

That is merely "after the fact mindless rambling" UTEOTW. You are tring to coverup the LITTLE that the tautaulogy of atheist darwinism can be said to "predicte"

 

Kinda facinating that they would ask Richard Milton for a critique then have that "censored".

Kinda interesting that you want to claim you know more than he does.

I simply suggested that you start a thread on reptiles if you were interested. So going back to the frogs again - what where you saying about them?

Bob

 

TIMES Higher Education Supplement
Neo-Darwinists were quick to claim that modern discoveries of molecular biology supported their theory. They said, for example, that if you analyse the DNA, the genetic blueprint, of plants and animals you find how closely or distantly they are related. That studying DNA sequences enables you to draw up the precise family tree of all living things and show how they are related by common ancestry.

This is a very important claim and central to the theory. If true, it would mean that animals neo-Darwinists say are closely related, such as two reptiles, would have greater similarity in their DNA than animals that are not so closely related, such as a reptile and a bird.

Fifteen years ago molecular biologists working under Dr Morris Goodman at Michigan University decided to test this hypothesis. They took the alpha haemoglobin DNA of two reptiles -- a snake and a crocodile -- which are said by Darwinists to be closely related, and the haemoglobin DNA of a bird, in this case a farmyard chicken.

They found that the two animals who had _least_ DNA sequences in common were the two reptiles, the snake and the crocodile. They had only around 5% of DNA sequences in common -- only one twentieth of their haemoglobin DNA. The two creatures whose DNA was closest were the crocodile and the chicken, where there were 17.5% of sequences in common -- nearly one fifth. The actual DNA similarities were the _reverse_ of that predicted by neo-Darwinism. 5
Even more baffling is the fact that radically different genetic coding can give rise to animals that look outwardly very similar and exhibit similar behaviour, while creatures that look and behave completely differently can have much in common genetically. There are, for instance, more than 3,000 species of frogs, all of which look superficially the same. But there is a greater variation of DNA between them than there is between the bat and the blue whale.

...

Times Higher Education Supplement
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...31&postcount=5

Times:
Further, if neo-Darwinist evolutionary ideas of gradual genetic change were true, then one would expect to find that simple organisms have simple DNA and complex organisms have complex DNA.

In some cases, this is true. The simple nematode worm is a favourite subject of laboratory study because its DNA contains a mere 100,000 nucleotide bases. At the other end of the complexity scale, humans have 23 chromosomes which in total contain 3,000 million nucleotide bases.
Unfortunately, this promisingly Darwinian progression is contradicted by many counter examples. While human DNA is contained in 23 pairs of chromosomes, the humble goldfish has more than twice as many, at 47. The even humbler garden snail -- not much more than a glob of slime in a shell -- has 27 chromosomes. Some species of rose bush have 56 chromosomes.

So the simple fact is that DNA analysis does _not_ confirm neo-Darwinist theory. In the laboratory, DNA analysis falsifies neo-Darwinist theory.