14
   

Surgeon: Human body did not evolve

 
 
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2015 12:34 pm
http://www.icr.org/article/surgeon-says-human-body-did-not-evolve/

Quote:
In a recent paper titled "Dissecting Darwinism," Baylor University Medical Center surgeon Joseph Kuhn described serious problems with Darwinian evolution.1 He first described how life could not possibly have come from chemicals alone, since the information residing in DNA required an input from outside of nature.2

He then addressed Darwinism's inability to account for the all-or-nothing structure of cellular systems, including the human body. As a medical doctor, Kuhn not only knows the general arrangement of the human body's visible parts, he also understands the interrelated biochemical systems that sustain and regulate all of those parts. He recognized that the human body contains an all-or-nothing system in which its core parts and biochemicals must exist all at once for the body to function.

Biochemist Michael Behe named these all-or-nothing systems "irreducibly complex."3 Removing a single core part from one of these systems keeps the entire system from working, and this implies that the system was initially built with all of its parts intact.....
 
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2015 03:15 pm
I disagree. If there were an outside agent it begs the question, who created the outside agent...and so on.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2015 03:33 pm
@gungasnake,
One can only hope the guy is actually a pathologist...working exclusively in the morgue.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2015 03:37 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Here's a picture of this guy...explaining his theory.

http://www.irwincorey.org/images/clrpic.jpg
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2015 03:43 pm
@gungasnake,
JOSEPH KUHN NEEDS SOME EDUCATION


This is just the Same old , same old. His argue includes the brain-dead ssertion that THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS, so he just flat denies their existence. Hes like Quahog with a med degree.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2015 03:51 pm
@farmerman,
GRRRR. Heres the entire link. I screwed up the embed somewhere
[url] https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/intelligent-design-paper-in-a-medical-journal/ [/url}




Quote:
Creationist paper in a medical journal


Well, there’s one doctor in the world who thinks he knows a lot about evolution, and that he knows more than evolutionary biologists. In fact, he knows that evolution is rife with problems, is pretty much defunct, and that a new paradigm is in order. What is that paradigm? Intelligent design, of course.

The doctor is Joseph Kuhn, a surgeon at the Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, and he’s just published an article in the Proceedings of that center, which I presume is a respectable, peer-reviewed journal. Well, it isn’t respectable any more, for Kuhn’s article, “Dissecting Darwinism” (free at the link), is merely a cobbled-together list of canards from the Discovery Institute (DI). It’s poorly written, dreadful, full of scientific errors, and the journal should not only be ashamed of it, but retract it.

What does the good Dr. Kuhn have to say about evolution? First he parades his qualifications to dissect Darwinism, which consist entirely of being in the lineage of one of his predecessors, the eighteenth-century surgeon John Hunter, who supposedly anticipated Darwin’s theories:


John Hunter was also a brilliant biologist and naturalist, having dissected and stored thousands of animals and plants. His considerable samples represented the entire initial display of the Royal College of Surgeons Museum. In two lengthy volumes, entitled Essays and Observations on Natural History, Anatomy, Physiology, Psychology, and Geology, he identified the remarkable similarity of muscles and organs between various species. John Hunter proposed a gradual formation of species through mutation 70 years before Charles Darwin published his observations in On the Origin of the Species. Therefore, history reveals that surgeons are uniquely capable of gathering information, making observations, and reaching conclusions about scientific discoveries.

That’s a dumb argument if I ever heard one. And, sure enough, Kuhn proceeds to embarrass both himself and the journal.

He makes three criticisms, all taken from the Discovery Institute playbook:

1. Life is too complex to have originated naturally. Here we see the usual arguments: life requires both proteins and DNA, and neither could have originated without the other. The co-evolutionary scenario, and involvement of RNA in this, isn’t mentioned. And he makes the usual bogus statistical arguments for why a “specified” DNA was unlikely:


Even if there was a self-organizing pattern, the probability of even a short strand of nucleotides occurring in a precisely specifi ed linear pattern that would code for even the smallest single-celled organism with approximately 250 genes has been calculated to be 1 in10150—1 in 1070 less than the chance of finding a particular electron in the entire universe (25).

Reference 25 is to a paper by Bill Dembski. Indeed, throughout his paper Kuhn quotes DI “experts” like Dembski, Jon Wells, and David Berlinski. His conclusion about the origin of life is absurdly funny:


Based on an awareness of the inexplicable coded information in DNA, the inconceivable self-formation of DNA, and the inability to account for the billions of specifically organized nucleotides in every single cell, it is reasonable to conclude that there are severe weaknesses in the theory of gradual improvement through natural selection (Darwinism) to explain the chemical origin of life. Furthermore, Darwinian evolution and natural selection could not have been causes of the origin of life, because they require replication to operate, and there was no replication prior to the origin of life.

He doesn’t seem to realize that one could consider replication as an essential property of life, and that the ability of replicate would have been strongly selected for among early proto-life forms. The last sentence above is simply gibberish.

