John MacKay York 17th November 2009
Small hall - 50 odd - more young folks than last year - whoops another 40 or 50 around the corner!
Begin with a prayer and reading of Genesis 1to 3 - this mean’t I could have a look around and saw that about ten people at the back didn’t bow heads
Introduction and prayer from American pastor; “Thanks for these foundational truths - at the foundation of all we believe.”
Genesis 1:9 is read.
“I have been asked to deal with the question “was darwin right?”
Web site plug
Slide; National Geographic front cover from 11/04 “Was Darwin wrong?”
We will ask if he was right. This question was answered on New Scientist’s front page in Jan 2009; “Darwin was wrong”
This article says that if you take Darwinism at face value and test it, it doesn’t work - read it yourself or ask questions later
Ok let’s look at what evolution actually is - at least as it is portrayed in museums;
Photographs of signs (Belfast museum?)
BIllions of years ago Big Bang - nothing exploded - we get the earth - which cooled - water appeared - life evolved - large soft wobbly creatures (does he mean Vendian?) - natural selection got started and somehow hard parts appeared - eventually a mutation meant a fish grew legs - and we ended up with Gordon Brown
Darwin didn’t see any such elongated process - but he did observe that pigeons can produce variegated pigeons and then eventually you can produce fancy pigeons.
In 2009 evolution versus creation is as big a discussion as it was one hundred years ago.
In it’s simplest construct - Darwin says that he can see a little change in a little time - therefore you can get a big change over a long time.
The reading from Genesis 1 was about plants - we did this on purpose because, you see, Darwin had a garden;
Comments and slides about - sprouts/broccoli etc. all different shapes and colours but all the cabbage family. In other words they are all the same “kind”.
We have bred for things thousands of years etc but still the same “kind”.
Darwin said; If I see such just change in one species in 20 centuries . . .
Slide of Darwin's diagram from On the Origin of Species (OOS) photo from the Belfast museum - they claim we are related to kangaroos - distant cousins.
The word “evolution” - comes from “evolute” - which means “coming out of somewhere”
Darwin’s view was that we can go from molecules via Miller/Urey to us.
We have been in Belfast this month. Here is what the museum says;
“Evolution is a fact - based on changes seen in fossils and in things living today”
Slide; March of evolution diagram
Plug for Creation Research Trust.
What did Darwin graduate in?
He got a Master of Arts in Theology.
Darwin set out to disprove the concept in Genesis “producing after their own kind”.
Darwin tells us that Hydrogen is a colorless odorless gas that given enough time produces school teachers.
Slide of upward trajectory from molecules to microbes to monsters to man to manipulator to mega-man.
Darwin reported that officers (?) poked fun at him for using the bible as an authority.
Slide of downward trajectory from creation to fall to flood to babel to Job to Moses.
Plug for www.amen.org
Lots of free items for you (I got copies and will cover off in due course)
He spent quite some time on how to fill in the newsletter sign up form;
1st newsletter - UK postal -
2nd email news update - more often
This is for that occasion when there is an evolutionist story in the paper. Typically colleagues shove it in your face and say, “Hey - christian! What do you think of this?”
This newsletter will give you the answer. After a few months your mind will be trained into the biblical way of thinking and you can do it for yourself.
e.g. there was something on the BBC site yesterday.
In belfast we saw Irish Elk fossils - very large antler span now extinct. The popular idea was evolutionary - sexual selection - evolutionists need something about natural selection in any explanation you see - they say that the females were attracted to the males with the biggest antlers until eventually the antlers became too big and so the Elk became mired in clay soils - literally stuck in the mud and died.
Now the BBC reports that have a new theory - apparently a study of teeth suggests deer couldn’t cope with climate change! 10,600 years ago (they reckon).
Now they can have it how they want- but either climate change is new or it isn’t. They can’t have it both ways.
Back to filling in form - we also want your phone number.
3rd email prayer update
Related a tale of a conversion in Northern Ireland just last week after John spoke.
Free evidence leaflets;
Evidence from biology - peppered moths - embryos - even though this was discredited decades ago it still appears in journals.
Evidence from fossils including polystrate trees.
