Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 23:40:03 -0800
To: Andrew Arensburger <>
From: David McDougall
Subject: Re: Darwin Fish 


At 02:19 AM 1/14/98 -0500, Andrew Arensburger wrote:

>[1] Richard Dawkins, "Climbing Mount Improbable."
>	For that matter, one can find any number of just plain stupid
>design decisions and "gross hacks." Aside from the human eye mentioned
>above, I'll mention the useless appendix and its tendency to flare up,
>the fact that a human newborn's head is too big for the mother's
>pelvis (or, conversely, that the pelvis is too narrow), which makes
>labor painful and often fatal.

A reason for this is given in the Bible.  No other "philosophy" even hints
at an explanation for this observable fact.

>	Or take the fact that mitochondrial DNA is kept inside the
>mitochondria (which themselves are inside the cell), instead of inside
>the nucleus, with all the rest of the DNA.

So?  It works doesn't it?  What would happen if the two were not separated?
Does he know?  Has he tested?  Can he test... or just ridicule and spew

>	Or look at flounder eyes: flounder start out with one eye on
>each side of the body. Then one of them migrates to the opposite side.
>	Many deep-sea fishes have non-functional eyes. So do a lot of

O.K., we have environmental adaptation/obsolescence.  Again; so?  It neither
debunks creation nor supports natural selection leading to new and unique
organisms, (nor explains the beginning).

>> Archaeopterix is one of the most touted "proofs" of evolution I know of and
>> yet his teeth are found in a variety of birds today,
>	Such as? I'm not aware of any birds with teeth.

I'll have to watch several hours of tapes to find this again.  I'm not
running, but do need time.  Of course, I said at the beginning that I wasn't
an expert, but could point you to a source of information that would
convince anyone who really wants to consider the evidence.  All of his
features are found in other birds.  I will try and locate the list.

>Archaeopteryx also has a number of dinosaur features that are not
>found in birds.

You mean he has features similar to those of other species that became
extinct around the same time frame?  Isn't that what we would expect?  All
of the mammals in West Virginia have a slight red hue to their coats, (deer,
squirrel, rabbits, etc).  All it proves is that the high iron content in
West Virginia clay produced an environmental adaptation in the existing
animal life there.  We don't assume from this that 12 point rabbits living
in trees will result from this phenomena.  The two are completely unrelated.

>> Human blood antegen A is the same as that found in the butter bean.
>	(I hope I'm misunderstanding, and that you're not saying that
>beans have blood.)

No, I mean that the identical genetic composition is found in both.

>	Of course, the very existence of junk DNA is an argument
>against design.

Really?  So then a Solaris operating system living in an Ultra which has
enough info to be a developement server, but in reality exists as a dataless
client suggests that the Ultra probably evolved?

Can you picture the systems parts just laying in a heap, together with a
junkyard full of other useless and unrelated parts, suddenly falling into
place as a fully operational system as a result of a meteor strike right
next to the pile?  Ridiculous isn't it?  Then again, this is more probable
than the simplest cell, (which is actually far more complex in design),
coming alive as a result of "natural selection."  The fact of the matter is,
the Ultra could have been configured with any portion of the many available
processes and applications depending upon the designer's intentions.  Can
you relate?

The bottom line is, as you have already observed, that big-E evolution
and/or nautral selection can not explain the beginning... but the Bible
does.  If the Bible text is accurate, then big-E is false.  Either way,
natural selection is not even in the same ball park as big-E.  That would be
like saying that a Unix server would evolve into a Banyan system if it was
just left powered up long enough, since each operates off of a Unix kernel
and the US Marines' system of choice is Banyan, (they could kill all of the
Bezerkly/Mellonheads :-)... but I digress, that would be "un-natural"
selection at best..... :-)))

>	Well, you've said above that (little-e) evolution happens, and
>implied that natural selection does as well.
>	Further discussion might center on whether or not common
>descent is true (this is a separate issue from evolution). You seem to
>say no, above, yet I've mentioned a few bits of evidence that point
>towards "yes."

I believe that I have already said that things produce after their own
kind... according to their abilities to mate and produce offspring.  This is
the only observable science available and the one which falsifies
evolution... and supports the creation account given in Genesis.

I have already proven that your conclusions with regard to junk DNA and
similar unused strings are not necessarily inferred... again by alluding to
testable models with known origins... science.

>	Then there's the question of the origin of life (yet another
>issue unrelated to evolution). Admittedly, conventional science has no
>good explanation (but there's a number of fascinating hypotheses
>floating about). If you have an explanation, and objective evidence to
>support it, I'd love to see it.

Can you see it yet?  Are you willing to look at fossil evidence and evidence
for the young age of the earth?  Are you willing to study after a man far
superior in knowledge to myself with regard to these things, (he also loves
to quote Dawkins, BTW).  It's just a few hours of fact after fact debunking
popularly taught theory... with pictures even!  Of course, you could go to
Lurray Caverns yourself and see the stalagmite growing on the 20 year old
piece of cement bordering the walkway by the "Organ Chamber."  It is about
40 cubic inches, (by my amateur calculations), shows evidence of severely
stunted growth due to handling by humans and utterly confounds the guide who
just briefed minutes earlier that these same structures take between 200-300
years per cubic inch to grow unencumbered!!!!!  If you consider the stunted
growth, assume a theorectical size of roughly triple and consider the known
age, the assumption of a 24,000 year estimated age would be off by more than
three decimal places.

Many such ridiculous and false assumption can be debunked by the simple
observation of the facts.  There is more than you will want to read in your
mailbox.  Watch the tapes.  You'll be convinced if you're the least bit
objective.  I'd be willing to view one of them with you, since we're
neighbors and all.

regards.... Dave
David McDougall

Chapter 5 | Chapter 7