2. Cellular systems are irreducibly complex, and could not have evolved. Kuhn tries to dazzle the reader with examples of complexity, but shows no awareness of what “irreducible complexity” really is: complexity whose intermediate steps could not have been adaptive during evolution. And, of course, though he quotes Behe and Wells at length, he doesn’t give any examples. It’s simply the argument from ignorance.

Although Nilsson and Pelger, for example, showed in a cool computer model that a complex camera eye could easily evolve, and in relatively few generations, from a simple light-sensitive pigmented eyespot, Kuhn dismisses that because one also requires the evolution of a complex brain apparatus and light-sensitive pigments to interpret the images. Ergo Jesus:


Thus, each of these enzymes and proteins must exist for the system to work properly. Many other mathematical and logistical weaknesses to the Nilsson example of eye evolution have been uncovered (28). In summary, the eye is incredibly complex. Since it is unreasonable to expect self-formation of the enzymes in perfect proportion simultaneously, eye function represents a system that could not have arisen by gradual mutations.

Reference 28 is to a DI commentary by David Berlinski.

3. We don’t have any transitional fossils. This claim is even more extreme than those made by the Discovery Institute. Kuhn dismisses (or rather, ignores) the transitional fossils between early hominins and modern humans, and simply asserts that the genetic differences between modern apes and modern humans preclude the existence of a common ancestor:


The ape to human species change would require an incredibly rapid rate of mutation leading to formation of new DNA, thousands of new proteins, and untold cellular, neural, digestive, and immune-related changes in DNA, which would code for the thousands of new functioning proteins.This rate of mutation has never been observed in any viral, bacterial, or other organism. The estimation for DNA random mutations that would lead to intelligence in humans is beyond calculation. Therefore, the recently discovered molecular differences between apes and humans make the prospect of simple random mutation leading to a new species of Homo sapiens largely improbable (35).

Lots of those human-ape differences involve transposons or neutral changes in “junk DNA,” whose accumulation is unproblematic. Before one can assert that human evolution is impossible, one has to have some idea of the number of relevant genetic changes separating us from our relatives (changes important in our physiological, cognitive, and phenotypic differences), and then show that such changes could not have occurred given estimates of mutation rates and time. Kuhn does not do this, but merely asserts that it couldn’t have happened. He has no idea how many selected changes separate us from our relatives.

As for other transitions, he dismisses the “fishapod” Tiktaalik roseae as “based on a recovered bone fragment representing the wrist structure that would be necessary for moving on land,” quoting—get this—Casey Luskin as an authority. If you know anything, you know that Tiktaalkik was represented by far more than a wrist bone: there was a head, for example, and a shoulder girdle, all of which looked transitional between fish and amphibians. And though Kuhn makes statements like this:


However, the modern evolution data do not convincingly support a transition from a fish to an amphibian, which would require a massive amount of new enzymes, protein systems, organ systems, chromosomes, and formation of new strands of specifically coding DNA. Even with thousands of billions of generations, experience shows that new complex biological features that require multiple mutations to confer a benefit do not arise by natural selection and random mutation. New genes are difficult to evolve. The bacteria do not form into other species. A reliance on gross morphologic appearances, as with fossils, drawings, and bone reconstructions, is severely inadequate compared to an understanding of the complexity of the DNA and coding that would have been required to mutate from a fish to an amphibian or from a primitive primate to a human.,

he fails to realize that this is all moot because we know it happened: we have the fossils! We have transitional forms between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals as well as between reptiles and birds, and of course all those fossils in the hominin lineages. Kuhn mentions none of these. The man, educated surgeon though he may be, is completely ignorant about evolution. He’s simply a mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute.

At the end, Kuhn claims that all these weaknesses of neo-Darwinism require a new paradigm to explain the origin and evolution of life:


Irreducibly complex systems involving thousands of interrelated specifically coded enzymes do exist in every organ of the human body. At an absolute minimum, the inconceivable self-formation of DNA and the inability to explain the incredible information contained in DNA represent fatal defects in the concept of mutation and natural selection to account for the origin of life and the origin of DNA. As new theories emerge that explain the origin of life, the inevitable emotional accusations of heresy and ignorance are not surprising in a period of scientific revolution. It is therefore time to sharpen the minds of students, biologists, and physicians for the possibility of a new paradigm.

Although he doesn’t specify what this new paradigm is, I suspect it involves an Intelligent Designer, aka Jesus.

This paper is rife with mistakes, misguided appropriations from the creationist literature, and simple ignorance of the evidence for evolution. It’s an embarrassment to the author, to the journal, and to the field of medicine as a whole. I call on the journal to retract this paper, for if it doesn’t, then the Proceedings of the Baylor University Medical Center will be forever tarred as a vehicle for creationist nonsense
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2015 04:02 pm
@farmerman,
Is this the way you embed?

[url=(link)] MY EMBED TITLE[/url] ???
OR have I screwed up somewhere?
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2015 04:13 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
OR have I screwed up somewhere?



Yes. In your last box you used } instead of ]

argome321
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2015 04:21 pm
@gungasnake,
Baylor is a top christian University in Texas... maybe that explains it.

