Was Darwin Wrong? - powered by motigo.com" />
sign up! webstats forums guestbooks calendars

Was Darwin Wrong?

Write message
Name *: E-mail *:
Homepage: Location:
Message *:
  All fields with a "*" must be filled out!
Page: < 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Entries: 149
05.05.2008 09:34, gert korthof :
Peter Clausen,
could you please specify which photo on which page? I have some 91 pages!

05.05.2008 09:28, gert korthof Homepage :
Da Vinci from Turkey:
the review of Hubert Yockey is here:

Thank for pointing out broken links. I will check them.
Thank you for the compliments.

Gert Korthof

03.05.2008 10:48, Da Vinci from Turkey E-mail Homepage :
Hello Gert,

There are two broken links in this page in Note 1.

The main reason I write here is to learn whether you have read Hubert Yockey's Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life[i] or not. And will you write a review of it?

And I want to thank you for this great website.

03.05.2008 09:59, Peter from USA E-mail Homepage :
Hello Gert,

You have a photo on your website that belongs to me. Please credit the photo to http://bugsincyberspace.com (above or below the photo).

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Peter Clausen


Please specify which photo!
28.04.2008 14:06, Kurt Lightfoot :
Gert, thanks.

My main comment is a strong support for your “3rd synthesis” strategy.

I think your strategy serves important opportunities:
1. Anticipates the future and helps create it
2. Helps prioritize your scarce reading/writing time [this is the ultimate limit --- maybe WasDarwinWrong? can become a “think tank” at some point? ;~) ]
3. Sustains WasDarwinWrong? as the web leader in evolution resources

Regards, Kurt

26.04.2008 12:35, Gert Korthof :
Kurt, thanks very much!
Errors are corrected.
Thanks for the compliments.

PS: the emailnotification of your comment failed. I discovered your comment by accident.

25.04.2008 04:35, Kurt Lightfoot :
Gert, there are a couple of typos on your home page. I’ve indicated them in (*) and the corrections in [*].

In 1859 Charles Darwin established the First Evolutionary Synthesis. This was the first synthesis because Darwin was the first scientist to construct a synthesis of all biological (knowlegde) [knowledge] of his time on the basis of the concept of evolution. In the 20th century (1930s) the incorporation of the Mendelian and population genetics created the Evolutionary Synthesis or Neo-Darwinism, which in fact is the Second Evolutionary Synthesis. Now, in the (21th) [21st] century the ingredients of the Third Evolutionary Synthesis are gradually becoming visible: molecular genetics, developmental biology (evo-devo), genomics, ecology, symbiosis, life history, hybridization, horizontal gene transfer, systems biology, Earth System Science (including Niche Construction and Gaia), origin of life, astrobiology, sociobiology (incl. evolutionary psychology), evolution of consciousness. Clearly, there is work to do!
Gert Korthof, The Netherlands.

I really like what I see in the above. It allows you to prioritize your time to review leaders with goals similar to the above such as James Shapiro and Robert Reid, etc. So… for me…. that means you’re positioned to continue to be the best evolution site on the web!!!!

Cheers, Kurt

28.03.2008 08:04, Gert Korthof E-mail :
Scott, thanks for your comment. I did read Sanford's book. It is so technical that I need further research and thinking to evaluate its claims.
I do not remember that he claims a young earth in his book. I think he is silent about it.
However, if he is a YEC he should read Michael Behe, who accepts common descent of all life on the basis of evidence. Common descent conflicts with independent creation of the human species.

23.03.2008 02:39, Scott Buchanan from USA E-mail :
Dear Gert,
Thanks for maintaining this site. A lot of good info here.
A creationist friend gave me a copy of "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome" by J. C. Sanford. It looks like this book is becoming more popular among creationists. Sanford was a professor at Cornell with some big accomplishments in plant breeding, so he has credibility. You can get a good sense of its contents from a lengthy customer review of the book on Amazon.com.

Here is a two-part review of it: http://newtonsbinomium.blogspo t.com/2006/10/review-of-myster y-of-genome-i.html
http://newtonsbinomium.blogspo t.com/2006/10/review-of-myster y-of-genome-ii.html

Sanford claims that in humans there is not sufficient means for natural selection to overcome the effects of deleterious mutations, so they are accumulating in the population. He claims, "There is a long-standing belief that if the rate of deleterious mutations approached one deleterious mututation per person per generation, long-term genetic deterioration would be a certainty (Muller, 1950)", then cites studies (Kondrashov, 2002 ; Nachman and Crowell, 2000) that the actual rate is more like 100 or more nucleotide substitutions per person per generation.
Sanford claims that nearly all the junk DNA is actually functional in one way or another, and sees beneficial mutations as vanishingly rare, so essentially all these 100+ mutations are viewed as neutral or harmful.
Sandford cites a study by Bergman (2004) who has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 “mutation” hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word “beneficial” (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, almost all the presumed “beneficial mutations” were only beneficial in a very narrow sense- but each mutation consistently involved loss of function changes-hence loss of information. [note, this 2004 paper was presented at an Intell. Design confc, not proper journal].
He claims that you need a high reproductive rate coupled with correspondingly high genetic-selection-related mortality for selection to really have effect on the population genome. In the developed world today, there is litte of this selection operating, so (he claims) deleterious mutations just accumulate.
This deterioration of human genome fits with his creationist viewpoint that humans (Adam and Eve) were created only several thousand years ago with wonderful genes and long lives, and have been going downhill since the Fall.

Well, this is a longer note than I intended. If you get a chance to read this book and email me a few specific rebuttals of its key claims, or if you post a review on your site, I would appreciate it. I will be talking to my friend in mid-April about this.
Best regards,
Scott Buchanan

Page: < 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Entries: 149
Get free forums, guestbooks, calendars, shorturls and web statistics at motigo.
Site Information