He has a real Ph.D. in evaluation and research from Wayne State University, and a fake one in human biology from Columbia Pacific University. This is a lie and slander, and you know it. My degree is fully legal and there are hundreds or more teachers that have a degree from this school teaching now in USA and other countries, including at major universities. This response confirms my experience about atheists. They lack morals, honesty, compassion and often a sense of humanity.
Jerry Bergman
JoinedPosts by Jerry Bergman
-
40
Abiogenesis
by Jerry Bergman insome off the top of my head responses (with help from a friend) to a set of questions from another topic site are as follows.
1. what is the estimated minimum nucleotide length of dna or rna needed for a self-reproducing organism?
the lower limit for a living non virus is usually considered around 4,000 genes or about 400,000 dna base pairs (bacteria genes are about 1,000 base pairs long - see clark and russell molecular biology 2000).
-
-
-
40
Abiogenesis
by Jerry Bergman insome off the top of my head responses (with help from a friend) to a set of questions from another topic site are as follows.
1. what is the estimated minimum nucleotide length of dna or rna needed for a self-reproducing organism?
the lower limit for a living non virus is usually considered around 4,000 genes or about 400,000 dna base pairs (bacteria genes are about 1,000 base pairs long - see clark and russell molecular biology 2000).
-
-
Jerry Bergman
How did we go from technical questions concerning the origin of life to an attack on the "presupposition" of the existence of God? Oh well, have a few comments I would like to make...
A presuppostional stance on the preexistence or perpetual existence of god with no proof being provided as to how god came into existence or was perpetually existing is just not worth arguing with. It's the old invisible pink unicorn argument, and I have better things to do with my time.
This is a non argument. One has to assume the non existence of God just as much as one has to assume the existence of God. If one assumes that it is safe to ignore the possibility of the existence of God, then one has to assume the existence of something else totally beyond our experience.
If I'm going to discuss abiogenesis, then people advancing the theory of god as an alternative have to provide theories of how god came into being, otherwise they are arguing in favor of invisible pink unicorns whilst expecting absolute definitive scientific proof of theories still in development in return.
The "invisible Pink Unicorn" argument doesn't apply to the argument for a (Divine) intelligently designed origin of life in a number of ways, and on the contrary, Dr. Joe has shown with his blue fairy argument that it does apply to the theory of the origin of life by pure chance. For one thing, even invisible pink Unicorns would have to have some physical existence in our universe, while God is a supernatural Spirit. Probably the biggest problem with this ridiculous comparison is that in all our experience, truly complex, organized phenomena always originate (not counting copies of preexisting forms) through an adequate degree of applied intelligence. Even if there had never been religious concepts of God, this universal observation would suggest the existence of some intelligence greater than ours.
The reason I say this is that I believe that at this moment initial origins ARE unprovable, and that any closure in the god/not god (god as in Christian Creator Bible God who did it like in Genesis) debate can only come about through time.
If there is not yet "closure" in the debate about the existence of God, then isn't it unreasonable to refuse to consider arguments in favor of one side but not of the other?
I feel, given the evidence NOW, and the historical evidence we have, that the theory of god is far less credible than the theory of a naturalistic origin.
Based on what evidence? Didn't the answers to those questions indicate that there's nothing that we know of to support the idea that unguided chemicals can join together in an organized way to produce the complexity needed for life? What "historical evidence" do we have for the origin of life?
-
40
Abiogenesis
by Jerry Bergman insome off the top of my head responses (with help from a friend) to a set of questions from another topic site are as follows.
1. what is the estimated minimum nucleotide length of dna or rna needed for a self-reproducing organism?
the lower limit for a living non virus is usually considered around 4,000 genes or about 400,000 dna base pairs (bacteria genes are about 1,000 base pairs long - see clark and russell molecular biology 2000).
-
-
Jerry Bergman
Some off the top of my head responses (with help from a friend) to a set of questions from another topic site are as follows. DNA/RNA
1. What is the estimated minimum nucleotide length of DNA or RNA needed for a self-reproducing organism? The lower limit for a living non virus is usually considered around 4,000 genes or about 400,000 DNA base pairs (bacteria genes are about 1,000 base pairs long - see Clark and Russell Molecular Biology 2000). Others feel the number is lower. According to some scientists at UNC, "[t]he minimum number of protein-producing genes a single-celled organism needs to survive and reproduce in the laboratory is somewhere between 265 and 350." See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/12/991213052506.htm
Time will tell. For humans the DNA from an average person will stretch to the sun and back 600 times. A reason why a difference in opinion exists about the minimum number of genes required for a living organism is because the larger figure represents the actual number of genes known in free-living organisms, and the smaller figures represents an estimate based largely on a parasitic organism and the assumption by evolutionists that the environment in the early earth that supposedly produced the first living thing would also be chemically supportive of it. They assume that some specialized micro environment existed that was filled with amino acids, possibly proteins, lipids, and who knows what all, forming a sort of inorganic womb that would nurture the primitive life form it had just produced. Of course DNA is only the software and without the hardware (the scores of proteins that allow translation and transcription such as polymerase the system is useless.2. How long of polymers (nucleotide length) of DNA or RNA have been formed in labs under realistic conditions? How close is this to the answer to question # 1. By "machine" I am not aware of any known limit, but this procedure is human designed so it is only of indirect interest.