The Texas Legislation has been trying to get creationism taught along side evolution in the Texas schools
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2015 04:28 pm
@izzythepush,
Thanks. I need some new glasses
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2015 05:20 pm
@farmerman,
Easily done, little things that can drive you nuts. We've all been there.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2015 05:45 pm
@farmerman,
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/intelligent-design-paper-in-a-medical-journal
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2015 06:29 pm
There are no transitional fossils. Here's a bit of what real scientists have had to say about it:

The Fossils In General

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing'
evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the
most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record.
Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does
not provide them ..."

David B. Kitts, PhD (Zoology)
Head Curator, Dept of Geology, Stoval Museum
Evolution, vol 28, Sep 1974, p 467

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps;
the fossils are missing in all the important places."

Francis Hitching
The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong
Penguin Books, 1982, p.19

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been
a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
"Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?"
Paleobiology, vol 6, January 1980, p. 127

"...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when
they say there are no transitional fossils ... I will lay it on the line,
there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight
argument."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist,
British Museum of Natural History, London
As quoted by: L. D. Sunderland
Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems
4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 89

"We do not have any available fossil group which can categorically be
claimed to be the ancestor of any other group. We do not have in the fossil
record any specific point of divergence of one life form for another, and
generally each of the major life groups has retained its fundamental
structural and physiological characteristics throughout its life history
and has been conservative in habitat."

G. S. Carter, Professor & author
Fellow of Corpus Christi College
Cambridge, England
Structure and Habit in Vertebrate Evolution
University of Washington Press, 1967

"The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with
gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during
their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the
same as when they disappear ... 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a
species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'."

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
Natural History, 86(5):13, 1977

"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed,
why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the
earth?" (p. 206)

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such
intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely
graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest
objection which can be urged against my theory (of evolution)." (p. 292)

Charles Robert Darwin
The Origin of Species, 1st edition reprint
Avenel Books, 1979

The Abundance of Fossils

"Darwin... was embarrassed by the fossil record... we are now about
120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been
greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the
situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still
surprisingly jerky and, ironically, ... some of the classic cases of
Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse
in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more
detailed information."

David M. Raup, Curator of Geology
Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago
"Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology"
Field Museum of Natural History
Vol. 50, No. 1, (Jan, 1979), p. 25

"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological
exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely
more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been
discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are
filled with over 100-million fossils of 250,000 different species. The
availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit
objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What
is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major
groups of organisms have been growing even wide and more undeniable. They
can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection
of the fossil record."

Luther D. Sunderland (Creationist)
Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems,
4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 9

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more
than 40 years have completely failed. ... The fossil material is now so
complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack
of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of
material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."

Prof N. Heribert Nilsson
Lund University, Sweden
Famous botanist and evolutionist
As quoted in: The Earth Before Man, p. 51
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 10:27 am
@gungasnake,
Still doing the "transitional fossil Quote mine Shuffle" eh gunga. Thise quotes are mostly bullshit where key information has been conveniently been omitted.
You are nothing if not consistent.

Because your surgeon denies that transitional fossils don't exist--does not make him right. (In fact, his very denial of Tiktaliik in particular, is based upon his use of prevarication and outright lying about what is there in the specimen (Like he misses the 10 or so additional transitional features of this fossil). It makes one suspect how dishonest all you guys are.,
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 10:30 am
@farmerman,
THE QUOTE MINING PROJECT
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 10:33 am
@farmerman,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

This is a site hosted by TALK ORIGINS to debunk the bullshit quote mining that the dipshits like gunga try to post as fact, but are actually just a bunch of fat lies
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 03:04 pm
No way this evolved:

https://scontent-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/20726_949811498383357_3661738674541527476_n.jpg?oh=204ed7776a1f4a09f842578342845199&oe=55B286F6
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 03:07 pm
Once again, in real life as opposed to nuthouses like talk.origins, if you want to avoid being quoted as having said something, there is a terrifyingly easy way to achieve that:

DON'T SAY IT!!!!!

Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 03:11 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

No way this evolved:

https://scontent-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/20726_949811498383357_3661738674541527476_n.jpg?oh=204ed7776a1f4a09f842578342845199&oe=55B286F6


Right!

It is much more likely that a GOD came up with that using clay.


https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0hoTMaNhLbilaR-GlNnGcWyzJMFSiRMBuuzBBEkYtWOFTLzOcJw


0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 03:32 pm
@gungasnake,
You have the balls to try to disparage Talk Origins (which is monitored by REAL HONEST TO GOODNESS professionals), and instead you choose to read and follow idiot blogs who believe that quote mining is honest debate and you believe that the earth is younger than the Pleistocene, AND THAT there WAS real worldwide Flood??

You have no credibility at all gunga. (I hope you realize that).


BTW, if you cut open a mammal (pick one, ny one) they would have a similar internal configuration of organs
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The ten most dangerous drugs - Discussion by Rickoshay75
Ebola: Science vs. Mass Hysteria - Discussion by maxdancona
Popular medical myths - Discussion by JohnJonesCardiff
The original universal health care system - Discussion by gungasnake
This could be important - Discussion by mysteryman
Major Problems with ObamaCare! - Discussion by Miller
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Surgeon: Human body did not evolve
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/22/2019 at 05:26:47