1.8.15   21:46 To GOE

Hello Tyler,

​

Your replies astound me! I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised at the insults, rudeness, etc. – after all, this is stock in trade for most evolutionists – but I would expect rather better from someone who claims to be a Christian. I have been unable to reply to you sooner, because I’ve been at work all day; but that is perhaps as well as it means I can give a more considered response than might otherwise have been the case!

Well, you tell God that He is a liar in what He said in Exodus 20:11, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised when you do the same to me.  However, to prove you wrong, let me introduce you to Dr Geoff Barnard, Ph.D. (University of London), M.A. (Theol.), M.I. Biol., C. Biol.

(Details about him can be found here. I should point out that since his move to Israel some years ago I have lost touch with him, so as far as I know he has never seen my website. Therefore my reference to him here in no way indicates that he would confirm or deny anything on this site. However, while minor details may vary from what he would say, I believe the keys points are correct and in any case I have quoted from qualified and reliable sources to support them: e.g. the quote in the notes at the end of the Challenge is by Dr Robert W. Carter, who amongst other things has written computer programs to analyse human genetic data. So this is now two scientists I have quoted (and there are more!), specialising in the field, who agree evolution is impossible.)

I first met him around 15 or so years ago (I forget exactly when it was), when he gave a series of lectures on his specialised subject of molecular biology. Look him up on the Internet. No, to save you the bother of searching, here’s a link, if you can bring yourself to look at a creationist website:  http://creation.com/dr-geoff-barnard. One of his favourite sayings in relation to the molecular structure of a cell, was

“Evolution is impossible because there is no mechanism for it.”

Indeed, he pointed out that all the systems and structures within a cell related to mutation are there to prevent it, not to enable it to happen. This, of course, is exactly as creation predicts, while it is the opposite of what evolution predicts: how on earth could mutation that produces sufficient advantage for it to be favoured by natural selection and passed on evolve a system that is designed to prevent mutation from occurring and being passed on? However, that is a side issue and I don’t want to be diverted from the main point.

​

So I have listened to many hours of lectures from him on the molecular structure and systems within a cell, and also discussed it with him on occasions. (In fact it was his comment that the change from some sub-human species to modern man would be orders of magnitude larger than could ever get through the ‘anti-mutation systems’ (my phrase) in the cell, that led me to see if numbers could be put to the problem).  I have also listened to lectures (in the same series) from scientists specialising in other fields, all with the common theme: ‘in my speciality I see proof of creation and the impossibility of evolution’! In addition I have read many books on both sides of the debate. Indeed, it was reading one of Massimo Pigliucci’s books that resulted in my website. Having seen the huge holes in his arguments, and his inconsistencies and dependence on straw-man arguments, I wrote my response to it for the benefit of the person who loaned me the book thinking it would destroy my creationism. Instead it confirmed it, and my response led that person to rethink their own understanding. I then decided to put it on the web, and so it started, evolving into what it is today.

​

(You can see it here.)

​

Since molecular biology is not your specialised field, you are no more qualified in the area than I am! So I understand you saying, “I am not an expert on all things related to evolutionary science,” but I do find it extraordinary that a man who has a website designed to destroy the arguments of creationism, has no answer to the most basic and fundamental question of them all. It is quite clear that you do not have the answer, because if you did you would have treated me the same way you treat the other creationists and have my ‘Challenge’ on view and belittle it with your superior knowledge.

​

Evolution is primarily, if not totally, about a species turning into a higher species, over and over and over again, producing all the life forms on earth from a single cell; but if it doesn’t happen at the molecular level in a cell, it doesn’t happen at all. And yet you can’t explain the simple observation that the mutational change we see does not fit with evolutionary theory. Ok, if you can’t answer it follow your own advice and do what I did: go and ask a scientist – one who is qualified in the field. The question is:

​

How can evolution be true when the amount of mutation in nuclear DNA required to produce the difference we see between chimps and humans from a common ancestor in 6 million years is orders of magnitude larger than what can be observed to take place and be favoured by natural selection; while the amount and rate of mutation observed in mitochondrial DNA is orders of magnitude smaller than what should be there after c180,000 years of human life?

Of course, if your comprehension is as poor as it appears to have been when reading my challenge, you may not be able to understand such a long sentence (two can play at the insults game :-) ). Certainly, if you misunderstand everything you read the way you misunderstood my mention of Haldane, then it is not surprising you have been taken in by evolution (or are you deliberately putting up a straw-man argument?). I simply quoted him to point out that the problem has been known since he first mentioned it, and then explained a little of what he said – nothing of which has any effect on my argument – the figures I used in my example answers had nothing to do with Haldane. My use of his 300 generations at the end was purely because it is a coincidental multiple of the 30,000 generations of Lenski: but the fact that the greatest mutation preserved by natural selection that Lenski saw was 2, once in a massively higher population than ever could be the case in mammals, after 30,000 generations, blows all evolutionary theory out of the water and makes anything Haldane or anyone else said totally irrelevant. I have yet to see anything from an evolutionist that solves the problem. Rather it has become very much greater as more has become known.

(It doesn’t matter what figure is used at this point: even using just one generation instead of Haldane's 300 results in a period far longer than would fit into any evolutionary timescale: in this case it works out at 2,373,525,000 years to produce the change; about half the evolutionary estimate of the age of the earth!)

​

Finally this exchange is getting us nowhere; so please do not write to me again unless it is to include a valid answer to the question I have given you. In the meantime, as you suggest, I will certainly quote ‘god of evolution’ as one more example of the inability of evolutionists to defend their theory from this most obvious observation. In fact I may put all of this correspondence on my website as an example of the impotence of evolutionary theory to meet the challenge.

​

Best wishes,

​

Les

​

1.8.15   22:25 From GOE

Hey Les,

​

Wow, you talked to a proponent of young-earth creationism, whose a priori belief is that evolution is impossible (based on his misunderstanding of scripture), and he agreed with you that evolution is impossible. Well, color me impressed.

(His arrogance is breath taking! He writes off a scientist specialising in the field under discussion, who has qualifications far higher than Tyler’s, because he is a creationist. Well, every evolutionary scientist under the sun has an a priori belief that creation is impossible: so what’s the difference? It is very clear that with Tyler it is a case of, “I’ve made my mind up, don’t confuse me with the facts!”)

​

Again, you can think whatever you want about me if it gives you the warm fuzzies inside. The fact remains that your question is not that hard, and any legitimate scientist in the relevant fields could explain to you what you are getting wrong. I still don't believe you have the slightest interest in getting the answer, or you would have one. It is that simple.

​

(By 2005, when this bio was written, Dr Barnard had published over 50 peer-reviewed research papers and written nine chapters for academic science textbooks. He also held five patents at that time, mainly in the field of immunoassay techniques. I think that makes him a legitimate scientist in the relevant field! However, it is clear that regardless of their qualifications, any scientist who supports creation is immediately written off by Tyler as irrelevant. So we have a self-fulfilling prophecy here (or is it a circular argument? I can’t decide which!): “Any scientist who says he believes creation doesn’t count; there are no scientists who believe in creation.” This is why I say Tyler is blinded: he does not take into consideration the work of those who can prove his belief in evolution to be misplaced. It is obvious he has not come across this problem before, since he is implying it has been dreamed up by me! All I am doing is relaying the problem in layman’s terms, however imperfectly, because that is what I am.)

​

You can do whatever you like with our correspondence (not that you need my permission, of course, as you seem to know). I'm really not too worried about any consequences that could arise from anything being posted to your your, um, interestingly designed echo chamber website.

​

Best,

​

Tyler

​

1.8.15   22:28 To GOE

That's not the answer!