Slashdot Mirror

Creationists have been predicting this since 2003: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/neandertal.asp

See
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-means.asp

You may not agree but give it a fair read

I strongly disagree with fraud, and in particular fraudulently misrepresenting what people have said.

Harvardâ(TM)s Stephen Gould16 quite clearly recognizes the difference between evolution and mutations.

Fraud. Gould recognizes the difference between evolution and mutations the same way he recognizes the difference between a drop of water and atoms.

Gould's position is that mutations do accumulate over time, just like water atoms accumulate in the air. Gould's argument is basically that water atoms accumulate in the air over a week and hit a threshold "quickly" condensing into rain over an hour. Gould's position is that mutations do accumulate in a population over millions of years and they reach a threshold where they "quickly" (over tens of thousands of years) come together by Natural Selection transitioning to a new species. You have millions of rare mutations, then a collection of say a thousand rare mutations come together by Natural Selected where all individuals have those thousand (formerly rare) mutations.

Your link grossly misrepresents Gould's argument, and grossly misrepresents out-of-context the quotes they take from him.

But then Gould asks himself, âoeHow can such processes change a gnat or a rhinoceros into something fundamentally different?â Answering his own question in a later article, Gould17 simply says: âoeThat theory [orthodox neo-Darwinian extrapolationalism], as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.â

That is gross FRAUD. They took two unrelated quotes from Gould and claimed one is an answer to the other. Gould's positions is that rhinoceros and gnats did evolve by mutations, and it was obviously a rhetorical question to discuss how that evolution happened when he said "How can such processes change a gnat or a rhinoceros into something fundamentally different?â. The second quot is NOT him "answering" the first quote "question". The second quote is Gould making a grandiose statement that smooth and steady dead in favor of his idea of uneven surges of strong rapid selection.

Answers in Genesis is perpetrating a gross fraud to misquote Gould. Gould's position is that many small mutations *do* combine resulting in all of the "large" changes of evolution. Answers in Genesis is taking carefully selected Gould quotes wildly out of context and surrounding them with their own fraudulent descriptive text trying to reverse the meaning of what Gould was actually saying.

After Answers in Genesis gets done misrepresenting Gould's words, they proceed to claim "Gould is far from an isolated example" grossly misrepresenting another quote:

Lewin quote:The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macro-evolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.

And Answers in Genesis cut the quote off there. However in Lewin's very next sentence says " the two can more probably be seen as a continuum ". Again, Answers in Genesis is fraudulently misrepresenting what he was saying. The Answers in Geneisis author is either clueless what Gould and Lewin were actually talking about, or the author was deliberately misrepresenting the subject being discussed. The subject those people was a within evolution argument whether Natural Selection is steady and smooth, or if selection and speciation tends to occur in surges. The subject is whether there is something akin to a phase change like when water atoms relatively quickly condense into raindrops. No, there is no doubt that raindrops are compo

"Darwin figured out a century and a half ago that evolution *is* just selective breeding."

No, according to evolutionary biologists these days

See
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-means.asp

You may not agree but give it a fair read

"And Gould is far from an isolated example. Back in October of 1980, the world’s leading evolutionists met in Chicago for a conference summarized popularly by Adler and Carey in Newsweek18 and professionally by Lewin in Science19 According to the professional summary,
The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macro-evolution.
That is, the processes of mutation, selection, and sexual recombination all produce variation within kind (microevolution—or creationist adaptation), but can these processes be logically extended (extrapolated) to explain the presumed evolutionary change generally from simpler to more complex types (macroevolution)?
At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."

A bit off-topic, but what's homeschooling got to do with anything? It was the **public** school board in Kansas that decided creationism was as scientifically valid as... science, not the Kansas coalition of homeschoolers

Yeah, the homeschoolers are the ones who think that the Kansas public school board hasn't gone far enough.

Frankly, with the shape the public school system is in these days it's hard for me to imagine any alternative doing worse.

http://creationmuseum.org/
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/creation-museum/2010/12/04/uncover-true-history/

Hell, we may as well save the country some money, disband the public school system and let the kiddies learn by sitting them in front of the TV.

Intro to science: 2012!
Intro to forensics: CSI.
Basic psychology: Fraser.
Sex-ed: Sex in the City.

I dunno, but I think the homeschoolers might have a problem with that. Jesus never said anything about TV's being ok.

Creations claiming that this paper is talking about the Fountains of the Deep and science has proved the Flood in
3
2
1...

Physicist and Nobel Prize winner Dr. Jason Lisle has proven that the earth doesn't have to be billions of years old for light to reach us from distant stars. His theory of Anisotropic Synchrony Convention proves that light traveled at an infinite velocity at the moment of creation. Thus, we can be comfortable with the fact that the earth turned 6,014 years old on Oct. 23. Thanks to the theory of Amyotrophic Lateral Convection, the truth of the Bible in verified.

Sadly this one is "real":
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention
I didn't actually read it, but it seems pretty elaborate.

From the website:

The distant starlight problem is resolved if we accept that Genesis is using the anisotropic synchrony convention (ASC) rather than the Einstein synchrony convention. The resolution is simple: under ASC, the one-way speed of light when directed toward earth is axiomatically infinite, even though the round-trip speed of light remains 3 × 108 m/s. Thus, the light from stars that are created on the fourth day will naturally reach the earth essentially instantaneously.

Well DUH! Of course Moses was thinking about Anisotropic Synchrony Convention and special relativity when he wrote Genesis. IT'S IN THE BIBLE FOLKS! And in the beginning, God created Anisotropic Synchrony Convention. Damn scientists and their lies.

...why Christians deny evolution?

Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God, written by men in their own voices but essentially writing what God wanted them to write. The Bible says that God created all life on earth, including the two original humans, which were created directly by God and did not evolve from lower animals. Although the Bible doesn't provide a precise timeline, there are genealogies you can piece together to put the time of creation at somewhere in the neighborhood of 4,000 BC.

Does God command us to turn off our brains? (you would hope not...)

Absolutely not. Christians are encouraged to think for themselves, to question what they are told, and be wary of those who might be trying to lead them away from the truth.

