I went back to some of my old emails and found the below exchange - It was sent to me by a friend a while ago. To be clear, I am not sharing it in an attempt to lend weight to my personal skepticism, rather, I am sharing it (as well as many others I could share) to illustrate what happens when you simply challenge and or question what is a widely accepted theory.
(I am posting the entire exchange below, for full context - sorry it's kinda long)
In a discussion with an evolutionaut, I was referred to a paper that purportedly described how lungs evolved. I used lungs as an example of an organ system that could not possibly evolve in microsteps. The “respected” peer reviewed paper he referred me to, after going through rhetorical gyrations, concluded that we don’t know how lungs evolved. The paper: Deconvoluting Lung Evolution Using Functional and Comparative Genomics, from the American Journal of Respiratory Biology, was written by: TORDAY John S. ;REHAN Virender K. The paper concludes:
” We are still far from uniting proximate ontogenetic mechanisms and ultimate adaptive processes to explain the evolution of lung structure and function…”
An honest assessment, unlike the title, much to the chagrin of the evolutionaut that referred me to the paper. I added this paper to the papers I used on this blog to demonstrate that no paper that touted that the writer will explain how the entity being described evolved actually did so. No peer reviewed evo-paper has any idea how any biological system evolved. One of the writers of the paper cited, Dr. John Torday, noticed that I had a segment of his paper on my blog. He left a comment, which I responded to. We had a brief discussion, which ended the same way so many discussions with evolutionauts and evo-illusionists do, as you will see. Dr. Torday, has written 15o peer reviewed papers, 321 abstracts, on the subject of evolution; and a book, “Evolutionary Biology, Cell-Cell Communication, and Complex Disease”. So he is extremely well qualified to come to this blog and discuss with me. The discussion began with John: (My side-bars are in red.)
John Torday said
October 13, 2013
Steve, I note that you cited our paper Torday Joseph Smith, Rehan VK. Deconvoluting lung evolution using functional/comparative genomics. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2004 Jul;31(1):8-12., in which we acknowledged that we are a long way from understanding the process by which the lung evolved. The point of the paper was to demonstrate that cell biology is absent from the evolution literature, and can be exploited to trace the evolution of the lung back to its origins using ontogeny and phylogeny as guideposts. We may never know our origins, but we must continue to strive in that effort if we are to move away from fear and uncertainty towards knowledge and power over our fate. Evolution is existential, and is the mechanism by which we have been granted the Free Will of inquiry. If only folks like you would work towards the continued gaining knowledge and fostering inquiry we would all be the better for it. We went through the Luddite phase of human history, riding on the momentum of The Enlightenment. Must we re-learn that lesson? I guess so. jst
(I gave him a friendly and respectful response. I always hope I can get an intelligent and respectful discussion with any evolutionaut or evo-illusionist. It’s such a rare occurrence.)
October 13, 2013
Thanks for commenting on my blog. I feel honored that you would take the time. Reality is that there is no possible or even imaginary pathway to the evolution of ANY biological system of any kind. Evolution can’t even account for the formation of a simple blood vessel or pulmonary alveoli. All papers (like yours) on the subject of the evolution of any biological system are replete with anatomy, biochemistry, physiology; but not one can explain any evolutionary pathway whatsoever. If you can’t explain the pathway to a lung micro-sac, how can you ever explain a lung? And the blood vessels that inundate the lung? You say you are modern science, and obviously think I am calling for a reversal to the dark days of ignorance. These ARE actually the dark days of ignorance. We humans have no idea what the source of any biological system is, so our lifeboat is evolution. Science is stuck in this lifeboat. Good science should say that mankind just isn’t even in the ballpark here. We should continue a search certainly. Evolution has ceased that search. All writings (like yours) and and all research are geared to PROVE evolution, not to SEARCH the truth or TEST evolution. Your paper’s conclusion is actually scientifically very correct, except for the part where you assign evolution as the creator of the lung. We humans have no idea how lungs came to be. We both know that to be fact. When you can explain the formation of the lung, (and vision, and hearing, and consciousness/intelligence, and bird flight…) THEN make the theory. Until then, humans have no theory. They have a fable.
