Part Two -
Next...
Lee Spetner -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Spetner
Your video was quite dishonest and deceptive to list his credentials as a bio-physicist, as he is nothing of the sort -
Education
Spetner received his BS degree in
mechanical engineering at
Washington University in 1945
[2] and his Ph.D. in physics from
MIT in 1950, where his Ph.D. thesis advisors were Robert Williams and
Bruno Rossi.
[3]
Spetner first became interested in
evolution in 1970 after moving to
Israel. In Israel he indulged in searching for evidence which contradicted the modern evolutionary synthesis. Spetner was inspired by the rabbi David Luria (1798 - 1855), who calculated that according to
Talmudic sources that there was 365 originally created species of
beasts and 365 of
birds. Spetner developed what he called his "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis", which (in common with Christian
young earth creationists) accepted
microevolution (which he attributed to
Lamarckian-like inheritance), but rejected
macroevolution.
[5]
Spetner has been described as a
Jewish Creationist.
[6] In 1980 at a conference for
Jewish scientists, Spetner claimed the
Archaeopteryx was a fraud. Spetner continued his attack on the
modern evolutionary synthesis in his book
Not by chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution.
[7]
So, here we have a creationist who was motivated to look into evolution with the stated goal of overturning it. No bias or agenda there
Next...
Don Batten -
http://creationwiki.org/Don_Batten
Dr. Donald James Batten was born and raised in a rural a part of Australia, and became a
Christian at 10 years all thanks to a street preacher. He had heard a comment from a
zoologist, and he realized that 'evolution is really a belief system parading around as science'. He is now a Creation evangelist working with
Creation Ministries International in Australia, being a major contributor to their magazine
Creation and their technical
Journal of Creation.
Another creationist, what a surprise. You asked why creationists/christians would be biased in their search for the truth about evolution, so here is the answer - they start out with a belief already in place before they start their search, that is the definition of bias. This is not science. Science starts its process neutral, without bias, in order to search for the truth wherever the evidence leads, without a stake in where that goes. Atheist (those who have no belief in deities) scientists start their search with no prior belief, and do not have an agenda nor care where the data leads. They are interested only in the truth of objective reality.
Your video and posts hinge on the erroneous misinformation that no new information is added to genomes through mutation, information is only lost. This is pure bullshit -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Mutation
Further information:
Mutation
Duplication of part of a
chromosome.
Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome. When mutations occur, they can either have no effect, alter the
product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning. Based on studies in the fly
Drosophila melanogaster, it has been suggested that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70% of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.
[70]
Mutations can involve large sections of a chromosome becoming
duplicated (usually by
genetic recombination), which can introduce extra copies of a gene into a genome.
[71] Extra copies of genes are a major source of the raw material needed for new genes to evolve.
[72] This is important because most new genes evolve within
gene families from pre-existing genes that share common ancestors.
[73] For example, the human eye uses four genes to make structures that sense light: three for
colour vision and one for
night vision; all four are descended from a single ancestral gene.
[74]
New genes can be generated from an ancestral gene when a duplicate copy mutates and acquires a new function. This process is easier once a gene has been duplicated because it increases the
redundancy of the system; one gene in the pair can acquire a new function while the other copy continues to perform its original function.
[75][76] Other types of mutations can even generate entirely new genes from previously noncoding DNA.
[77][78]
The generation of new genes can also involve small parts of several genes being duplicated, with these fragments then recombining to form new combinations with new functions.
[79][80] When new genes are assembled from shuffling pre-existing parts,
domains act as modules with simple independent functions, which can be mixed together to produce new combinations with new and complex functions.
[81] For example,
polyketide synthases are large enzymes that make antibiotics; they contain up to one hundred independent domains that each catalyse one step in the overall process, like a step in an assembly line.
[82]
We can see from the above excerpt how mutation consistently introduces new info into the genome. I implore you to lose your preconceptions, bias, ignorance and agenda on this topic, and to continue (or begin) your education into evolution by natural selection. The evidence is clear and overwhelming to any competent mind free of bias. This can be accomplished by halting exposure to creationist sources and exposing oneself to the actual theory. Wiki is a great place to start. Barring this, you have at least been exposed as someone who doesn't know what they are talking about, and other members are now free to ignore or discredit your ignorant posts...