Does this concept, if proven true, contradict something in the bible so directly that it would prove Christianity is false? What's the deal? Why are they so scared of this?

There are many Christians who believe the account of Creation as described in the Bible is not intended to be taken literally, but as an illustration that paints a picture of the intent of God's design rather than describing the way in which that design was really implemented. This is the official position of the Catholic church, for example. They believe that God used evolution to eventually bring about human life over millions of years, and that since God is timeless, when the Bible says it happened in "a day", it doesn't really mean a literal day but just some arbitrary period of time.

However, nothing in the text indicates that the story of Creation is not meant to be taken literally. The Hebrew word for "day" is never used anywhere else in the Bible to mean anything other than a literal day. The Bible describes Adam being created from dust, and after awhile he realized that he was alone and had no suitable companion. God took a part of Adam's side (maybe a rib, although the word used has multiple meanings) and used that to create Eve. While you might take this to be a metaphore, it's difficult to see what the metaphorical significance could be of Eve being created from Adam's side if Eve was really just one of many available early humans.

Also, if Adam and Eve didn't realty exist, then how did the original sin happen? Did death exist before sin? If the world was already populated with mostly-human beings that evolved alongside Adam and Eve, then what was so special about those two? Or is the concept of Adam and Eve metaphorical too? If that part of the Bible wasn't meant to be taken literally, why is it not clear from the text how it was supposed to be understood? What other parts of the Bible are also not meant to be taken literally?

Different people have different interpretations, but many Christians don't see that evolution fits. Also, Christian scientists have found some interesting evidence that seems to support what the Bible describes; I suggest Answers in Genesis if you're curious (unfortunately a lot of their articles are dumbed down quite a bit, but they do have some more technical stuff too).

But the story is not six years old. The diamond is fifty light years away.

"Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" is from 1967. The light they saw six years ago was from about 1954.

It pre-dates Lucy by about 13 years.

These people disagree:

Why are Stars Millions of Light Years Away?

Answer: Brendon, what a question! Yes, we know from the dates God gives us in the Bible that He did create the whole universe about 6,000 years ago. When we hear the term light-year, we need to realize it is not a measure of time but a measure of distance, telling us how far away something is. Distant stars and galaxies might be millions of light-years away, but that doesn’t mean that it took millions of years for the light to get here, it just means it is really far away!

When God created the universe, everything was already working perfectly, exactly how He wanted it to work. So, I believe the stars could be seen (however God did that) on earth as soon as God spoke them into existence. Keep enjoying the splendor of the night sky, but remember that God created it to display His glory so we could behold how wonderful and powerful our Creator really is!

This is classic FUD. What if Obama IS a secret Muslim? People assuaged by the fear of an alarmist eventuality that has no supporting evidence and is incredibly unlikely, is again, no loss. How does someone find it insightful?

OK, kids, this is your brain on Jack9. Any questions? Take them up with your pastor.

What does the claim that 17% of the population believe in a geocentric earth mean? Even assuming that there's no one in that population that is simply saying that for kicks, it seems probable that a large part are simply answering that way because they don't know anything either way and are just guessing. At some level that's not as bad as having people who actively believe in geocentrism. But at another level, that means that one should expect that around 34% are really ignorant and have of them just got lucky when asked. That's not good. However, I suspect that some of these answers really are just people messing with the polsters or not bothering to thing.

But one thing to note is that many of the geocentrists are religious. Not only is geocentrism common among Christians but there's a substantial fraction of ultra-Orthodox (charedi) Jews who are affirmatively geocentrist. This is especially common among the chabad chassidim who are often geocentrists because their guru, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, made pro-geocentrist comments and because they want to preserve the word of Maimonides as inerrant (of course some of these are the same sort of people who refuse kidney transplants because the Talmud says that one kidney is the seat of your good instincts and the other is the seat of your bad instincts. So we're not talking about highly enlightened individuals). There are however, some very disturbing studies by Alexander Nussbaum showing that even among modern Orthodox Jews, anti-science views are disturbingly common. See for example http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_orthodox_judaism_and_evolution.html .

However, one thing to note is that although the conference in question in the top post is Catholic, affirmative geocentrism is not nearly as uncommon among evangelical Protestants as one would hope. Indeed, it is common enough that Answers in Genesis, one of the world's largest young earth creatonist ministries, feels a need to have essays that talk about why Christians don't need to be geocentrists. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp . Incidentally, There's some evidence that anti-Copernican sentiment actually started in Protestants and only spread to Catholics a few years later. Thomas Kuhn discusses this in his excellent book "The Copernican Revolution" although my understanding is that more modern historians disagree with him on this point and many don't think that there is a strong case for anti-Copernicanism as an originally Protestant ideology.

Finally, note that there are still some flat-earthers out there although they are very rare. They aren't as uncommon in the Islamic world. See for example this segment on Iraqi TV http://haha.nu/interesting/iraqi-tv-debate-is-the-earth-flat/ . In the West there is still some flat-Earthism but it is often more conspiratorial than religious in nature. See http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/ although some of the people there are trolls, some are quite sincere.

I don't think anyone really believes the earth is 6000 years old.
Just that Adam lived 6000 years ago.

Nope, there are plenty of people around who believe that the days referred to in Genesis are literal days, that Adam was around less than a week after the Earth itself, and that all of this happened six-millennia-and-change ago. They even have a shiny web site where they explain everything.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/age-of-the-earth

Don't underestimate these people. They're loons, but they're well-organized and numerous loons.

It's a well known snarky tactic. It's sophomoric and lends nothing to civilized discussion.

I think actual citations, when they appear, lend quite a lot to a civilized discussion. Credibility, for one.

I can't speak for others, but I ask for sources because I want to know whether or not a claim is true. I enjoy speculation as much as the next guy, but an informed discussion is a much better use of my time than pure speculation.

It may be well known as "snarky", but that doesn't immediately make it invalid.

If you think otherwise, than maybe you should take a communication class or something.

I'm likely to take such a class regardless, but I already know a bald appeal to authority when I see one.

A "citation needed" isn't necessarily an appeal to authority, by the way -- it's a simple request for evidence.

