Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:34:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Schneider <tdsSPAMBLOCK@post.xecu.net>
Message-Id: <200107091534.LAA08666@shell.xecu.net>
To: philjohn@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Subject: TD Schneiders Still Unanswered Question to Phillip Johnson
Cc: tdsSPAMBLOCK@fred.net
Status:

| I see you are a genetic reductionist, and a very aggressive one.  You act
| as if you were prosecuting a thought-crime, which probably is how you think
| of it. Playing that game doesn't interest me.

Evidently you have not looked at my work.

Thought crimes?  How interesting that you think that is what you are doing.

Saying that you are not interested is another way to avoid dealing with the
question.

Since you have continued to avoid a straightforward question, I am forced to
infer that you don't have an answer.  (If you *do* have an answer, then you
can correct my statement by giving an answer.)  Also by being so evasive, it
suggests that you are not willing to face the truth that your ideas have no
substantial basis.

| I suggest that you go after that notorious creationist, Richard Lewontin.

This is even yet another redirection to avoid answering the question.  I'm
always impressed by such tactics - creationists are quite good at it.  Too
bad it doesn't fool anyone.  Such tactics also make it pretty obvious that
you don't know an answer to my question.  Scientists and honest people, when
asked a question, will answer (if they have time), point to another resource,
suggest an experiment (!) or say they don't know an answer.  In contrast,
creationists avoid giving answers, revealing that (1) they don't know and (2)
they don't want to admit that they don't know.

There is nothing wrong with not knowing.

It is dishonest to pretend to know something when you don't.

The evidence on the web indicates that you are wrong about Lewontin being a
creationist:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/quote_lewontin.html
http://www.biology.harvard.edu/FACULTY/Lewontin.html

You missed Lewontin's point.  There is a lot of hype about the human genome,
but we have not gone far in understanding it since that will take years.

You quoted: "they knew all along that genes don't make proteins."  No
molecular biologist who has ever been to the lab bench would say this, just
as no one on the planet earth would say that on a clear day the sky is other
than blue.  So what have you done?  A slightly larger quote is:

   ... they knew all along that genes don't make proteins. Genes only specify
   the sequence of amino acids that are linked together in the manufacture of
   a molecule called a polypeptide, which must then fold up to make a
   protein. ...

   http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?20010719036F@p3

You did not give a complete quote.  By using only a part you made him look
like he didn't know what he was doing.  That's dishonest, but a very typical
creationist move.  For some reason I had thought you would not fall for these
tricks.  Oh well.

How about being honest and straightforward from now on?

Question:

   Suppose I have two different organisms and I get some DNA sequence from
   both.  The sequences are 98% identical.  Are they the same "kind"?  How
   can one tell two species apart by their DNA?

Dr. Thomas D. Schneider

   I believe in an open mind,
   but not so open that your brains fall out.
   --- Arthur Hays Sulzberger

   http://www.math.unl.edu/~augustyn/godisdead.html
   http://www.math.unl.edu/~augustyn/Sounds/Sounds/backoff.snd