Wrestling With Mitochondrial Eve

[QVQ]

No one is excluding anyone from the discussion that I can tell. Just because I direct a comment to A does not mean that B--F are supposed to leave or ignore it.

Just a thought

We are On Air
When I said "address me" I meant the audience.
These threads are read by many who don't comment
The Audience

 

[EarlyActs]

The Mar 21 talk at AFSC is one of the Seegert presentations on mutations.

https://www.apologeticsforum.org/past-2025-events/

 

[John Bauer]

The Mar 21 talk at AFSC is one of the Seegert presentations on mutations.

https://www.apologeticsforum.org/past-2025-events/

That link took me to a web page with lots and lots of presentations, seven of which were Jay Seegert. Which one did you want me to interact with? I don't know, but I took a stab at it and gave a listen to "Talk on Evolution: Probable or Problematic?" (March 21, 2025) (video). I hope that's the one, because I am taking lots of notes. I will post a response to you once I have given it a fair and thorough hearing.

 

[EarlyActs]

That link took me to a web page with lots and lots of presentations, seven of which were Jay Seegert. Which one did you want me to interact with? I don't know, but I took a stab at it and gave a listen to "Talk on Evolution: Probable or Problematic?" (March 21, 2025) (video). I hope that's the one, because I am taking lots of notes. I will post a response to you once I have given it a fair and thorough hearing.

Yes it was that one. I still have not found if he was on the board and then director of a board on creation and genetics, based somewhere in the NE.

I don't recall him mentioning Dr. Wilder-Smith, but I believe similar material is in his books, many.

 

[John Bauer]

Look up Seegert, The Starting Point, and his material on mutation. How difficult is that?

I have a hunch your point is that it's not difficult—which raises an obvious and interesting question: If your sources are easy to find, why don't you cite them?

I do not accept your conclusions repeated over and over. They are platitudes; you must deal in specifics.

My track record in these forums has abundantly proven my willingness to deal in specifics, and sometimes in painstaking detail. That should tell you, if nothing else, that you need only ask and I would be happy to deliver—because I do deliver. I have been studying these issues in depth for well over a decade, so I have probably dealt with just about every question a young-earth creationist might ask—because I had the same questions.

So, just ask.

I have written Seegerts objections (the analogy of deleting, doubling and interchanging) out twice but you don't deal with one specific part of it, which is transparently clear.

You know what else is transparently clear? The fact that I asked for your sources in order to deal with the objections.

"That's why I posted Seegert's 'book editing' illustration about mutation, to solicit John's comments," you said. "A dismissive response means nothing. I have to know why he objects."

And I replied, "Then provide a proper citation, please, so I can verify what Seegert said and respond to it" (source).

But you didn't. You said I'd find "some deconstructing explanation" for your reference (whatever that means) and told me to look it up myself: "You have the topics and analogies and his organization name, so look it up directly." Because, you see, it's my job to cite your sources for your claims. (That was sarcasm.)

You are the first person I have read in years who does not know that macroevolution is a cosmological view of conventional, secular, anti-supernatural science. So, even on that, I don't know why I should trust anything you put up.

You are probably the only person on the planet who "knows" that macroevolution is a cosmological view. Can you name even one source who says this? Just one.

Are you saying the ordinary meaning of Genesis 1 ... is not credible?

What is "ordinary" supposed to mean here?

The literal meaning of Genesis 1 is credible.

The young-earth creationist interpretation of Genesis 1 is not credible (nor literal).

[Are you saying] that Genesis 1 is the evolutionary process you think happened ...

No.

Genesis 1 describes the dawn of redemptive history 6,000 years ago, which was preceded by several hundred million years of natural history.

I'd like to make clear that conflict between conventional science and biblical-informed science is real.

Okay.

And I would like to make clear that there is no conflict between conventional science and biblically informed science.

Every person I have read over the past decades who said it was not in conflict was misconstruing one or the other.

Name one. Just one.

(You knew that was coming, right?)

To be 'recognizable to an evolutionary biologist' therefore can simply mean that the person is so immersed in cosmological evolution that he cannot see the flaws, especially if he is saying that he sees no conflict.

That is not what I mean. For example, when an Arminian says that Calvinists believe in a God who created humans as pre-programmed robots, a Calvinist would look at that and say, "No, we don't." They are not describing Calvinism in a way that is recognizable to any Calvinist.

Here is another example: I can describe atheism in a way that is recognizable to atheists, who could say, "He's right."