Yes it is, or at least it is in the APA Writing Style. You don't have to cite what is commonly accepted as truth.

Which is not the same as "obvious to me" -- and if your entire thesis is to establish something as truth, stating "It's obvious" isn't good enough.

In particular, if I'm asking for a citation, it may be my own ignorance of the matter, but I don't ask for citations of things that I don't know. I don't know that this is the best university system in the world, which is why I asked.

I'm also not sure why APA is relevant, particularly when the [citation needed] markup is from Wikipedia, which has its own guidelines.

If people don't want to accept that US Universities are some of the best in the world, then they are just being contrarian. No citation needed.

That is almost, but not quite, fractally wrong.

First, you're either backpedaling or strawmanning. The originally contested claim was, "it is likely the best university system in the world." Your current claim is, "US Universities are some of the best in the world." Your claim, if true, would not be sufficient to establish the original claim.

Also, your new claim is either vague or outright wrong. If you are claiming that all US universities are among the best in the world, it's easy to find a counterexample. If you are only claiming that some are, how many are we talking about? It could very well be the case that we only have one good university (which is among the best in the world), and the rest are all mediocre or outright bad. It could also be that every individual university in the US aside from Patriot Bible is better than the rest of the world combined. I doubt either of these is true, but you've told me nothing about where your position lies between those extremes (assuming it is).

But even if your new claim were true, it does not, by itself, say anything about anyone who rejects it. Certainly, people who reject evolution have more reasons to do so than simply being contrarian -- and those are people who outright reject the idea. There are others who don't want to accept it, but are forced to.

Similarly, whether or not someone wants to accept a claim may not have any bearing on whether or not they are willing to question it. I would like to believe that the US has the best universities in the world, but because I want to know, I question. (There is also the fact that my beliefs are not a function of will in the first place, but that is another discussion.)

And because a lengthy analysis and justification like the above shouldn't be required for a casual request for information, I simply say: [citation needed]

Unless the theory of evolution is 100% correct, inconclusive and conclusive, we SHOULD be teaching the criticisms of it.
I can't think of anyone who'd disagree.

the relative importance of genetic drift via mutation, theories of abiogenesis, punctuated equilibrium etc. > Exactly. Should these points be banned from classroom discussion or curriculum?
No. Just keep in mind that you can't understand the real controversies until after you understand the theory. So don't be surprised if this type of thing doesn't happen until high school.

And the problem with guys like you is that you are willing to stifle discussion based on your fear that someone may say "God" in a classroom, causing otherwise critically thinking students join a cult.

Sometimes people may overreact, but keep in mind that there's a large-scale, well-funded religious movement that has the stated goal of redefining science to accommodate their non-scientific beliefs. This isn't really about evolution vs creation, or even whether or not God can play a part in scientific explanations, but rather whether or not science will be about the rational study of the universe, or a branch of one particular type of Christian theology.

Answers in Genesis is rather frank about this in their Statement of Faith [4-6]: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." There simply isn't any way to accommodate that without completely obliterating the basic philosophical foundations of science.

It has gotten to the point where even new discoveries that fall counter to Darwin's conclusion are being challenged because someone, somewhere might bring a Bible to class and say, "see, told ya so."
Citation, please.

Saying that Darwinian evolution can not fully explain the Cambrian explosion should not be a forbidden subject.
It isn't forbidden, it's just completely wrong. Sorry.

That's the one I know about. See A Poke in the Eye?.

Of COURSE not, I didn't read something about science on a site called "answers in genesis".
When I want science, I don't look to the superstitions of a bunch of desert slaves.

P.S. Jericho? They were digging under the walls and blowing horns as a distraction from that noisy work. If you were to put this kind of critical thinking to the claims in the bible, instead of furiously trying to prevent progress, you'd get more respect.

I would like to see studies supporting this overwhelming evidence... [for] genetic changes enabling traits that did not previously exist in the population

Sure! Here's your link. And when I say 'here's your link' I really do mean your link.

That link extensively documents (and admits) many cases of mutations creating new traits that did not previously exist in the population. With very minor editing it would make for an incomplete but rather good explanation and documentation of evolution. It does however contain a few odd habits. For example it uses words such as "generally" to correctly state the most common case and them completely ignore that they are explicitly admitting the less-common more-significant case. For example "mutation is generally degenerative" explicitly admits the opposite also happens, just less often. And "benefits are generally temporary and limited" explicitly admits to benefits and explicitly admits that they are NOT always temporary or limited.

It also has an odd habit of labeling things as "degenerative". Lets say I can eat peas, and evolution has produced in my children the previously-nonexistent trait of eating peas and carrots, they label that as a "loss of specificity". They label that obvious and real benefit as a "degredation".

They also use the fancy-sounding phrase "antagonistic pleiotropy" for the simple fact that almost all beneficial changes involve at least some cost or tradeoff. If I eat peas, and my children eat carrots instead, well that exactly fits your demand for a trait that did not previously exist in the population. And if carrots are an easier, more available, or more nutritious food course, then that is a beneficial evolution. The link uses both tactics to ignore this. It dismisses it because the shortage of peas is "generally" temporary, ignoring the admission that peas may have in fact gone extinct, and it only looks at the "loss" of pea-eating-ability to ignore the fact that carrots may in fact be a far easier or more nutritious food.

If a seagull evolves into a penguin, that's "not evolution" because of antagonistic pleiotropy. Antagonistic pleiotropy meaning the bird lost the ability to fly while gaining the swim. If a penguin evolves into a seagull, that's not evolution again because antagonistic pleiotropy means the bird lost the swimming ability while gaining the flying ability.

They also explicitly admit that genes can be duplicated, but completely ignore the ENORMOUS evolutionary significance of that fact. If a gene changes they define it as "degradation" even if it provides some new benefit, for the sole reason that want to see the only possible change as being "downward". However they completely ignore the fact that a supposed "degradation" changing the function of a gene involves NO LOSS OF ANYTHING if that gene was previously duplicated. The link explicitly admit the fact that changes in genes can and do introducing new useful previously non-existent abilities, and completely ignores the fact that if that gene has been duplicated then that can provide a pure evolutionary gain of the new trait or ability.