John Torday said
October 29, 2013
Hi Steve, I fully agree with you that traditional Darwinist mutation and selection cannot explain evolution. However, the approach I have advocated in Evolutionary Biology, Cell-Cell Communication and Complex Disease (Wiley, 2012; Amazon.com) provides a portal for understanding the evolution of complex physiology starting with unicellular organisms. Bear in mind that there is no cell biology in all of evolution theory, so how could the current state of that discipline possibly be relevant to all the other cell-based biologic disciplines. The ‘fossil record’ is buried in the cell signaling mechanisms responsible for multicellular organisms, but of course they are not evident in the physical fossils. That’s why the molecular clocks invariably point to much earlier stages in phylogeny than the boney fossils do, for example. I am trying to pave the way to a working model of evolution. John
(No cell biology in evolution theory? Cells didn’t evolve? Uh oh. Of course they HAD to evolve to get to where we are today. The first known cells, bacteria, had to form their various parts (flagella, organelles, etc.), evolve into various species, and into eukaryotes, much larger cells with encapsulated cell- parts that make up humans and all modern multi-cellular organisms. Maybe he means there is no cell biology written about in the theory? His is the only paper?)
October 30, 2013
I wish you luck in your research. Sincerely. I really wish evolution were the answer, as it’s so simple and basic. It was a great answer for me for many years. I was a staunch supporter and fan. Of course you know I have a preconceived notion about the outcome of your research. From my studies, thoughts, and observations, evolution isn’t even in the mix as a source for the origin of biological systems and species. The biggest problem is not “design” as is touted and argued by evolution science. It’s invention: the bringing into existence of incredibly complex entities (like auditory systems, brains, consciousness, and cardiopulmonary systems) AND comparatively simplistic entities (like eukaryotic cells, bird nests, and tubes) on an absolutely sterile planet. Improvement in design is dwarfed by origination of design.
I would like to read your book, but why so expensive? Mine is 265 pages, and sells on Amazon for $15 Also, I would like to forward you a copy of my book as my gift if you think you would give it a read. It is very different than my blog, and has a lot of new thoughts and material. Evo-illusion has chapters that deal with the origin of cells, the first multicellular organisms, and why they are evidence that evolution cannot be the source.
It’s not religious in the least, nor am I. So it isn’t the creationist material that every evolution supporter expects. I would like to get an intelligent critique, and I think I could expect one from you; if you think you might have the time, and interest.
Thanks for the reply
John Torday said,
October 30, 2013
Steve, the price of my book was determined by the publisher. Please send me your book and I will read and comment. I will send you mine by email as an attachment. What’s your email address?
(I set the price of my own book. Most soft-cover books of two to three hundred pages cost about $15 to $20. So why would John’s be r $74.65? My gawd, His Kindle is $60.00! Mine is $3.99. I hope his book isn’t’ a course requirement for his classes at UCLA. John’s students not only get evo-indoctrinated, they get ripped off on their class book as well? Or maybe he doesn’t want any sales, which his price guarantees. I can’t imagine which.)
October 30, 2013
Great. I will look forward to reading yours. And your critique of mine. My email address is xxxxxxxxx. I just updated my book, so I will get copies in about a week. I should be able to get your address off your website?
John Torday said,
(John and I are now good buddies, and exchanging books!)
November 7, 2013
Regarding a way of understanding the evolutionary process, there is no cell biology in all of the evolution literature other than what I have published. If you start from single-celled organisms, the entire blueprint for multicellular organisms is held within them. As proof of principle, that is why we go from zygote to zygote. And as for your comment about not seeing ‘half evolved livers, or hearts or blood vessels’, you do, at the molecular level; the genetic basis for all of those structures lies within the phylogenetic background for the ancestral lineage; why else would there be a progression for the heart from the worm to amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds? The cell membrane of the unicellular organism is the homolog of all of the multicellular vital organs-skin, lung, kidney, heart, brain. And even if that’s not exactly right, at least in the pursuit of this model of evolution we will learn more and more about what the ultimate truth for how and why we exist is. It is far better than sitting in ignorance in an intellectual vacuum. I found your blog because you had cited one of my peer-reviewed scientific concepts for cellular evolution, in which you cherry-picked my intellectually-honest comment that we don’t know how the lung evolved, yet the paper offered a novel way of thinking in a forward direction about how that could be accomplished that was testable and refutable.