And you, too, could articulate evolution in a way that's recognizable to evolutionary biologists—even though you reject evolution, just as I reject atheism.

But you choose to distort and misrepresent it instead, which is dishonest if done intentionally.

If I hear you put yourself as an authority ("I am living proof") ... I will ignore any further posts you make.

I find myself wondering if this applies to Seegert, too—because he said, "I am absolute proof that God exists" (00.06:35; emphasis added).

When he says, "I am proof," is Seegert putting himself as an authority? (Of course not.)

EarlyActs probably understands the idiom when Seegert says it, but thinks it's something offensive when I say it.

 

[John Bauer]

John Bauer, you were going to review Seegert.

Yes, and I did. But it took me a while to properly interact with his presentation because

• I am a blue collar family man who works full-time,
• and sometimes I am on the road for days at a time.
• the video was an hour and a half long.
• the speaker engaged in a Gish gallop.
• it took several days to edit the raw transcription.
• I had to take a ton of notes.
• I had to investigate many of his claims.

For the readers: The video in question is Jay Seegert, "Evolution: Probable or Problematic?" YouTube video, [1:29:50], posted March 21, 2025, by Apologetics Forum of Snohomish County.

(See, this is how you cite sources, EarlyActs.)

Overall evaluation:

1. What Seegert got right: The storage density of DNA is extraordinary; mutations are random (unpredictable); protein folding is crucial; genes can overlap; splicing allows multiple proteins from one gene.

2. What Seegert got wrong or misrepresented: Mutations are not mostly bad; evolution doesn't claim organisms know what traits they need; overlapping, backward, and encrypted DNA are overblown analogies that distort the reality; mutations can and do generate new functions; information can increase.

3. The main problem: Seegert couches all of these challenges in the context of atheism. Even if we pretend he was correct about everything he said in the video, these are problems for people who believe "there is no God, no creator, no designer—just particles banging together." In other words, none of these things are a challenge for me, who believes God is at work throughout creation.

Again, I can dive deeper into any of these points. Simply ask.

For Christians, the facts of nature are the acts of God. Religion relates these facts to God as their author, science relates them to one another as integral parts of a visible order. Religion does not tell us of their interrelations, science cannot speak of their relation to God.

-- Aubrey L. Moore, Science and Faith: Essays on Apologetic Subjects, 6th ed. (1889; London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1905), 185.

An entirely different problem is one that is so often discussed in England, namely, whether religion allows for the natural evolvement of the species in the organic world from one single primary cell. That question, of course, without reservation must be answered in the affirmative. We should not impose our style upon the Chief Architect of the universe. Provided he remains not in appearance but in essence the architect, he is also in the choice of his style of architecture omnipotent. If it thus had pleased the Lord not to create the species as such but to have one species arise from the other, by designing the preceding species in such a way that it could produce the next higher, the creation would have been just as wonderful.

-- Abraham Kuyper, as quoted in Jan Lever, Creation and Evolution (Grand Rapids International Publications, 1958), 229.

Now for the sake of argument let us suppose that the mainstream picture of gradualism is true, that is, purely gradual processes produced all living things. That picture is completely compatible with God having done it all for his own purposes.

-- Vern Poythress, "Adam Versus Claims From Genetics," Westminster Theological Journal 75 (2013): 69.

Christian apologists have missed an important distinction: They have failed to see that their controversy with a Darwinian atheist is a controversy with his atheism, not with his Darwinism.

 

[EarlyActs]

I just got caught up.

Why would you "edit the transcription"? I mean, to say that aloud undercuts your credibility.
Darwin did not answer his pastors explanation about the sudden abundance of creation; he just got angry about it. As most of us start in this, he believed God owed him. In the script CREATION which has a scene that re-enacts this, a baby sparrow falls and is recycled by ants and bugs after it dies. This is what Darwin was angry about, it seems.

He did not initially subscribe to his theory because of the evidence of bees, etc, and because many creatures have not transitioned at all. 15 years later, wracked by grief, and hallucinating, he completed OS. Not a good progression. Huxley was ticked about the church and bullied a sick Darwin to complete OS.

The most important segue in the Seegert talk was "And that's not the worst of it." I expected you to reply at least once to that.