The link is an excellent explanation and review of evolution, except for highly selective willful blindness. Somethings are implicitly admitted by words like "generally", and the exceptions of those "generally"s are selectively ignored. Other things are slapped with a derogatory label like "degradation" as a convenient excuse to dismiss them... ignore the real practical literal improvement-of-life that they embody or enable. And most of all the willful blindness and willful ignorance that everything they address CAN and and WILL combine.... here's a wheel but evolution is false because it it can't to move move without a motor and here's a motor but evolution is false because a motor can't move without wheels.

Let me give a concrete example showing just who simple and obvious it

That's simply wrong. We've observed mutations creating new features in the lab. "Seems" is an insufficient weasel word for a lack of looking.

Honestly, show me. I've read many and many that have been posted here. They all turn out to be selection rather than the change required for evolutionary speciation.

That's just a ludicrous amount to read into the word "kinds".

Literary experts know their subjects. They look at more than just words. They look at phrases, context, repetition, references, allusions, language, culture, intent, specificity of the words, phrases and language chosen, etc. These people aren't stupid. They know if you're going to believe in something you had better make sure it stands on its own. And that's what they've done. The scripture, all scripture, supports the idea that God created organisms after their own "kinds."

The Bible and evolutionary science don't contradict each other at all.

Couldn’t God Have Used Evolution?, Are the Bible and Evolution Compatible?

But yes I'm aware you aren't going to believe any science that you think does contradict, that's very clear. Mutations don't exist, or are necessarily bad, whatever it takes, got it.

Wrong. But I know you won't believe anything else. ;)

It's your description, and a really big static list is still a big static list, inherently simpler than the same incredibly expressive source of information but with the capability to change over time. Which it demonstrably does.

Your "change over time" might be totally palatable to me. I might be seeing change over time as natural selection where you might be seeing it with other mechanisms like genetic drift via mutation. The line that I talk about is adding a previously impossible to express trait (impossible due to genetic encoding). We've never seen this and natural selection, itself, accounts for everything we've seen.

I am fulfilled scientifically and delighted by what God has done. Every time I learn about the increasing complexity and sophistication yet elegance of this universe I'm more amazed by Him. I'm more amazed by an ancient earth, where whole classes of animals with unique traits arose, then vanished never to be seen again, and things the earth has never seen before arose after them. I'm not going to disbelieve the evidence of the world He created because it doesn't match what I think a 500-word summary of the creation of the universe was trying to say. I believe God wanted me to read those words and see His hands in forming of the universe, not read it like a biology textbook. You ignore inconvenient science and call yourself fulfilled because the box made of words you've put God in hasn't been disturbed. Don't pretend those are the same.

I think it might be helpful to put the effort you put into studying science into studying God's Word in all of its facets. The bible isn't meant to trick anyone. By and large it's meant to be taken at face value. Most of it is just history, just facts. After all, if the faith is complicated, so much more will people avoid it. What devotees begin to understand about the bible is that God is a "truth teller". That is, things we find unbelievable at first turn out to be true. With enough experience, you begin to understand that if you just give God some credit, go out and try to find out how it might have occurred the way he said it did, it turns out most of the time he was telling the truth without any trickery.

You ignore inconvenient science and call yourself fulfilled because the box made of words you've put God in hasn't been disturbed. Don't pretend those are the same.

That's simply wrong. We've observed mutations creating new features in the lab. "Seems" is an insufficient weasel word for a lack of looking.

Honestly, show me. I've read many and many that have been posted here. They all turn out to be selection rather than the change required for evolutionary speciation.

That's just a ludicrous amount to read into the word "kinds".

Literary experts know their subjects. They look at more than just words. They look at phrases, context, repetition, references, allusions, language, culture, intent, specificity of the words, phrases and language chosen, etc. These people aren't stupid. They know if you're going to believe in something you had better make sure it stands on its own. And that's what they've done. The scripture, all scripture, supports the idea that God created organisms after their own "kinds."

The Bible and evolutionary science don't contradict each other at all.

Couldn’t God Have Used Evolution?, Are the Bible and Evolution Compatible?

But yes I'm aware you aren't going to believe any science that you think does contradict, that's very clear. Mutations don't exist, or are necessarily bad, whatever it takes, got it.

Wrong. But I know you won't believe anything else. ;)

It's your description, and a really big static list is still a big static list, inherently simpler than the same incredibly expressive source of information but with the capability to change over time. Which it demonstrably does.

Your "change over time" might be totally palatable to me. I might be seeing change over time as natural selection where you might be seeing it with other mechanisms like genetic drift via mutation. The line that I talk about is adding a previously impossible to express trait (impossible due to genetic encoding). We've never seen this and natural selection, itself, accounts for everything we've seen.

I am fulfilled scientifically and delighted by what God has done. Every time I learn about the increasing complexity and sophistication yet elegance of this universe I'm more amazed by Him. I'm more amazed by an ancient earth, where whole classes of animals with unique traits arose, then vanished never to be seen again, and things the earth has never seen before arose after them. I'm not going to disbelieve the evidence of the world He created because it doesn't match what I think a 500-word summary of the creation of the universe was trying to say. I believe God wanted me to read those words and see His hands in forming of the universe, not read it like a biology textbook. You ignore inconvenient science and call yourself fulfilled because the box made of words you've put God in hasn't been disturbed. Don't pretend those are the same.

I think it might be helpful to put the effort you put into studying science into studying God's Word in all of its facets. The bible isn't meant to trick anyone. By and large it's meant to be taken at face value. Most of it is just history, just facts. After all, if the faith is complicated, so much more will people avoid it. What devotees begin to understand about the bible is that God is a "truth teller". That is, things we find unbelievable at first turn out to be true. With enough experience, you begin to understand that if you just give God some credit, go out and try to find out how it might have occurred the way he said it did, it turns out most of the time he was telling the truth without any trickery.

You ignore inconvenient science and call yourself fulfilled because the box made of words you've put God in hasn't been disturbed. Don't pretend those are the same.