3. Will a forming polymer tend to lengthen or break apart under naturalistic conditions? It will break apart and this is why repair enzymes are critical. otherwise it would not last long even in the cell.
4. Do all the sugars in DNA and RNA have to be either "right handed (D)" or "left handed (L)" or will a combination of both in the same molecule lead to functional nucleic acids? The sugars have to match the whole system, especially the enzyme system that makes them. As far as I know all of the sugar backbones of RNA and DNA are only D isomers. Optical activity purity is biologically necessary for proper coiling for both amino acids and also for the sugars.I understand that getting the right kinds of sugars is statistically vastly more difficult than optically pure amino acids.
5. If only one type of sugar (D or L) will work, how could long polymers of DNA/RNA form from a 50/50 mixture? Has there been any naturalistic condition found which could separate the two out, leading to polymers of only 1 type being formed? Polymers could form but they would not be functional. I would think that they would be sticky like candy
-
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
Some off the top of my head responses (I could not find the new site). DNA/RNA
1. What is the estimated minimum nucleotide length of DNA or RNA needed for a self-reproducing organism? The lower limit for a non virus is usually considered about 4,000 genes or about 400,000 DNA base pairs. Others feel the number is lower. According to some scientists at UNC, "[t]he minimum number of protein-producing genes a single-celled organism needs to survive and reproduce in the laboratory is somewhere between 265 and 350." See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/12/991213052506.htm
Time will tell. For humans the DNA from an average person will stretch to the sun and back 600 times.2. How long of polymers (nucleotide length) of DNA or RNA have been formed in labs under realistic conditions? How close is this to the answer to question # 1. By "machine" I am not aware of any known limit, but this procedure is human designed so it is only of indirect interest.
3. Will a forming polymer tend to lengthen or break apart under naturalistic conditions? It will break apart and this is why repair enzymes are critical. otherwise it would not last long even in the cell.
4. Do all the sugars in DNA and RNA have to be either "right handed (D)" or "left handed (L)" or will a combination of both in the same molecule lead to functional nucleic acids? The sugars have to match the whole system, especially the enzyme system that makes them. As far as I know all of the sugar backbones of RNA and DNA are only D isomers. Optical activity purity is biologically necessary for proper coiling for both amino acids and also for the sugars.I understand that getting the right kinds of sugars is statistically vastly more difficult than optically pure amino acids.
5. If only one type of sugar (D or L) will work, how could long polymers of DNA/RNA form from a 50/50 mixture? Has there been any naturalistic condition found which could separate the two out, leading to polymers of only 1 type being formed? Polymers could form but they would not be functional. I would think that they would be stickey like candy
-
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
Hooberus
Well put and I agree fully.
-
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
In response to the above, let us get off attacking persons and look at the evidence. How do you explain the origin of the genome? How do you get a functional cell from a set of chemicals? Also, I assume that my offer above was rejected.
-
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
Hooberus You mean :Maybe the dodo situation is an example of some form of artificial selection, but can it be extrapolated to prove the origin of the dodo itself ? My responce is no.
-
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
Thanks for the clarification. I see my statement was not as clear as it should be.
I said "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 and it would be clearer to state as follows:
Now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the common dodo evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.
Again thanks for the clarification. I need to check my revised version to see if the same ambiguity is present, and clarify it as well (this is why it is critical to have critics read your papers). This is also a problem creationists have. Our critics are glad to review and critique our papers, but only after we publish. The review should be before we publish, not after.
-
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
100 quarter hours (equal to amount of course work needed for a Ph.D.) is not 25 hours but 3 to 4 years full time study.