Are superbugs evolving?
Another web site plug.
Direct request for funds.
Plug for the Creation Research Trust
Back to John;
How do you find evidence for evolution?
I have been involved in digging up stuff for years.
Paul 5:21 Paul says test everything and only keep what is true.
Evolutionists look for similarities - they relate things on this basis.
You can observe a frog changing into blue colour (I presume he means over generations)- then they argue that salamanders can evolve into frogs and fishes can evolve into salamanders.
From Canadian course text book we are told by Attenborough that differences arise from mutations.
Mutations are a small change in the DNA.
Slide; Bird with feather instructions broken - can’t fly.
Slide;Tomato with horns - sometimes mutations are cute.
Plants breeders spot mutations and then use them to breed flowers.
Slide; shows leaves and petals mixed up
Darwin’s finches, peppered moths, and fossils - also show this kind of variation.
This is all from a 2007 text book!
We are told that OOS is based on evidence that Darwin saw in the Galapagos Islands - different finches with different shaped beaks. Darwin concluded they came from somewhere - (shows title page of OOS)
Darwin’s point is that if he can show finch 1 turns into finch 2 then the bible is wrong - BTW when John was a lad there were 14 species of finch - but different now!
1967 Pimm S L (1988)
Finches introduced to an island - spread to other islands - different beak shapes seen in just a few years - not millions of years - so its not evolution.
Adaptation is the built in ability to cope with changes in the environment.
Adaptation involves already existing genes for beak tail and growth rate - no mutations are involved.
The birds have adapted but not evolved
If you go shoeless on holiday your feet hurt - then the skin on the souls of your feet get thicker - you have an ability to make more skin - but when you put your shoes back on the extra skin peels off - your body detects the presence of a shoe.
There is no ability to adapt beyond a certain limit.
e.g. Mexico City Olympics - athletes were given 6 months to adapt and did, but if the olympics had been held at the bottom of the Marianas trench then the athletes will drown no matter how long you give them to adapt.
Medium ground finch recently downsized its beak - (11/2/2009 msnbc quoted)
This happened on the island of Daphne Major - competition from large ground finches - and within a generation babies were born with smaller beaks. We now know that two little hormone biochemical receptor pathways control this- it’s just like the case of the skin on your feet.
Many species or one kind?
If the finches came from South America. We need to think about a few things.
Hybrids are common (quotes 3/7/99 New Scientist - Martin Brookes)
All the finch species can all interbreed and all have fertile offspring.
So we know that we have seen finches with beaks produce finches with beaks . . .so?
Finches from South America gave us finches in the Galapagos, therefore they produced their own kind.
Species is our artificial label for any kind of difference - we sometimes do it with Jews - scientists are tempted to use these differences to label species.
Peppered moth - Kettlewell.
Birds predation effect produced different coloured moths.
How do you check it - if you are me you ask to see NHM count trays - there have always been dark and light moths - OK the percentage has changed - but so what?
John now mentions his time at university - I was taught to test everything in the Bible and it is true, maybe scientists should do the same?
Kettlewell was criticised by Majerus.
Exactly two moths have been found on trees around manchester in 40 years of looking. It turns out that Kettlewell put them on the trees to take the pictures.
You couldn’t behave this way in a court of law could you?
He also released the moths in the daytime even though they only come out at night.
In the USA there are no dirty trees but exactly the same change in moths was observed over there.
In last 40 years nobody has been able to repeat the experiments -
It seems to me that for evolution if one person says it, then it goes in the text books
I was on Skynews/Fox debate in 2006 at the manchester museum and they even had a display on the moths - we aren’t sure how it happened so why is it in the text books?
If you wear “Darwin spectacles” then its ok.
Darwin set out to disprove the bible - remember it’s Darwin’s glasses.
Evolutionists say that all change is evolution. Including changes in numbers or shape. This is all counted as proof of evolution - so they weren’t created.
Ok let’s look at fossils.
Slide of a living snail and a fossil (shades of Harun Yaha here) - 300ma old fossil was exactly the same as a living snail - no change here therefore no evolution.
Same with bivalves - scallops.