That's the one I know about. See A Poke in the Eye?.

Previous research has shown that wild-type E. coli can utilize citrate when oxygen levels are low. [6]

My core point with all of this discussion is to show that genetic changes, adding traits previously impossible to express, is never what is happening in these cases. It always turns out the organism contained this ability already if not the expression and it took environmental pressure to express the ability.

Can you imagine any physical evidence that would ever change your mind about true evolution (Speciation, new traits, etc)?

I know the line of argument you're going down. Let me put it this way: Every time I read a news item, story or article that cites "evolution", they always boil down to natural selection. No relevant mutation adding a trait that was not possible to express before. It's usually pretty obvious with larger animals but can become subtle with micro-scale organisms. Nevertheless, the end is always the same: Natural selection doing its work without the one thing that evolution requires: that mutations add previously impossible to express traits.

How about this one: Observing Evolution Over 40,000 Generations. Clearly evolution via mutations adding traits not possible to express before, right? It's not that simple: A Creationist Perspective of Beneficial Mutations in Bacteria.

Every single case boils down to something that can not really be called evolution in the terms everyone thinks it in. Natural slection, certainly, but not the umbrella term "evolution." It's actually a disservice to everyone's learning to call any of these things evolution - it's just simplifying to a point that actually detracts from understanding.

People who study historical records, geological strata, human migratorial patterns, etc. . You know. Scientists.

In other words, 3-4 organizations including two organizations with bias problems, the CRU and NASA's GISS. Everyone else is just providing data.

No, there are entire areas of science dedicated to understanding geological strata, history, human migration, etc. It is not primarily CRU and NASA. For example, here's a conference on human migration. And it is not primarily based on CRU and NASA. In fact, they don't seem to be involved at all. However, these guys are.

Actually, this conference is probably more up your alley.

Thanks for that comment. It inspired me to post a snippet of a similar conversation I had months ago, with your links and some others added:

Is it right, however, to lump together those who are skeptical of evolution with those who are skeptical of AGW, particularly CO2-driven AGW ?

Creationists confuse religious faith with falsifiable science. Among the general public, climate-change contrarians (and your average Greenpeace/PETA loony) confuse political affiliation with falsifiable science. In both cases, scientists are much less likely to agree with either claim, and that likelihood decreases with increasing relevance of the scientist's field. That's probably why both groups tend to accuse the scientific community of conspiracy and/or widespread incompetence.

At my blog, the following statement is both legible and has popup titles describing why that link was chosen. Here it is without the links first: "And, in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar intellectual and educational levels."

And, in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar intellectual and educational lev els.

Thanks for that comment. It inspired me to post a snippet of a similar conversation I had months ago, with your links and some others added:

Is it right, however, to lump together those who are skeptical of evolution with those who are skeptical of AGW, particularly CO2-driven AGW ?

Creationists confuse religious faith with falsifiable science. Among the general public, climate-change contrarians (and your average Greenpeace/PETA loony) confuse political affiliation with falsifiable science. In both cases, scientists are much less likely to agree with either claim, and that likelihood decreases with increasing relevance of the scientist's field. That's probably why both groups tend to accuse the scientific community of conspiracy and/or widespread incompetence.

At my blog, the following statement is both legible and has popup titles describing why that link was chosen. Here it is without the links first: "And, in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar intellectual and educational levels."

And, in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar intellectual and educational lev els.

You should go and visit "uncommon descent" the blog HQ of intelligent design. They're always bringing up AGW skepticism, since the notion of a far-reaching conspiracy of scientific propaganda and elitist repression is the same excuse they use to wave away the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion is in favour of evolution. Throwing their lot in with other denialists "makes their worldview make sense".

Also institute for creation research states:

• Global warming appears to have been occurring for the last 30-50 years.
• This warming may only be a short-term fluctuation but could be a longer-term trend.
• Evidence is still inconclusive whether man is causing the warming.
• No "natural" causes for global warming have been confirmed.
• One possible new theory is that galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) modulated by solar activity affects low-level cloud cover and is causing the warming.

Global warming may affect some parts of our society negatively but would likely benefit others. In fact, the current warming trend may be returning our global climate closer to that prevalent in the Garden of Eden. Compared to climate changes which have occurred in earth history, a temperature rise of a few degrees is a small fluctuation which will not lead to a complete melting of the polar caps or another ice age. Earth has a stable environmental system with many built-in feedback systems to maintain a uniform climate. It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God's intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times

Answers in genesis cry conspiracy and even cite "The Day After Tomorrow"!

The tactic used by Lomborg (quote mining) is the definitive modus operandi of a denialist. It is the bread and butter of Creationists, and for the person employing it, it is a strong indicator of either severe cognitive dissonance or outright lying.

As soon as you find some evidence against Evolution, we can reconsider it.

OK, start here. But be careful, some of these articles are extremely technical if you are not in that field.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/evolution

But being as ALL of the evidence gathered since Darwin was pontificating points to Evolution being the mechanism by which life changes, science (and the science classroom) should stick with that.

So, since any science relating to disproving evolution has been kept out of the classroom (and journals, and media) for your entire life, you are unaware of any proof to the contrary, so anything creationists say should be kept out, because they have no evidence???

Sounds like a circular argument to me.

Or creationists could have tons of scientific evidence:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/v/qa

On top of all that, the fact that "The Flood" actually has even earlier recorded sources (Sumerian, for example) just make the whole thing even more, well not maybe comical, but at least mildly amusing.

Yes, amazingly almost every culture on earth has a global flood story with a single boat, a bunch of animals and a negotiation of sorts with a god or gods. There are over 200 of them, involving nearly every culture that was on earth in early history.

For instance, this one from China, where the person is even named Ndrao-Ya.

http://www.archives.ecs.soton.ac.uk/miao/songs/TranslatedSongs/m131/m131tr.pdf

Here's a handy chart to summarize the similarities:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/flood-legends

As usual, Garry Trudeau said it best. (Yeah, I carefully selected the bandwidth provider.)

