Also, 100 quarter hours is equal to amount of course work needed for a Ph.D.
Jerry Bergman
JoinedPosts by Jerry Bergman
-
69
Maybe I'm missing something about this particular Creationist's arguement..
by Abaddon inhere we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.
it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .
-
-
-
69
Maybe I'm missing something about this particular Creationist's arguement..
by Abaddon inhere we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.
it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .
-
-
Jerry Bergman
I am working 14 hour days now so it takes time to respond that I do not have now but I will respond in detail in time. My concern is not natural selection (no one who is informed about biology doubts this reality). The concern is not the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest. Also, the article you are referring to was written a decade old now and has been extensively rewritten and updated. If you write to the college I will send you a copy and I would welcome your feedback on this article. Dr. Jerry Bergman Biology Department Northwest State 22-600 State Rt. 34 Archbold, OH 43543.
----- Original Message
-
69
Maybe I'm missing something about this particular Creationist's arguement..
by Abaddon inhere we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.
it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .
-
-
Jerry Bergman
Of interest
INVESTIGATING GENESIS
Stephen Caesar Ph.D.
"Cichlids and Evolution"
Cichlids are fish that inhabit the shallow shoreline waters of Africa’s
Lake Tanganyika. Evolutionists hold them up as undeniable proof of
evolution in action, because cichlids have been witnessed "evolving" into
several new species over the past few decades. These events are indeed
evidence of intraspecific microevolution, discussed many times in this
column, but not of transpecific macroevolution, since the cichlids are not
evolving into more advanced, superior life forms, in the classical
Darwinian "mud to monkey to Mozart" or "amoeba to ape to Einstein"
scenario.
The numerous "species" of cichlids that naturalists are witnessing
springing into existence are actually the result of phenotypic plasticity.
This term has also been discussed in previous installations of this column;
it refers to the ability of humans and animals to change dramatically as a
result of environmental changes. It derives not from mutations or natural
selection, as Darwinians propose, but from a pre-programmed feature of the
genetic code that allows "on-off" switches to activate or deactivate,
depending upon outside circumstances.
Hans Hofmann, a fellow at Harvard’s Bauer Center for Genomics Research,
has discovered that the visible "evolution" of cichlids is the result of
phenotypic plasticity, not Darwinian evolution. Hofmann specializes in the
relationship between an organism’s environment and its behavior,
concentrating on how these two factors affect phenotypic plasticity (Shaw
2003: 30). Harvard Magazine reported on his findings:
"[C]ertain genes that regulate phenotypes – groups of physiological traits
and behaviors – are actually under social control. A genome, the complete
collection of an organism’s genes, is plastic, Hofmann contends. The
environment – even social and cultural contexts – can switch genes on and
off" (ibid., 31).
Hofmann observed cichlids both in the wild and in the laboratory and found
that they possess "an unusual mutability during life" (ibid.). Cichlid
on-off genes are activated not only by external factors, like changes in
the environment, but by social factors as well. Hofmann found that cichlid
males experience changes in color, territoriality, reproductive activity,
and gregariousness depending on what other cichlids do. In any school of
cichlids, there is a dominant male who does all the breeding with the
females. If that setup is changed either through the death of that male or
a radical change in the lake, the submissive males will battle for the top
spot. Within seconds, the winning fish develops an eye stripe and bright
coloring. Within a week, even greater changes take place. Previously unable
to reproduce, the victor’s organs suddenly get a message from the brain to
being producing sperm cells (ibid., 31-32). Hofmann’s experiments have
discovered "at least 14 phenotypic characters under social control" (ibid.,
32).
Hofmann has so far found 96 "on-off" cichlid genes that are activated by
external factors. He stated: "The whole idea that a gene is for one thing
only is simplistic – and it misses the inherently complex system of
interactions between the social environment and individual animals" (ibid.
33). Harvard Magazine concluded: "Hofmann suspects that the phenotypic
plasticity of cichlids may have enabled the fish to adapt to new
environments during evolution, resulting in the numerous species flocks
found in Lake Tanganyika" (ibid.).
Despite the evolutionary bias in this passage, the point is that cichlids
aren't evolving into higher, more advanced life forms through the
traditional Darwinian scenario of macroevolution through natural selection
and survival of the fittest. The "evolution" to which Harvard Magazine
referred is the result of phenotypic plasticity within the wider cichlid
"kind." The radical changes witnessed by evolutionists and creationists
alike do not prove Darwin, but they certainly argue for an Intelligent
Designer who came up with the "on-off" genetic switch to begin with.
Reference:
Shaw, J. 2003. "Phenome Fellow." Harvard Magazine 105, no. 3. -
69
Maybe I'm missing something about this particular Creationist's arguement..
by Abaddon inhere we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.
it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .
-
-
Jerry Bergman
Sorry, but how on each does 25 hours work make you a biologist? I wouldn’t claim that, and I think I passed that mark in the tenth week of my University course, if not before. And if you make a fundamental mistake in understanding a basic principle of evolution, and assert the standard theory is something it is not, then it doesn’t matter if you have over 200 quarter hours in the field. Knowledge is not a prison sentence calculable by time served. It’s what you know accurately. No matter what qualifications I present you will come back with the name calling "you are not a biologists." I am employed by a state college by the state of Ohio as a professor in the area of biology and have been such for over 17 years and I have 3 graduate degrees in the biomedical area and my undergraduate education is in biology. Your claim that I made a fundamental mistake in understanding a basic principle of evolution is also name calling. I understand evolution very well and have studied it for over 20 years and have taught the subject for almost as long. You are trying to find mistakes in my replies that do not exist by twisting my words. If I had 3 Ph.Ds from Harvard, I would still not be qualified or would not "understand evolution". My friends who have Ph.Ds from Harvard, MIT, Stanford, or the University of Chicago are regularly told that they "do not understand evolution." Name calling is not a reason to prove one wrong and does not depend on the facts.
Thanks for your reference to the article on homosexuality… the full reference is “Bearman, PS (2002). Opposite-sex twins and adolescent same-sex attraction. American Journal of Sociology 107:1179-1205.” For anyone who wants to look at it. I don’t quite see how this particular study of opposite sex twins sexual attraction could override the study on same sex brothers, fraternal and identical twins, as it’s only really possible to assert a genetic link (or not) if the siblings studied have a same-sex counterpart. Otherwise it’s peaches and elephants. No. read the article. It covers identical twins which are not of the opposite sex.
How do you feel about the physiological differences in brain structure that some studies show?
Many problems exist with this article such as the sample size was very small, and the subjects died of aids. If anything, it indicates that homosexuality is caused by brain damage or a brain abnormality. See Harvard trained Jeffrey Satinover's book on Homosexuality and those of others that reviewed this study and that of the twins. Also the study at issue here has never been replicated and one study is of very limited value (especially this one).
Do you have a comprehensive essay you could post explaining the start of the Universe, abiogenesis and the development of life as observed by the fossil record, from your viewpoint?
I have published over 400 articles on this and related topics and many thousands of articles exist as well as thousands of books by many persons far more qualified than I. If you send me your address I will send you a set. As much fun as it is to throw ideas regarding evolution around and let creationists take pot-shots at them, I am frustrated by a failure in others to ever provide a comprehensive theory in its place. They tend to resort to avoidance, presuppositionalism, and non-falsifiable theories, and I'd love to examine a comprehensive 'theory of creation' that is not beset by these flaws. This is my concern - the attitude of superiority, of the "I know everything and you are stupid," which dominates the responces of Darwinists.
-
69
Maybe I'm missing something about this particular Creationist's arguement..
by Abaddon inhere we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.
it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .
-
-
Jerry Bergman
This is a major problem we have
Professor Dumped Over Evolution Beliefs
By Jim Brown and Ed Vitagliano
March 11, 2003A university professor said she was asked to resign for introducing elite students to flaws in Darwinian thought, and she now says academic freedom at her school is just a charade.
During a recent honors forum at Mississippi University for Women (MUW), Dr. Nancy Bryson gave a presentation titled "Critical Thinking on Evolution" -- which covered alternate views to evolution such as intelligent design. Bryson said that following the presentation, a senior professor of biology told her she was unqualified and not a professional biologist, and said her presentation was "religion masquerading as science."
The next day, Vice President of Academic Affairs, Dr. Vagn Hansen asked Bryson to resign from her position as head of the school's Division of Science and Mathematics.
"The academy is all about free thought and academic freedom. He hadn't even heard my talk," Bryson told American Family Radio News. "[W]ithout knowing anything about my talk, he makes that decision. I think it's just really an outrage."
Bryson believes she was punished for challenging evolutionary thought and said she hopes her dismissal will smooth the way for more campus debate on the theory of evolution. University counsel Perry Sansing said MUW will not comment on why Bryson was asked to resign because it is a personnel matter.
"The best reaction," Bryson says, "and the most encouraging reaction I have received has been from the students." She added that the students who have heard the talk, "They have been so enthusiastically supportive of me."
Bryson has contacted the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy and is considering taking legal action against the school.
-
69
Maybe I'm missing something about this particular Creationist's arguement..
by Abaddon inhere we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.
it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .
-
-
Jerry Bergman
My response is in bold. your statement;
"Now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth"
Which facts? Explain this. Your arguement seems to be;
1/ People gave the Dodo as an example of survival of the fittest.
2/ Many drawings of the Dodo gave the wrong impression regarding its weight and mobility.
3/ It is now known it was a leaner more mobile bird.