-
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
You obviously are not familiar with the American educational system. 100 quarter hours is about 4 years full time graduate work. 12 to 14 hours per term is full time (40 hours plus per week commitment). You should understand the system before you criticize it. The article on the web is considered published and they will not replace it with a newer copy (no journal will that I know of). Thus my revision will have to be published elsewhere. Are you turning down my offer? As to "You seem to think that because man introduced the factors that made the dodo unfit for its changed environment, it doesn’t count as an example of selection. It does.'" I would say it was caused to go extinct by humans but this does not prove much as to Darwinism because humans could wipe all life off the earth (and have already wiped many forms of life off the earth) but this does not prove that all life evolved by the accumulation of mutations (the ultimate source of genetic information accordingly to Darwinists). read David Raup (see below)
Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?
by David M. Raup
Look inside this book
Availability: Usually ships within 24 hoursList Price: $12.95 Price: $10.36 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details. You Save: $2.59 (20%)
Used & new from $4.00
Edition: Paperback | All Editions
From Kirkus Reviews
A remarkably candid book on what we know and (mostly) what we don't know about evolution and extinction. Raup, a ``statistical'' paleontologist at the Univ. of Chicago, is best known for his popular exposition of a theory that extinctions come in 25-million- year cycles, an idea that spawned the notion that the sun had a dark companion (``Nemesis'') that periodically triggered cometary showers that wrecked havoc on earth. Maybe not Nemesis, Raup says, but he still holds out for periodicity and mass killing via meteor impact. Before reviewing theories of extinction, Raup provides useful insights and details on evolution and a number of tables illustrating time scales, percentages of organisms dying, etc., as well as a philosophical discussion of the value of extinction. He argues that an extinction-free world might not lead to as much diversity as the world has enjoyed. We can't be sure, but would birds or whales or humans have evolved in the absence of the terrain created after mass killings of other species? Everywhere, he urges caution--the data are not available; people are distressingly anthropomorphic as well as suspicious of unearthly theories of extinction. In a wonderful tour de force, he lays out the arguments and counterarguments for the theory that large impact craters are the cause for mass extinctions. Both sides are convincing. In the end, Raup makes a strong case that extinction is necessary for evolution and largely blind to the fitness of organisms. A first strike, such as human intervention or an epidemic disease, may trigger the beginning of extinction. So may bad genes. But, overall, bad luck is more likely. While the book is important for what it has to say about life on earth, it is also a marvelous exposition of think and double-think in science. -- Copyright ©1991, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
From Book News, Inc.
Though the Alvarez theory, that the demise of the dinosaurs may have been affected by a fall of meteors, is still scientifically suspect, Raup (statistical paleontology, U. of Chicago) figures he may as well be hung for a cow as for a calf, and argues that all extinctions of species are at least partly caused by meteors. The thought that even the fittest of the fit can be in the wrong place at the wrong time, is chilling to human smugness about being the crown jewel of evolution. The writing is...read more --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Customer Reviews Avg. Customer Review:
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.Assignment, March 10, 2003
I don't think I would recommend this book to the average person. If someone was curious about extinction and different theories then they might like this book. I was hoping it would be more about extinction and dinosaurs. Anyway the author did a good job explaining his thoughts on extinction. It was interesting seeing how the author kind of explained how extinction could be as simple as bad luck, a species just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A lot of the points are expressed well and some of the information was interesting but it still wasn't my type of book.Reviewer: Jerod from USA 3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
Forgot to mention this in my previous review, April 4, 2001
I forgot to mention this in my previous review. Reviewer: [email protected] (see more about me) from Santa Clara, CA In addition to Raup's idea that meteors account for periodic die-offs, his idea is interesting for another reason.
Back in the early 19th century, when geology and paleontology were becoming sciences, it used to be thought that sudden, catastrophic changes in the earth's geology were the main mechanisms by which the earth's surface was changed over time and transformed.
For example, there were the Vulcanists (no, they are not from Star Trek) who believed that diastrophic processes (i.e., vulcanism and other heat-generated processes) were responsible for transforming the earth's surface and atmosphere in geologic times.
Then there were the Neptunists, who held that great floods had transformed the earth's surface (such as in the case of the Noachian Deluge, in the Bible).
Then in the mid-1800's came Charles Lyell (who was also Darwin's geology professor), who documented gradual changes, such as those occurring as a result of erosion. Lyell's ideas become known as Uniformitarianism, which contrasted with the earlier theories of Catastrophism, of which Vulcanism and Neptunism are examples.
So Raup's idea is essentially a return to an earlier form of geological explanation, in that it lands him back in the Catastrophism camp.