“For the Noah's Ark Hypothesis to be correct, one has to speculate that there was no flowing of water between the Black Sea and the Marmara Sea before the speculated great deluge. We have found this to be incorrect.”[9]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (2002-09-01). "Noah’s Flood Hypothesis May Not Hold Water". Press release. http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=245.

The proposed deluge has been connected with various Great Flood myths, notably Noah's Flood. Based on their interpretation of the Bible, the Christian apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis have stated that "Noah's Flood was not a local flood in the Black Sea area, but a world-wide flood that has left its mark on every continent on this planet"; the proposed date of the Black Sea deluge does not match what they believe to be the date of the biblical flood.[16]
"Proof of Noah’s Flood at the Black Sea?". Answers in Genesis. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4168.asp. Retrieved 2006-03-08.

“For the Noah's Ark Hypothesis to be correct, one has to speculate that there was no flowing of water between the Black Sea and the Marmara Sea before the speculated great deluge. We have found this to be incorrect.”[9]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (2002-09-01). "Noah’s Flood Hypothesis May Not Hold Water". Press release. http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=245.

The proposed deluge has been connected with various Great Flood myths, notably Noah's Flood. Based on their interpretation of the Bible, the Christian apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis have stated that "Noah's Flood was not a local flood in the Black Sea area, but a world-wide flood that has left its mark on every continent on this planet"; the proposed date of the Black Sea deluge does not match what they believe to be the date of the biblical flood.[16]
"Proof of Noah’s Flood at the Black Sea?". Answers in Genesis. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4168.asp. Retrieved 2006-03-08.

I looked at the nylonase case on wikipedia. Definitely interesting. It's not something I find totally unexpected, though.

I would not say the bacteria had been created with the ability to break down nylon molecules. I would say the bacteria was created to survive. Bacteria is more important to the earth than we give it credit for. Kill all humans and the earth would still need bacteria to maintain nature. So it's ability to survive matches very well with its responsibility in the grand scheme of things.

Here's an article I found enlightening on the broad subject:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria

As an aside, "survival of the fittest" is often far more closely associated with evolution than it is with creation - but I was struck one day how brilliant the idea is. If you could design a free-wheeling thing like this earth, how would you design it any other way? Hindsight is 20/20, they say. I look at it and I think it's an inspired concept. Any other mechanism would seem forced or faux in some way, I think.

Standard nonsense and moving the goal posts. 30 years ago creationists defined "macroevolution" to mean speciation. Now they use it to mean some vague broader category. Indeed, speciation at this point is so accepted that Answers in Genesis one of the largest young earth creationist ministries list the claim that speciation does not occur as an argument that creationists should not use. http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use. As far as I can tell, "macroevolution" when used by creationists just means "any degree of evolution that we are still stubborn enough not to accept" while "microevolution" means "any evolution which has so much overwhelming evidence that even we will accept it."

Of course, your claim about information is also wrong. The Lenski experiment given in the very subject of this is but one example. However, this gets into the non-trivial issue of how to define information. There are a variety of different mathematical definitions of information, such as Shannon information and Kolmogorov complexity. Creationists generally do not specify what form of "information" they are talking about. I'm not going to go into the details of either Shannon or Kolmogorov information theory other than to note that it is blatantly obvious under both of them that a variety of different common mutation types can increase information(for example, in Kolmogorov information theory, gene duplication will generally(although not always) increase the information level).

Instead I'm going to make a short argument that shows under any reasonable definition of information, information increase has to be possible for essentially tautological reasons. Consider a given piece of DNA with information level x. Now suppose that a mutation leads to a reduction in information to state x-k where k is some positive number. That means that the mutation back from x-k to x must add at least k information since x should have the information as x no matter how we got there. That mutation may be less likely, but is has some non-zero probability. Moreover, for most mutations that aren't extremely drastic (so say nice point mutations rather than dropping large sections of chromosomes) the mutations occur in one direction about as easily as in the other. So claiming that we don't have observed increases in information is a ridiculous claim. Any time a point mutation occurs and then we get the point mutation back in the other direction we've increased information.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/a-poke-in-the-eye

"Previous research has shown that wild-type E. coli can utilize citrate when oxygen levels are low."

In some of my previous posts, I've tried to convey the idea that perhaps we're not seeing new characteristics generate - rather we're seeing a reconfiguration / recombination / whatever of existing information.

As the quote says, it already knew how to use citrate. Creationists are fine with that. I think when you look closely at each example of evolution, this theme will keep coming up. The information was already there, it just needed to be flipped on or off or the genes reconfigured or recombined.

Wow. I'm impressed you took the time to rip apart my post line for line. That's good. We need more dissections of errant posts around here.

MODERATORS: Please mod the parent poster down as a troll or offtopic. And mod me down as flamebait or offtopic. I've wasted enough of my own time writing a response. Don't let any more readers waste their time reading any of this garbage.

I certainly hope nobody does that. This kind of discussion is exactly what is needed.

Would you care, shovas, user number 1605685 (my that IS a shiny new user account, isn't it!) to wager a guess as to what I think the real reason was for you posting that meandering soliloquy?

I've made two or three posts now and I've already got someone questioning my user ID. Awesome. I suppose it doesn't count for anything I've been reading here since the 90s? Why join now? I didn't think it was worth it before. I enjoy the site. I read a lot of the discussion. I saw a lot of misinformation on my hot button topics I thought I'd like to weigh into, though, so I thought I'd join after hearing my buddy join up recently too.

And, yes, I'd love to know what you think the real reason is.

Oh really. Do you have any reputable source to back that up? How about even one verifiable, specific number? A single believable example? Surely if you did, as a "staunch supporter of using scientific method", you would have mentioned it.

You know, mostly, I just assume if people wanted info on creation they'd google for "creation", maybe "creation science" if they think nothing of creation relating to science is out there. That's honestly why I didn't link to anything. I guess I'm seeing that most people just don't know about the creation "scene". I call it a scene, I know, but really there is a whole area of people and of study out there surrounding origins. There is so much serious research and data out there.