Do you know the phase of fundamentalism around 1905 when most of them believed the Genesis flood was Caspian? That's Kuyper's era. I know of Kuyper; I don't know that he qualifies as biologically informed.

re the date of the 'spreading out' event.
As you may recall, I believe the 'spreading out' took place some time before Day 1. Day 1 was the arrival of starlight from that; not the sighting of one start, but the glow. In investigating any event, yellow tape is put up to protect the area from intrusion. The "yellow tape" about cosmology is that we have a couple indicators like LY time and the trace signals of C14 that go back 56KYs, but precious little reliable past that. In addition to some ground samples about a near collision of earth in recent time, Velikovsky had ancient references that aligned (China, Israel, etc.). But If I go to the local planetarium, the hosts are effusive about conclusions reached about things 100MYs ago and further--claims that most celestial mechanics cycled much faster than they do now. But that's outside the "yellow tape."

Dr Psarris, also a guest this year at AFSC, where Seegert spoke, said that the life forms of Gen 1 are not microbes. There is a simple textual reason why this is important, and I believe you missed it as you tried to combine the two: there was the parallel decree about any living thing God created in creation week, that it reproduce after its kind. That is morally important because we find shortly in the subsequent evil age of earth that other creatures descended on earth, and experimented outside of this. This partly resulted in giants, and this is proven by a simple look as far away as Peru's Machu Picchu and the logistics of what was accomplished (engineered) there. Examples of this are all over the earth.

So there's two matters here: 1, that microbes would never have resulted in creation week, and 2, that interfering forces created an evil world that is entirely inexplicable in the type of gradualism that came from Huxley, et al. Either reason against it is bad enough!

I find that your attempt to combine things does far more damage than good. Please continue your discussion with Seegert (yes, with him at his site), and let us know what you find. Especially his progression of 'But it gets much worse than this.'

 

[EarlyActs]

Btw, I saw the Seeger line ‘I am proof’. I can’t relate to applying that to a dubious theory under debate and equating it to acclaim for our Creator.

 

[John Bauer]

Why would you "edit the transcription"? I mean, to say that aloud undercuts your credibility.

Because this—

well we are now going to take a closer look at mutations and we're going to do what paul harvey used to do and look at the rest of the story can mutations actually do what they tell us and you're going to find out ain't no way i'm going to make three major points about mutations first of all they're random purposeless and undirected they're occurring in the dna and they're almost all detrimental or bad we go through each one of those really quick here number one they're random and purposeless basically here's a quote from nova online this is a secular source talking about mutations it's sometimes convenient when trying to make sense of evolution to think of changes within a species of having a purpose as though mother nature has some intended goal that she sets out to achieve the bacteria want to survive someone might reason when thinking about the declining effects of antibiotics and so they evolve into resistance strains of course there is no purpose in evolution just random mutations within dna most of which are detrimental to the survivability of the organism those are the three points i just mentioned on my previous slide i actually made the other slide and then i found this quote and like that's cool they're backing up the points that i'm making here but then you look at the popular literature like discover news talking about dinosaurs presumably the sor pods evolve large body size as a strategy to deter predators well what are they saying it's something like this apparently at some point in the past dinosaurs weren't as large as they eventually came to be so they're sitting around the the fire one night and they're saying hey you guys we need to come up with a strategy to deter our predators or we're going to go extinct much sooner than we're supposed to

—is all but unreadable.

So, I had to edit it to make it readable:

Well, we are now going to take a closer look at mutations. We're going to do what Paul Harvey used to do and look at "the rest of the story." Can mutations actually do what they tell us? You're going to find out [there] ain't no way.

I'm going to make three major points about mutations. First of all, they're random, purposeless, and undirected. They're occurring in the DNA and they're almost all detrimental or bad. We [will] go through each one of those really quick here. Number one: They're random and purposeless, basically. Here's a quote from Nova Online (a secular source talking about mutations):

"It's sometimes convenient when trying to make sense of evolution to think of changes within a species as having a purpose, as though Mother Nature has some intended goal that she sets out to achieve. The bacteria want to survive, someone might reason when thinking about the declining effects of antibiotics, and so they evolve into resistant strains. Of course, there is no purpose in evolution. Just random mutations within DNA, most of which are detrimental to the survivability of the organism."

Those are the three points I just mentioned on my previous slide. I actually made the other slide, and then I found this quote and, like, that's cool they're backing up the points that I'm making here.

But then you look at the popular literature, like Discover News talking about dinosaurs: "Presumably, the sauropods evolve large body size as a strategy to deter predators." Well, what are they saying? It's something like this, apparently, at some point in the past: Dinosaurs weren't as large as they eventually came to be, so they're sitting around the the fire one night and they're saying, "Hey, you guys, we need to come up with a strategy to deter our predators or we're going to go extinct much sooner than we're supposed to."