E.g.’s from Swindon and Redcar shown.
Giant horse tails live on the land - they are only small today - this fossil had a scollop shell embedded in it. I don’t see how that can happen unless water is carrying plants out to sea. (Noah nudge, nudge, wink, wink)
Call big and small horsetails different species. Then you can call it evolution. There are as many species as there are students wanting PHDs - I hate to tell you but a lot of truth in it.
Does all this help Darwin? No.
The bible says things produce their own kind (did not say species).
Slide; National Geographic cover “Was Darwin wrong?”
They say in large print “No - the evidence is overwhelming”
Have you had your heart pills?
Now - notice that the print get smaller.
Here we have;
“The fossil record shows a movie in which 999 out of every 1000 frames has been lost.”
Some movie - you don’t have a movie - and this movie is called evolution.
Now you can’t get a degree with 99.9% of the evidence for your doctorate missing can you?
"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of changeover millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." (Eldredge, Niles [Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History], "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," , p.hoenix: London, 1996, p.95).
We need a new theory!
99.9% of your evidence missing.
It is time you admitted it!
Back to Wild cabbages - Brassica etc. - we can select for all sorts of things - we can produce lots of different colours etc. - this is done by patient farmers.
Kids - there were no cauliflowers in the Garden of Eden!
Darwin says that a little change in little time means seaweed can change into cabbage in a big bit of time.
But if you leave cabbages on their own - they revert to wild cabbages.
Something is built into them to reproduce after their own.
All the variety of dogs we see all came from six wolves (evidence from genetics).
Great Dane versus Chihuahua - now here you have produced genetic isolation (if you do your biology seriously you will know that).
Evolution is not the right word with dogs - it is degenerate;
Slide of ugly dog
Do you have the right to do that?
There are lots of dog species in the wild - all with different species names - OOS again.
You define evolution as change - then call all change evolution - you accept any change such as size or colour or even which country they live in as different species.
Many species or one kind?
The more we do genomes the more it will become apparent.
“Kind” - comes from kin - means “related to each other”.
Tales of one person and seven others on a boat surviving a flood in india. We call him Noah in Israel - it’s the same person in both cases.
In schools they tell us “no religion” so I just say I will talk about the evolution of mankind and there is no problem. ha ha
Steve Jones (7/10/2008) was asked if human evolution is over? He admitted it was.
Here’s something that most professors don’t know - we have smaller brains than Neanderthals.
Pictures of skulls - lets check it - reads out cranial capacity - = brain drain = used to have more - now less.
Compare this to the march of evolution - it is change but it is not evolution.
Let’s look at some extra-biblical data about Noah;
He simply said OK to god - no health and safety permits required - no trial runs - no lifeboats - these are interesting comments on Noah’s intelligence.
Ronald Strahan - 1983 said that evolution has come to a halt - we stepped out side the process 2Ma ago.
How many scientists saw that?
Science should be based on observation shouldn’t it?
Another BBC story from the PNAS recently about women evolving.
They spent £400k finding out the obvious, women knew they are shorter fatter and producing later - didn’t you?
The story says that the rate of evolution is slow but similar to other animals - but hang on women are producing - women!
Sarcastically; remember “Evolution is change. So accept any change as proof.”
We all know from the incidence of asthma, diabetes and climate change that things are going down - and dying out is the opposite of evolution
Bible does not claim to be a scientific theory, so don’t treat it as such - it claims to be true.
Darwin is wrong because god is always right.
You can find plenty of opinions to disagree with the bible but the facts don’t.
Web site plug again.
4 new DVDs.
1 - Darwin on the rocks - most don’t know he was secretary of the BGS and a friend of Charles Lyell - without whom his evolution would not have the time it needs. This is in the style of a round the world field trip - in the style of Steve Irwin.
We are told of a guy who watched this DVD then gave them a large donation which funded the next DVD.
2 - Darwin’s evolution - a very unnatural selection - biology - does natural selection work - we have eight or nine published scientists who are happy to point at creation and design - these guys are real scientists!
3 - Genesis answers - Paul Blackham - book by book -
This is a long advert to sell the DVDs.