Without further adieu, Answers in Genesis (quite solid, I think), True.Origin (quite impressive the history between them and Talk.Origins), Institute for Creation Research (can't vouch for them but they've been around), Creation Research, and, I wish I had this in front of me, but a few weeks ago I was reading this dense, dense study on the atmosphere, it's composition, and relating it to young earth concepts.

This is just an example of what I thought most people would do: Google for "creation". Those are the items of interest which I particularly respect or that have a history. There is a whole world of creation science out there just a google away.

Do you have even a basic appreciation for how much information we carry around in our DNA [go.com]?

You are amusingly abrasive. That's ok, I can take it. I have a fuller apprecation than you know, although I'm always willing to learn more. The linked article is interesting and something, as I've read the news over years, I've already thought about (ie. "junk dna" is just our name for something whose purpose we haven't figured out yet).

To answer the first question: it was brought about by one or more mutations. Either you didn't read the article, or you don't understand basic biology ... or both. Your second question is invalid owing to the fact that you didn't know the answer to your first question.

Perhaps you want to read up on genetic mutation. My layman terms for pedant terms aren't really that confusing.

Did a mutation occur in which the genetic material acquired new information? My suggestion is that the mutation we're seeing is a re-expression of existing information.

Oh yeah, I'm stunned alright. Who the Hell invite

What, you never heard of the Creation Museum? Humans and dinosaurs lived together, dinosaurs were wiped out by the Great Flood. ;-)

Falcon

Yes, because the thousands of repeatable experiments done using the scientific method by people with PhD's is the complete antithesis of science. Oh, and evolution and the big bang are perfect and cannot be challenged by anyone. If they are, it's not science.

If you want to criticize Creation Science, fine. But all I ask is that you read some of it first, since, by your statements, you clearly never have.

Funny, most textbooks don't even have a blurb that big on Creation Science, despite it having a lot to say...

Or is it only a travesty when the side you favor is left out?

Christians know that "it was a small, tailed, probably tree-climbing, and now extinct primateâ"from a kind created on Day 6 of Creation Week."

You know, I'd hate evolution too, if it had done to me what it has done to the godtards.

From one of those pages linked to: 'The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters' (Matthew 12:30). Any "God" who requires faith in order to be "saved" is sadistic.

Falcon

Creationism isn't a search for answers.

Really, you might want to tell that to these guys: http://www.answersingenesis.org/. They keep spending millions searching for answers through scientific experiments. I wonder why they keep doing that when they could just close their Bible and say "God said so."

the creation theory contains no explanation for why all the evidence should consistently point to a much older age

You mean like this whole section of their website (with 8 subsections):

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/age-of-the-earth

But since it has yet to have ANY predictive successes

You mean like the creationist that correctly predicted the magnetic fields of all the planets prior to the Voyager flybys (non-creationists got them all wrong, but their theory is in your science book, not the guy who got them all right): http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html

It is very easy to spot people who have never read a single creationist article.

They make statements that assume that creationists don't follow the scientific method, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Creationists have done literally thousands of repeatable, scientific experiments that cast doubt on the current understanding of the big bang and evolution. There is plenty of evidence that casts serious doubt on many of the things that are taken for granted in your science book.

Maybe people should try reading a couple articles so they can speak knowledgeably on the topic: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers

Um, what does this even mean? I can't parse this sentence in a way that becomes coherent. You seem to a) think that "Darwinism" is a meaningful term and that b) it is distinct from "evolution." This leaves me slightly confused. Although given the later material in your post it does provide a nice example to support the contention of many posters here that "Darwinism" as a term is used primarily by creationists. Incidentally, science doesn't care at all about "proof." Nothing in science is every proven. Proof is for alcohol and mathematicians.

Ok, you certainly are a self prescribed smart guy. Congrats on your self esteem.
Proof - Any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something.

I'm still waiting for your proof... looks like I'll have to wait quite long period (hopefully not millions of years) for your proof while you debate my grammar and meaning of words.

First, I don't think you mean "compel" but rather "challenge" or "request." Second, I think don't mean "information to a species" but rather information to a specific genome.

Ok, thanks for making my point above. You knew what I meant, yet you waste my time explaining all this. Thanks buddy!

Well we're in luck because we have lots of those also. For example, we have bacteria which have evolved to be able to eat nylon. And that's one of many examples.

Oh, it's nice that you believe the things that are spoon fed into your brain. There are plenty of reasons that example is not a case of evolution... Nylon Eating Bacteria Explained I'm still waiting for a solid example... since you claim to have lots of examples, can you please find a better one?

But not having a complete list of every single mutation is not an argument against evolution.

I don't want a list of every single mutation... all I want is one example mutation that fits your theory. Just one valid mutation that creates something new that didn't already exist in the genetic makeup of the previous organism.

Wait, what? I thought there were no mutations adding information. Please make up your mind. Do mutations not work at all or not work within species? And what do you mean by "work" anyhow?

Mutations are all around us. In fact, some mutations are even good mutations (as they can get rid of bad information). My claim was that mutations have never added additional information, and they don't... they only re-order information, or more often than not, cause a loss of information. And never could they cause a change from one "kind" to another. They can go so far as to make part of one species not able to breed with other members of the same species due to the loss of information necessary for breeding. For example, one study gave evidence that sockeye salmon introduced into Lake Washington, USA, between 1937 and 1945 had split into two reproductively isolated populations (i.e., two separate species) in fewer than 13 generations (a maximum of 56 years). But they did not grow legs, nor grow feathers, or any sort of such thing...they don't have the information in their genes to do so. It just wont happen...ever.

Ok, this is simply false. Go read Origin of Species. It has that title for a reason. Seriously, go read the book. Second, even if he had never talked about speciation it would be irrelevant to whether or not it happens. Biology is not a religion which worships Darwin. He got quite a bit wrong (for example, he really didn't understand genetics or the possibility of something like neutral drift). That's ok. Science isn't tied down to the details of what Darwin wrote.

Ok, I'm not sure you have read the book. I will admit that I haven't read the book... but please, feel free to quote me some of the parts that talk about the Origin of Species (minus the ti

You mean microevolution right? We haven't actually observed one species changing into another. Only one species changing. Go to answersingenesis.com and they have many, many articles on that subject.

