Since others have shown that Susan is simply blowing smoke, I will confine my comments to a few of her responses.
Susan Brassfield:
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?
My comments:
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? 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 evolutionary propoganda.
Susan Brassfield:
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?
My comments:
I have copies of the unpublished manuscripts, but I am not going to give them to anyone as openly hostile as you are.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.
Susan Brassfield:
because this is an e-mail list which discusses the creation/evolution debate. duh.
My comments:
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 grow up?
Susan Brassfield:
since "email.com" is a phony address, how is that possible?
My comments:
Are you really so naive or are you playing dumb? I obviously meant my credibility here on this group.
Susan Brassfield:
I never knew I had such power.
My comments:
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 univeristy.
Susan Brassfield:
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?
My comments:
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?
Susan Brassfield:
I'm pleased that you are taking the high road and not descending into ad hominem.
My comments:
I could never compete with you.
Susan Brassfield:
give it a try. I have a couple of dictionaries on my desk.
My comments:
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.
Susan Brassfield:
You haven't looked. I've seen it and I'm not a scientist.
My comments:
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.
Susan Brassfield:
modern apes and modern man evolved from something that is not like either one.
My comments:
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.
Susan Brassfield:
dolphins do not superficiallly resemble sharks--certainly not to a biologist.
My comments:
Of course they do, or do you deny convergent evolution?
Susan Brassfield:
humans and chimpanzees only have a 2% difference genetically. That isn't
"fundamentally" different.
My comments:
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_.
Susan Brassfield:
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.
My comments:
When you can't prove my true position wrong, turn it into a strawman and prove that wrong. Typical evolutionist tactic.
Susan Brassfield:
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 reduced.
My comments:
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.
Susan Brassfield:
if you are a molecular biologist I'm the Queen of Romania.
My comments:
I am a molecular biologist and Romania doesn't have a monarchy any more.
Susan Brassfield:
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?
My comments:
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.
Susan Brassfield:
it has been thoroughly demonstrated that apes have abstract reasoning.
My comments:
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?
Susan Brassfield:
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.
My comments:
So much for you having any claim of knowing what you are talking about. End of discussion.
Paracelcus
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com