And you're probably the only person who thinks doing this undercuts my credibility.

 

[John Bauer]

Darwin did not answer his pastors explanation about the sudden abundance of creation; he just got angry about it. ... he believed God owed him.

You are not a reliable source for things that were said or things that happened, so people ought to question your claims about such things—as I surely do.

The unreliability of your recollection has been exposed more than once. For example, you claimed that in 1859 Karl Marx produced Das Kapital and unleashed a "final solution" to privately held capital (April 19, 2025). You were wrong on both counts. First, Das Kapital wasn’t produced until 1867, nearly a decade later. Second, it was an economic analysis, not a "final solution" manifesto—a phrase tightly associated with the Nazi genocide (so using it for Marx is deceptive).

Another example was your claim that unbelievers who endorse evolutionary cosmology "don't like to hear about Farrellian probability," a doctrine you attributed to Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards and The Privileged Planet documentary. I own a copy of the book on which that documentary was based, and the word "Farrellian" does not appear anywhere. (I think you were talking about Borel's Law (1965), anyway, to which creationists have eagerly referred as saying, "Any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 10⁵⁰ is considered as having a zero probability (i.e., it is impossible)."

The examples can be multiplied but the point is made: Your claims cannot be trusted and must be verified—which is why I'm always asking for your sources. And so I have told you (August 2, 2025), if you want me to interact with any specific thing someone said, you need to provide a properly cited quote so I can verify it in order to engage it.

The most important segue in the Seegert talk was, "And that's not the worst of it." I expected you to reply at least once to that.

I did reply to that.

(And what he actually kept saying is, "It gets even better than that.")

Do you know the phase of fundamentalism around 1905 when most of them believed the Genesis flood was Caspian? That's Kuyper's era. I know of Kuyper; I don't know that he qualifies as biologically informed.

He qualifies as theologically informed.

Dr Psarris, also a guest this year at AFSC, where Seegert spoke, said that the life forms of Gen 1 are not microbes. There is a simple textual reason why this is important, and I believe you missed it as you tried to combine the two

I tried to combine what two?

... microbes would never have resulted in creation week ...

Who is talking about microbes in Genesis? Not me.

I find that your attempt to combine things does far more damage than good.

I don't think you even understand my view, which undermines your ability to assess it.

Please continue your discussion with Seegert (yes, with him at his site), and let us know what you find.

I did, and I did.

 

[EarlyActs]

Because this—

well we are now going to take a closer look at mutations and we're going to do what paul harvey used to do and look at the rest of the story can mutations actually do what they tell us and you're going to find out ain't no way i'm going to make three major points about mutations first of all they're random purposeless and undirected they're occurring in the dna and they're almost all detrimental or bad we go through each one of those really quick here number one they're random and purposeless basically here's a quote from nova online this is a secular source talking about mutations it's sometimes convenient when trying to make sense of evolution to think of changes within a species of having a purpose as though mother nature has some intended goal that she sets out to achieve the bacteria want to survive someone might reason when thinking about the declining effects of antibiotics and so they evolve into resistance strains of course there is no purpose in evolution just random mutations within dna most of which are detrimental to the survivability of the organism those are the three points i just mentioned on my previous slide i actually made the other slide and then i found this quote and like that's cool they're backing up the points that i'm making here but then you look at the popular literature like discover news talking about dinosaurs presumably the sor pods evolve large body size as a strategy to deter predators well what are they saying it's something like this apparently at some point in the past dinosaurs weren't as large as they eventually came to be so they're sitting around the the fire one night and they're saying hey you guys we need to come up with a strategy to deter our predators or we're going to go extinct much sooner than we're supposed to

—is all but unreadable.

So, I had to edit it to make it readable:

Well, we are now going to take a closer look at mutations. We're going to do what Paul Harvey used to do and look at "the rest of the story." Can mutations actually do what they tell us? You're going to find out [there] ain't no way.

I'm going to make three major points about mutations. First of all, they're random, purposeless, and undirected. They're occurring in the DNA and they're almost all detrimental or bad. We [will] go through each one of those really quick here. Number one: They're random and purposeless, basically. Here's a quote from Nova Online (a secular source talking about mutations):

"It's sometimes convenient when trying to make sense of evolution to think of changes within a species as having a purpose, as though Mother Nature has some intended goal that she sets out to achieve. The bacteria want to survive, someone might reason when thinking about the declining effects of antibiotics, and so they evolve into resistant strains. Of course, there is no purpose in evolution. Just random mutations within DNA, most of which are detrimental to the survivability of the organism."