Do you read the crap you link to? The evidence of speciation is so overwhelming at this point that even answersingenesis lists this specifically as a claim that creationists should not use. See just for example http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use

You know why we call it Darwinism? Because some people actually do believe that! Most of them are not the brightest in the bunch, but some do. It's like a religion to them. On the other hand we don't have people like that for Newton or Einstein because Physics is not a required course for US High Schools, while Biology is.

Brilliant except that in many areas chemistry and physics are required. But nice try. And note that incidentally that even if they weren't required that wouldn't stop many people from taking them and having the same reactions. Frankly, this argument is pretty transparent. There's no problem with Newton or Einstein because they don't contradict prior religious beliefs. Contrast that for example to some geocentrists who do refer to Newtonism and Einsteinism because they are trying to do the same thing that the young earth creationists are trying to do, make science sound like it is an ideology. But thank you in any event for acknowledging that the term "darwinism" is used primarily by creationists.

Oh if only they weren't so stubborn. Things like this and this wouldn't exist.

They've gotten over protesting dinosaurs, and have now decided that they're obviously evidence for creationism.

Point respectively taken. I appreciate the dialog you have stated.

I'm not going to go into the additional Bible verses you have stated, as I have not done research on those and do not have the answers at this time.

On the creation part... It's hard for me to imagine it not being the inviolate word of God (ok, maybe not so hard as, it was just recently I did believe the opposite). I do believe God is all powerful and all knowledgeable... I believe He could of created everything that has ever existed or ever will exist in a single instance... less than a millisecond if He wanted. But he didn't do that... he chose to use the word for 'day' and he qualified each 'day' by numbering them along with saying there was evening and there was morning for each day. To me, that means each day was an ordinary twenty-four hour day. The word for 'day' in the original language of the Bible is used over 400 times in the Bible... and whenever it is qualified with a number OR used with evening and morning it ALWAYS means an ordinary twenty-four hour day. Why would God mean something different in Genesis when he uses the word for 'day'? To me, there is only one creation story, and that is exactly as the Bible says. We also base our current week of seven days off of this creation story. We don't have Millions of years long weeks do we? I sure would enjoy that millions of years rest period though. ;)

(I used to believe in the Millions of years theory as I was brought up in public schools and taught about evolution... it wasn't until a recent Bible study going over the Ken Ham videos that I have found what I believe to be the best answers. The word of God, creation in six ordinary twenty-four hour days... See more at answersingenesis.org)

Darwinism 'opened the door' for creationism? GIVE ME A BREAK! Creation is in the Bible, and has been around way before Darwinism. Darwinism gives no proof for evolution.

I compel you to name one mutation that has been observed to add information to a species. Just one! Let alone the hundreds of thousands of mutations that would be necessary to go from molecules of sludge to Human. Information doesn't come from nothing. Natural selection and mutations only work within a species. Darwin himself never talks about the origin of species in his book... only about natural selection and survival of the fittest. Evolution (a.k.a. change over time) only happens at a Micro-Evolution level. How do you explain the gain of information... for example fish to reptiles to birds... where did the information about feathers come from if mutations can build information and natural selection only reduces information.

My facts come from answersingenesis.org

Riiiight.

Information and entropy are related (as entropy is a measure of disorder), and entropy is related to temperature.

Be careful. Informational entropy and thermodynamic entropy are similar and interrelated, so your statement is accurate. However, taking your statement too far results in crazy pseudoscience like these two examples:

370.asp
thermodynamics

Information and entropy are related (as entropy is a measure of disorder), and entropy is related to temperature.

Be careful. Informational entropy and thermodynamic entropy are similar and interrelated, so your statement is accurate. However, taking your statement too far results in crazy pseudoscience like these two examples:

370.asp
thermodynamics

It's not the accuracies that surprise me, though, it's the scientifical, geographical, historical inaccuriacies and the internal inconsistencies that bother me.

Rightly so, let's look.

I mean, if a book cannot accurately describe common geographical knowledge how can it be attributed to divine revelation?

Agreed.

(read Mark 10:46 and have a map ready. The jesus-and-friends itinerary is quite impossible)

So, the issue is Matthew says Jericho -> Bethpage -> Bethany -> Jerusalem whereas Matthew just mentions Jericho -> Bethpage -> Jericho, correct? Firstly, there were three routes from Jericho to Jerusalem. There's a mountain in the middle. You can sorta see it on this map. So, the three routes were to the south side, right straight up the mountain, or the north side. I forget which was the most common. If Jesus took the northern route, He would hit Bethpage first. However, we know that He did not immediately go into Jerusalem but went to Bethany, where he stayed for a while. Note, by the way, that Luke gives the same account in Luke 19:29. Bethany is on the east slope of the Mount of Olives. Mark 11:12 directly states, "As they were leaving Bethany..."

I find it interesting that people are so willing to admit the mistake without bothering to look up the history and compare all the accounts with an open mind, especially seeing that we are accusing Mark of not knowing the area around Jerusalem. That seems pretty hard to believe for a Jew.

I mean, why would a book written with the help of god tell me that pi = 3, or that insects have four legs?

Pi does more or less equal 3, does it not. 3.14, 3.14..... etc. You would bring up the same argument no matter what value was mentioned because it's an infinitely long decimal, ans thus a "perfect God" would reveal it to us "in its entirety" even though it's mathematically impossible, right? A very detailed look into this issue. You may not like the source of the information but that does not immediately discredit it.

As for insects with 4 legs, don't forget the Bible spoke to a Hebrew culture, 1500 years ago. This means, among other things, that they viewed things differently. I am quite sure that the Hebrews knew what flying and creeping things were and how many "feet" they had. But they may have defined "feet" differently. In fact, the Leviticus passage that you have apparently not read but only read a sort of "atheist's guide to Biblical errors" version, mentions "legs above the feet." So apparently, the Jews back then knew what feet were and distinguished the feet used for walking from the legs used for other things.

Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet,

I ask again. Have you actually read the Bible for yourself, or are you just going on other people's opinions and recycling the same 'errors' while ignoring the refutations?