4/ Therefore, it didn't die out because it was unfit. I noted that it died out because of human irresponsibility, and not because it was unfit. It was very fit before man arrived on the island.
5/ Therefore evolution is a myth. I never said this but that, in this case, only that the facts do not support the common myth.
No 4/ is untrue. If it didn't die out because it was 'unfit' in evolutionary terms (i.e. unable to compete for resources or avoid predation to such an extent it became extinct), then why did it die out? It died out because of human irresponsibility. You imply that because humans can wipe out all life on this planet (and have wiped out some life forms, such as the passenger pigeon) that this proves the standard theory of evolution is true (from the goo to you by way of the zoo by copying errors).
Without succesfully supporting 4/, your whole arguement fails. Of course, my interpretation of your arguement might be wrong, in which case, please correct me. I hope I did above.
Your comment regarding the number of degrees you have is not impressive. I think it's called the aristocratic fallacy. I was responding to the claims that I did not have a background in biology when, in fact, I have well over a 100 quarter hours in the field from several universities.
Your knowledge in most areas you have studied has not been challanged, rather, it is your lack of proper qualifications in the biological sciences. The URLs you provide all have NO bearing on your knowledge as a biologist of any sort... something you must realise. The URLs I provided have no bearing on my knowledge as a biologist but do respond to some of the other charges. I have spent most of my career teaching in the life science area and have several graduate degrees in this and related areas aside from the one from CPU. I am working on an article responding to the charges against CPU and will post it soon. I would also appreciate you updating the essay on homosexuality you wrote in 1995. I would be fascinated to see how you rspond to the latest research in the area. In the meantime, as a man of your standing would not want to intentionally deceive someone, I'm sure you'll want to have the essay taken off the website it is on - such out-dated research does do your reputation any service . I am working on this. Much excellent material has been published in the past few years, such as the study in the American Journal of Sociology (2002 vol 107 pp. 1179-1205) on twins (both identical and fraternal) that found no evidence exists for a genetic cause of homosexuality. This study is one of the largest ever done. It also was published in the top journal in the field. Hope that this helps. Thanks for your feedback.
In any case I agree about checking your facts.. And yes, it is a potentially demeaning and derogatory claim, that you are woefully ignorant in a subject about which you claim to be an expert and that your PhD in biology is from an unaccredited institution - which has since been closed down - and therefore does not carry as much weight as a real degree would. I would certainly never have made it without evidence. When I earned my degree in 1990 from there it was fully licensed by the state and was not a diploma mill. The reasons behind the state's action is more complex. Also, they are still operating in another state (and are fully licensed there)
-
69
Maybe I'm missing something about this particular Creationist's arguement..
by Abaddon inhere we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.
it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .
-
-
Jerry Bergman
It is a good idea to check your facts before you announce them to the world, especially if your ideas are demeaning or derogatory. Also, there are rules about this on this site. When I have the time, I will try to respond. To start, check out the following: http://www.freeminds.org/african/bergman.htm http://www.rae.org/BergmanTenure.htm http://www.rae.org/notracist.html By the way, I have close to 9 degrees (and am working on 2 more, both PhD's), and have 3 in the life and health sciences from a medical school and have taught biology (and evolution) at the college level for 17 years.
-
172
Evolution or Creation??
by dottie inwell i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.
myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.
so i do find it confusing sometimes .
-
-
Jerry Bergman
Of interest (another support of NeoDarwinism falls).
You Can't Make a Monkey Out of Us
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,57892,00.html
By Kristen Philipkoski
Chimpanzees seem almost human, and scientists have maintained for decades that chimps are, in fact, 98.5 percent genetically identical to humans.
But the results of a new study call that figure into question, with a finding that there are actually large chunks of the human and chimp genomes that are vastly different.
Researchers at a company called Perlegen Sciences in Mountain View, California, used a powerful biological computer chip that can scan the entire genetic makeup of an organism, that is, its whole genome. The results, published in Monday's issue of Genome Research, show that chimps and humans are much more different than scientists previously thought.
"The study shows the richness and texture of these differences we have with our close neighbors in the evolutionary tree," said Richard Gibbs, director of the Human Genome Sequencing Center at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, who was not involved in the Perlegen study.
Researchers will now focus on these genetic variations to discover how the species differ functionally, which they hope will lead to knowledge about human health.
"(This study) provides a valuable starting point from which to improve our understanding of what makes human beings unique," said Dr. David Cox, Perlegen's chief scientific officer and co-author of the study, in a statement.
Researchers around the world are sequencing the genomes of various animals: some very far away from humans on the evolutionary tree, like pufferfish, and some closer, such as nonhuman primates.
The reason to compare the genomes of very distant species is that any genes they might have in common have likely been conserved for good reasons and are worth studying.
