Thursday, October 26, 2006

Email from a reasonable Kansan

I received an interesting e-mail from a fellow reasonable Kansan the other day. I was given permission to post it below. The email was in response to this post and the comments that followed.

Excellent FTK,

We should give you the recognition Drudge has received for changing people's perception and incorporate it into the new media since the old media has done such an abominable job.

In regards to Jeremy's repeated position that he reiterates on his 7:02 response:

"And, again, I contend that we have a difference in definition. It is not “new” information that is added, but information that has been granted success from pre-existing elements. Nothing new has been added."

And when that gene copy mutates, then what? You have a gene that did not previously exist, one that can potentially produce a novel protein. This is one way that evolution of new traits can occur."
Are those “new” traits actually greater complexity that would permit an organism foresight to develop techniques to protect them from new environmental hazards? Many environmental hazards have a history of occurring quickly. We have a pre-existing genetic capability to withstand a certain amount of change in conditions (like up to 8 degrees change in body temperature), but can we evolve to cope with extreme conditions? I'd find it interesting to break down how much science can be applied to their belief. Jeremy does list symbiotic transfer among his descriptors, but be aware that other evolutionists say there isn’t much chance in what many of the evolutionists claim as enough genetic variation to bring about macroevolution—Margulis and Sagan, in their book, Acquiring Genomes, argue from a evolution position that only through symbiotic exchange of genetic information in soil microbes could you possibly get enough exchange of genetic information to bring about the changes that has to occur in order for evolution to proceed. They also state, p. 28,
That Darwin invented, in the end, a Lamarckian explanation—his "pangenesis" hypothesis to explain how heritable variations arise—tends to be forgotten, as described in Mayr's book (1982). By his reckoning, "gemules," theoretical particles borne by all living beings and subject to experience during the lifetime of their bearers, send representatives into the offspring of the next generation. Darwin's view, scarcely distinguishable from Lamarck's, was absolutely a statement for "the inheritance of acquired characteristics." Ultimately, however, Darwin equivocated on where these "sports," "mutants," or "heritable variants" came from. He simply did not know.

Going a bit further with terms, when saying no “new” genetic information, one could say no “greater complexity” genetic information is added to the genome, because like Jeremy says, they can show that genes mutate and recombine, but I have yet to find any evidence that the genes have recombined to form greater complexity to enable an organism to speak or acquire a conscience. There isn't science empirically documenting this kind of complex reformatting of genetic information, however, reading Jeremy and Jack’s comments makes me think that they think that since science can empirically show mutations, recombination of genes, and lateral gene transfer, it should be permitted to hypothetically deduct complex reformatting of genetic information. I didn’t bookmark it well enough to return to it now, but when I looked this up a year or two ago, there were evolutionists claiming hypothetical-deductive science several hundreds of years ago opposing empiricists Bacon, Kepler, and Newton. And how should science treat the empirical evidence of a frog maintaining its DNA for as long as frogs have lived and the empirical data on DNA polymerase, DinB DNA polymerase, and the corrective function of what was earlier thought of as “junk” DNA.

The question we all ask is how did the complexity we have today, come about? Do we defer to the science textbook or do we include other sources to answer the question. The problem with science today, they have convinced themselves that we are not endowed with unalienable rights from our Creator as it states in our Declaration of Independence and Newt so succinctly points out in his new book—that is what makes us American—we’ll end up giving up our rights when we no longer have: We the People—forming (a more perfect union) government that gets its’ authority from God. So we in America are left with a big question, do we subject our future to science or do we subject our future to God? The left-wing media and too many Republicans and especially Democrats, don’t want to subject our future to God, and that is why sitcoms, news stories, and too many other venues support gay rights, Darwinism, abortion, relinquishing family authority, and other God deleting practices to gain ground in our culture—and if you take a stand against these practices—you get politically tarred and feathered.

What’s really been working on me is the consciousness and awareness of God that this country was known for and now it is rapidly trying to erase that consciousness and awareness—and what better way to erase all that than to believe that we came from a primordial slime that didn’t need a God to breathe life into it.

You taking those guys to task on making Kansas sound like a hick state because of the misinformation was awesome and you should be recognized as new media for this country.

Thanks again and have a great day,