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:highly readable and informative book on extinction, March 2, 2001
David M. Raup does an extraordinary job in this fine work on the mysteries of extinction. Addressing not only the infamous K-T extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs, pterosaurs, prehistoric marine reptiles, ammonites, and many less well known organims of the Mesozoic, he addresses other significant extinction events in earth's history, ranging from the Cambrian period all the way up to extinctions in recent centuries, such as the heath hen in the eastern United States. Raup is able to draw many interesting theories and conclusions by analyzing extinction as an event and process seperate from and beyond the details of the individual organisms. Too many works, at least popular works, dwell overmuch on the extinction of the dinosaurs and related archosaur fauna (and to a lesser extent the mammalian and avian megafauna at the end of the Pleistocene)and fail to draw overall conclusions about what extinction is, how it comes about, and what roles it plays in the history of life on earth. Though the details of particular organims that become extinct are important, Raup seeks to draw broader and more widely applicable conclusions, and in this he succeeds brilliantly.Reviewer: Tim Martin (see more about me) from Madison, AL USA Raup analyzes and addresses a variety of potential causes of extinction from biological (such as predation, epidemic disease, etc.) to physical (sea level rises and falls, volcanism, etc.) to fairly exotic (cosmic radiation, asteroid impact, etc.), as well of course interactions between various causes. He also discusses the importance of small population sizes playing a role in and of themselves in a species extinction, how small populations (using the heath hen as an example) are uniquely vulnerable to such factors as demographic stochasticity, extrinsic forces, social dysfunction, and so forth, all described in informative but very readable format. The debate over the role of small population size is particularly interesting in discussions of potential modern day extinctions, a probelm faced by modern day conservationists and environmentalists.
Weaving in discussions of probability, statistics, geology, astronomy, climate, and the overall history of life on earth, Raup does an excellent job on the subject of extinction. Any amateur paleontologist or indeed biologist, as well as those involved in conservation efforts, would be well served by this book.
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:Neither: Bad Title, February 27, 2001
David Raup collaborated with Jack Sepkowski in suggesting Earth's been bashed by comets periodically, almost predictably. The research suggested that we take a harder look at extinction than has been done previously. He thinks we avoid looking at extinction as too frightening. Since it logically applies as much to ourselves as to all those species lost in the remote stretches of time, it's a valid argument. But it happens, and we should educate ourselves on extinction's record. Reviewer: stephen a. haines (see more about me) from Ottawa, Ontario Canada Raup tries to further our education with a fine description of the fossil record. His depiction of the Ediacaran and Cambrian eras is a joy to read. Few have provided such a vivid account in so little space. His account of the Cambrian gives laudatory credit to Gould's Wonderful Life. That Gould's analysis has been devastated by later research doesn't detract from what Raup's given us. His presentations are intelligible and vividly depicted.
He presents some numerical models, citing genus and species counts of various extinction scenarios. His graphical presentation of the "kill curve" is designed to show high percentage population losses are rare events. He defends his catastrophist thesis with accounts of near- extinctions from which species recovered. Except for attributable human intervention, he argues, "the chances of a field biologist catching a species at the instant of global extinction are small". Quite true, but his assertion fails to reflect that "speciation" is a term devoid of clear definition. We can't determine whether a current species could successfully reproduce with individuals from an earlier time.
In his look at catastrophic extinction, Raup takes some sidelong swipes at gradualism in the evolutionary process. While he's correct in asserting we need to understand extinction better than we do, his assault on gradualism is misplaced. By limiting his view, he's ignored the role of adaptation in species creation and extinction. He states that there's no known reason why a species couldn't live forever. This is fallacious since the world is constantly changing and species must adapt or go extinct. There's no such thing as a "bad gene", there are only genes which survive change, or don't. When enough don't the species disappears. Perhaps he should have entered into another collaboration, this time with a biologist.
What Raup has contributed to extinction debates is the need to look more closely at the correlation between significant geologic [or cosmic] events and species loss. A reasonable undertaking and Raup presents a wealth of reasoned evidence for many extinctions. He presents a list of "exotic" causes of extinctions, finding few of them statistically convincing. His conclusion is that those earth-bashing comets and meteorites need further investigation. Craters, the only physical evidence of cosmic impact, are elusive subjects for study. They weather, are erased by continental subduction and may lie undersea. The recent discovery of the Chicxulub crater in the Caribbean wasn't sought by paleontologists. But Raup must have rejoiced at the find. It's apparently from the bolide that coincides with the extinction of the dinosaurs. It certainly supports his contention that the Big Five extinctions are the results of cosmic impacts.
Raup did himself a disservice in choosing Stephen J. Gould to write the Introduction to this book. Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" concept has simply proven little more than a feeble attempt at Darwin bashing. His assertion that Charles Lyell's "credo makes little sense" is outrageous. It's a self-serving comment attempting to indirectly shore up his failed thesis. Geologic processes don't operate in fits and starts. Even Raup, further in the text, recounts that in our lifetimes we're unlikely to witness continents moving, suffer catastrophic earthquakes or be struck by meteors. Gould's statement so early on nearly caused the book to be put aside unread. Pity. It's worth a read.
Assignment, March 10, 2003 
highly readable and informative book on extinction, March 2, 2001 