(John proposes a fable, (half-evolved organs exist at the molecular level), then says it may not be “exactly right”, which it isn’t. Then he suggests that I am sitting in “ignorance, in an intellectual vacuum.” Is the “demean card’ being played here, or is it my imagination? We’ll see. What is astounding is he thinks the blueprint for multicelled organisms is carried by unicellular organisms. Of course that is true only if the unicellular organism is the fertilized egg of a multicellular organism. Species that spend their entire existence unicelled of course have no blueprints for anything but future unicelled organisms. What John is doing here is taking the most difficult roadblock for evolution, the evolution of sexual procreation, and turning it into evidence that supports evolution. Evolution cannot account whatsoever for the evolution of sexual procreation. This is a brilliant move for an evo-illusionist that is trying to trick his students. I wonder if he gets challenged by any of them in any of his classes on this one. Most are pre-indoctrinated, and they are going for a grade, so I doubt it. )
November 7, 2013
When I wrote my book, I thoroughly researched what evolution has to say about the origin of cells, and the evolution of multicellular organisms from single celled species. As you say, there was and is virtually an immense hole in evolutionary theory. Evolution can’t even attempt to explain the bridge from single celled species to the smallest multiples: 1,000+ celled species. There aren’t any examples in the fossil record, and none that exist today to show how that evolution occurred. Your “progression” is cherry picked.
If you choose to cite progressions, you must show progressions for all biological systems, which you cannot. The progression for the evolution of a simple sac (bladder, bird lung sac, gall bladder) and ducts and blood vessels kill your notion about demonstrable progression. No human can even come up with a fable that describes the evolution of sacs and tubes. The cardiopulmonary systems that you cite are made up of immense numbers of tubes and sacs. If you choose to cite hearts, show me how their closed systems evolved:, the tubes in those hearts, the sacs in the lungs that feed them oxygen, and the closed “sacs” (chambers) in the hearts, How did they come to be by slow progression?
Were did the “entire blueprint” you cite come from? Do you have even imaginary steps for the formation of the coding and “blueprint” for any biological system?
Regarding: “The cell membrane of the unicellular organism is the homolog of all of the multicellular vital organs-skin, lung, kidney, heart, brain.”
This isn’t acceptable from an educated person such as you. You are proffering dogma. This is purely made up stuff.
Re: “It is far (better) than sitting in ignorance in an intellectual vacuum.”
This is pure strawman. You are suggesting that I prefer “sitting in ignorance in an intellectual vacuum”, which is insulting, and not well thought out by you John. The intellectual vacuum is presented by evolution. As long as it is accepted as valid science, and as long as scientists spend all of their efforts trying to prove this faulty theory, instead of going with what the evidence shows, science is in a vacuum. It will be for hundreds of years, thanks to Darwin.
The conclusion of your paper is the exact same as the conclusion of virtually every single paper that I researched. Evolution peer reviewed papers that supposedly explain the evolution of biological systems always discuss anatomy, histology, physiology… not one single one, including yours, has any idea how even the simplest of biological systems evolved or formed. Not one. I have many other examples on the page where your paper is quoted. They are all the same. I could add hundreds of more examples.
Evolution cannot design anything. But even more daunting for evolution scientists is the explanation of how evolution invented. Designs yield improvements on inventions. Inventions produced by nature are incredible electromagnetic and bio-mechanical systems that even the best geniuses who ever lived could not think up if they somehow could view the Earth as a sterile planet free of any devices of any kind. The greatest geniuses couldn’t even come up with the concept of life. Nor can they define it. Which means humanity is still out in the cold as far as solving the Puzzle of origins.
John Torday said,
November 7, 2013
Steve, do you question the validity of development starting from a single fertilized egg? Unless you do, you must acknowledge that our Physiology emanates from a single cell, and the consensus is that multicellular organisms emanated from single cells phylogenetically as well. My guess is that if you had been present when Prometheus discovered fire, you would have blown the flame out in the name of ignorance.
(Ah, there is it. The “demean card”. It wasn’t my imagination at all. This guy that sounded so friendly at first was just an ordinary evo-illusionist, fooling his students en mass. And trying to fool me. He thinks I would have blown out Prometheus’ fire? Prometheus didn’t discover fire anyway. There were plenty of fires around before he came along. Dr. John Ph.D. might want to check his history on this one.)
November 7, 2013 at 11:27 pm · Edit
John, you are getting insulting, which is what virtually all evolutionauts do when they don’t have rational and plausible answers. In your mind you are smart and superior; you have all the answers. You have been empowered by evolution. Evolution gave you the power to demean a person (like me) with questions. Anyone who even attempts to discuss why evolution may not be the solution to the Puzzle is “ignorant”. I really expected more from you. You are doing no more than any routine run of the mill evolution zealot that comments on my YouTube videos. I hope you reload on some of these comments. By the way John, do you know the difference between cellular differentiation and evolution? I certainly hope so, at your level of education. Your question intimates that you are a bit confused about these two processes.
(That was the last I heard from John. For now, anyway.)
End of exchange.