But studies like Perlegen's, and another recent paper published by Ed Rubin of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in the Feb. 28 issue of the journal Science, help argue the point that, while studying genomes of distant species is valuable, it is the species closer to humans in evolution that might yield the most important clues about human health.
"Although such comparisons readily identify regions of the human genome performing general biological functions shared with evolutionarily distant mammals, they will invariably miss recent changes in DNA sequence that account for uniquely primate biological traits," Rubin wrote in his paper.
Because of the chimp's genetic similarity to humans, the small amount of DNA that differs between the two species promises to reveal important secrets about what makes humans human.
"It's a good reminder that sometimes the differences between things that are already very similar provide the most insight," Gibbs said.
The Perlegen researchers compared human chromosome 21 with chimpanzee, orangutan, rhesus macaque and woolly monkey DNA sequences. In all the species, they found that DNA had been rearranged much more frequently during primate genome evolution than previously thought.
The DNA was often reordered in areas of the genome that contained functioning genes -- genes that researchers can investigate to find important clues about human health and the nature of disease.
The study didn't generate a new number expressing how similar or different chimpanzee DNA is from human DNA. However, researchers say, that number might be different depending on how it is measured anyway.
With new technologies like Perlegen's biochip, researchers can measure the genome at a much more minute scale than had been possible before.
The 98.5 percent difference between humans and nonhuman primates is based on differences between the two genomes' sequences of the letters A, T, C and G, which stand for the nucleotides adenine, cytosine, thymine and guanine. When researchers sequence the DNA of a genome, they use a machine like Applied Biosystems' ABI Prism 3700 to determine the order of the nucleotides. The letters form base pairs (A always binds to T and C always binds to G) that link together to form the rungs on the ladder of the DNA double helix.
But with technologies like Perlegen's "high-density array" -- a chip that allows scientists to look at whole genomes -- researchers can not only see missing base pairs, but also rearrangements of the base pairs in the genomes.
"(The research shows) how very interesting it is to look at small differences, whereas previously the focus was looking at broad differences," Gibbs said. "That's a suggestion of a paradigm shift." -
126
DNA and Man's origin
by D wiltshire in.
i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.
kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..
-
-
Jerry Bergman
For years evolutionists have said that junk DNA was clear proof of neoDarwinism. Now so many uses for this DNA have been found that it would take a thick book to discuss them all. I am buried with work now, but plan to respond to some of the issues presented here. For now, the following article is a good introduction for lay persons.
THE NEW YORK TIMES
March 4, 2003
DNA Junk or Not?
By C. CLAIBORNE RAY
Q. How do scientists know that there aren't sections of junk DNA (the
introns between genes) that have some biological function?
A. For years, more and more research has, in fact, suggested that introns
are not junk but influence how genes work. Though they are discarded when a
gene's directions for making a protein are read from the exons and carried
out, introns do have active roles.
For one recent example, scientists have found that changes in just two
genetic letters, one in each of two introns, determine whether a gene that
causes lactose intolerance after weaning is switched on or off.
Also, certain so-called junk DNA sequences persist in many organisms over
thousands or even millions of years, suggesting that they are essential to
these organisms.
Other possible functions for introns include enhancing or damping the level
of gene activity; shaping the folded arrangement of chromosomes within the
cell nucleus; and providing reservoirs of change that allow DNA to be
shuffled and rearranged in novel patterns that may eventually contribute to
evolution, or conversely acting as a buffer against interloping DNA
sequences that might cause a change too quickly.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company -
126
DNA and Man's origin
by D wiltshire in.
i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.
kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..
-
-
Jerry Bergman
"junk sequences" and "junk genes" that have no apparent function, but are extremely similar in apparently dissimilar species. This indicates a common origin via evolution, but is extremely difficult to understand as the product of an efficient Creator. This whole field has grown and we are finding dozens of uses for the once termed junk DNA. The genome is turning out to be far more complex than we have ever dreamed!!
Some of these "junk genes" are expressed from time to time. When whaling was common, from time to time a whale would be landed that had hind legs in various states of development. Some were complete with bones, muscles and so forth. This shows that genes for legs are still in the whale's DNA. This is an extremely strong indication that whale ancestors had legs -- otherwise why would the genes for legs still be there? The reason is because these bones do have a function! Biologists did some experiments with growth hormones on chicken embryos some years ago. The result was that the chicken embryos developed tooth buds, which indicates that genes for teeth are still resident in bird DNA, even though the last toothsome birds seem to have disappeared 60-70 million years ago. The reason was evidently because of gene sets common to all families of animals can be switched on or off to produce variations (Hox genes are often involved). Humans have about 98% of their DNA common with chimpanzee DNA, complete with the "junk genes". This is extremely strong circumstantial evidence for a common ancestor. The current estimate is 95% similarity which means a huge difference exists (the total DNA base pairs is 3 billion, this means 150,000,000 base pairs are different!!)