Lots of books as well - several end of lines so really cheap.
John can’t cover all six days in 90 minutes!
You can’t go to local bookshop but in Britain as most christian book shops don’t have many.
Cash cheque or credit cards accepted but not debit cards.
Finally DVD 4
4 - A biblical world view seminar- filmed in Chesterfield this year.
Mention of a recent talk in a private school - not a government one.
Now audio CD’s not tapes anymore - can get MP3’s on line
Q & A’s
A lot of info is now known about DNA - only about 5% of the genome codes for proteins - rest deemed to be junk - this is now being gradually disproved and mechanisms being discovered that promote variation within the kind - can you comment?
John defines a Genome.
Traditionally there were two major problems; how can so many instruction be in such a small space and why is so much DNA not involved in manufacturing proteins - the so called junk.
A geneticist says we now have to back pedal - much of the junk is now recognised as switches. How could god use switches? Long tale of car manufacture and point being that one change in a little switch can make a big difference to finished car. The junk is how variation is generated within the kind.
If you see that we are 98.6% similar to chimpanzees, what they don’t tell you is that a mouse is roughly the same as well.
1.6 % difference represents a lot of information which is why there are no mice here lecturing tonight.
I am a 3rd year biochemistry student - please don’t buy the DVD, give the money to cancer research instead.
Brain sizes are not directly related to intelligence. Mention of hydrothermal vents, shells that don’t change have simply fit into a niche in the overall ecology that hasn’t changed.
Thanks for making that comment.
One aspect the theory - Millers amino acid experiment - start with chemicals - spark - produce naturalistic priduct of amino acids yes? Yes
A leap from amino acids to proteins? - correct? Yes
Long tale of left and right handed amino acids - fifty fifty mix seen in Miller’s experiment but not in nature.
We can use amino acids for dating - left to themselves they de-generate to a fifty fifty balance - when they are dead. Therefore what MIller generated was dead.
You need someone to take them out and sort them - you need genetic controls in place. You haven’t got them.
Here is the reason for such emotion in such an issue;
“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”
G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30
Genesis is about the origin of life and the origin of death - it is a moral penalty.
Luke 16:31 tells that we should believe Moses and he wrote genesis.
Several comments on Jesus and sin.
You should concentrate on this.
This is not a matter of science versus religion but of truth versus error.
Aharoni, A., L. Gaidukov, O. Khersonsky, S. McQ. Gould, C. Roodveldt and D. S. Tawfik. 2004. The 'evolvability' of promiscuous protein functions. Nature Genetics [Epub Nov. 28 ahead of print]
Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS 64: 1102.
Boraas, M. E., D. B. Seale, and J. E. Boxhorn. 1998. Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity. Evolutionary Ecology 12: 153-164.
Francis, J. E. and P. E. Hansche. 1972. Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. I. Modification of the acid phosphatase pH optimum in S. cerevisiae. Genetics 70: 59-73.
Francis, J. E. and P. E. Hansche. 1973. Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. II. A repeatable adaptation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 74: 259-265.
Hall, B. G. 1981. Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions. Biochemistry 20: 4042-4049.
Hall, B. G. and T. Zuzel. 1980. Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 77(6): 3529-33.
Hansche, P. E. 1975. Gene duplication as a mechanism of genetic adaptation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 79: 661-674.
Hartley, B. S. 1984. Experimental evolution of ribitol dehydrogenase. In: Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution, R. P. Mortlock, ed., New York: Plenum, pp. 23-54.
Lang, D. et al. 2000. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also: Miles, E. W. and D. R. Davies, 2000. On the ancestry of barrels. Science 289: 1490.
Lin, E. C. C. and T. T. Wu. 1984. Functional divergence of the L-Fucose system in mutants of Escherichia coli. In: Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution, R. P. Mortlock, ed., New York: Plenum, pp. 135-164.
Negoro, S., K. Kato, K. Fujiyama and H. Okada. 1994. The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas. Biodegradation 5: 185-194.
Thomas. n.d. (see above).
Thwaites, W. M. 1985. New proteins without God's help. Creation/Evolution 5(2): 1