Scientific Case Against Evolution

He has 56 publications in peer reviewed scientific journals and seven book chapters in scientific books. He is the primary author of The Design and Complexity of the Cell.

http://creation.com/dr-jeffrey-tomkins

- - - Updated - - -

He also claims there's omitted data in the chimp and human genome study.

http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated

 

Thank you- hate it when people post articles without putting their name on them.

His credentials look solid, but I can find no sign that this paper of his was ever peer reviewed by his fellow geneticists.

Without peer review, it is just the opinion of one geneticist.

Which is contrary to the concensus opinion of geneticists.

 

Yeah that is what his bio says.

Has anyone been able to find any of his articles published in anything other than creationist publications?

I checked with the Journal of Science, with Discover.....I can't find anything.

I looked on a card catalog online- no results.

 

I've yet to see a Creationist that...defends or explains their theory of the development of life on Earth.

Every one of them...merely tries to poke holes in Evolution. And I think some if not many of them know why they do that...same as we do.

 

cool- I find a new way to use Google.

://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=jeffrey+tomkins&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

Unfortunately it appears that none of his articles regarding evolution have been in any scientific journals- it appears that they have been published exclusively in creation journals, and therefore are not peer reviewed.

And his writing is wierdly difficult to confirm- take this article of his

Human DNA Variation Linked to Biblical Event Timeline
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.
July 23, 2012
Each person is different, and each, except an
identical twin, has unique DNA differences. These
differences can be traced across global populations
and ethnic groups. Furthermore, recent research
provides interesting insight about the approximate
time that these DNA differences entered the human race.
A new study reported in the journal Science has advanced our knowledge of rare DNA variation
associated with gene regions in the human genome.1
By applying a demographics-based model to the
data, researchers discovered that the human genome began to rapidly diversify about 5,000 years ago.
Remarkably, this data coincides closely with biblical models of rapid diversification of humans after the
global flood.

But he doesn't cite the actual Science article, doesn't give the name of the article, doesn't give the date or issue- and I am finding it difficult to locate.

I finally found an article which actually does provide the actual citation- and a rebutal

http://eyeonicr.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/some-genetics/

 

The same one you're talking about.

 

PZ Myers also takes him to task for false conclusion.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/06/do-the-creation.html#more

 

PZ Myers...isn't he the guy who made up false rape accusations?

 

mmmmmmmmmmmmmm....not sure. I used to participate in the Panda's Thumb a long time ago...haven't been there in a while, too busy. Just googled it...wow. What was the outcome?

 

You seem deeply troubled by this. I'm sorry for you.

 

"the theory of evolution is concerned strictly with the mechanisms though which biological change occurs... unrelated phenomena... make the idea... more incoherent and confusing."

LOL

 

Or in other words, we are not special. We just are.

 

That's correct.

Yes, if you start looking at non-biological changes, these are not covered by a biological theory. That's why biological theories only apply within the "box" of biology, and not astronomy or geology. Those fields have their own theories.

- - - Updated - - -

I suppose it's legitimate to say that every species that has ever lived, taken together, comprise only an infinitesimal subset of every species that COULD HAVE existed. So any species that happened at all is very special in this respect.

 

Yes, we are all animals...not any one species more special than the other.

 

I can disprove that website without even reading their crap.

Institute for Creation Research

That means they read the Bible and present that as evidence.

Case closed.


But anyway, since it starts off with the usual argument using "kinds" here's a good video showing how awful the Creationist use of "kind" is.

http://youtu.be/PtrZYecJ8QA?t=25m2s

 

Do we infer that biology has nothing to do with geology or astronomy? Do we imagine that biology occurs in a non-terrestrial realm outside the universe?

 

No, we OBSERVE it.

Who is we? You can imagine whatever you wish.

 

What is "it"?

You and I, I imagine at least.

 

I'm coming to the conclusion that we do not speak quite the same language.

You said: Do we INFER that biology has nothing to do with geology or astronomy.

And I answered no, we OBSERVE it (that biology has nothing to do with geology or astronomy.)

 

I said, basically, maybe we shoud think about evolution as a universal phenomenon, and you said, basically, evolution is a biological box. I think you're stuck in a box. Should I care about what you think?

 

Cite me some scientific evidence to prove that macroevolution is true.

 

Atavism proves macroevolution .

 

This information has been provided many times, even in this thread. The issue is not one of available data, it is the seeming inability to read and understand it.

 

Human chromosome2

 

How does the human chromosome 2 prove that macroevolution is true?