Those are the three points I just mentioned on my previous slide. I actually made the other slide, and then I found this quote and, like, that's cool they're backing up the points that I'm making here.

But then you look at the popular literature, like Discover News talking about dinosaurs: "Presumably, the sauropods evolve large body size as a strategy to deter predators." Well, what are they saying? It's something like this, apparently, at some point in the past: Dinosaurs weren't as large as they eventually came to be, so they're sitting around the the fire one night and they're saying, "Hey, you guys, we need to come up with a strategy to deter our predators or we're going to go extinct much sooner than we're supposed to."

And you're probably the only person who thinks doing this undercuts my credibility.

It was audio. Just listen and respond. You don’t need to be so complicated.

 

[EarlyActs]

You are not a reliable source for things that were said or things that happened, so people ought to question your claims about such things—as I surely do.

The unreliability of your recollection has been exposed more than once. For example, you claimed that in 1859 Karl Marx produced Das Kapital and unleashed a "final solution" to privately held capital (April 19, 2025). You were wrong on both counts. First, Das Kapital wasn’t produced until 1867, nearly a decade later. Second, it was an economic analysis, not a "final solution" manifesto—a phrase tightly associated with the Nazi genocide (so using it for Marx is deceptive).

Another example was your claim that unbelievers who endorse evolutionary cosmology "don't like to hear about Farrellian probability," a doctrine you attributed to Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards and The Privileged Planet documentary. I own a copy of the book on which that documentary was based, and the word "Farrellian" does not appear anywhere. (I think you were talking about Borel's Law (1965), anyway, to which creationists have eagerly referred as saying, "Any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 10⁵⁰ is considered as having a zero probability (i.e., it is impossible)."

The examples can be multiplied but the point is made: Your claims cannot be trusted and must be verified—which is why I'm always asking for your sources. And so I have told you (August 2, 2025), if you want me to interact with any specific thing someone said, you need to provide a properly cited quote so I can verify it in order to engage it.




I did reply to that.

(And what he actually kept saying is, "It gets even better than that.")




He qualifies as theologically informed.




I tried to combine what two?




Who is talking about microbes in Genesis? Not me.




I don't think you even understand my view, which undermines your ability to assess it.




I did, and I did.

The two opposing views of cosmology are being combined so extensively by you that people don’t know the difference after hearing you. Or worse: they don’t know what you believe. I hear two diametrically different views constantly from you ,

You say there was both gradualism and the 6 day event—an event that resembles a feeding by Jesus, or a healing or the stilling of weather on Galilee. This is oxymoronic.

Aren’t you aware that you do this over and over and over?

There is a reason why Huxley pounded Darwin til OS came out—to install an entirely opposed view of cosmology that would not have a Creator. My understanding of the 19th century progression of theology is that they (cynics, unbelievers) had been defeated so badly by G Holford that could no longer attack the divinity of Christ. So they went at creation.

Perhaps G Eliot believed she had succeeded in defeating the divinity of Christ by translating Strauss; I study that to try to find out, but have no conclusions yet. But her lover, Spencer, who coined the phrase ‘the survival of the fittest’, shows that by mid century, most of London elites were attacking cosmology. And marriage.

The reference to microbes was to clarify that 1, they did not evolve into anything else even if they were there for a period between the ‘spreading out’ and creation week; 2, that the life formed in creation week was thriving, complex and complete , not microbial. This is the real reason why bees and spiders show no evolution, and the real explanation for a Cambrian explosion of fossils.

 

[EarlyActs]

I wouldn't date the earth by the needs of biological evolution theory. I would only date it by the celestial mechanics of starlight and by the span of C14 trace signals. It has been 'here' since the 'spreading out,' and from the SO event to creation week, it was lifeless and submerged and starlight had not arrived. It arrived Day 1.

 

[EarlyActs]

You are not a reliable source for things that were said or things that happened, so people ought to question your claims about such things—as I surely do.

The unreliability of your recollection has been exposed more than once. For example, you claimed that in 1859 Karl Marx produced Das Kapital and unleashed a "final solution" to privately held capital (April 19, 2025). You were wrong on both counts. First, Das Kapital wasn’t produced until 1867, nearly a decade later. Second, it was an economic analysis, not a "final solution" manifesto—a phrase tightly associated with the Nazi genocide (so using it for Marx is deceptive).

Another example was your claim that unbelievers who endorse evolutionary cosmology "don't like to hear about Farrellian probability," a doctrine you attributed to Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards and The Privileged Planet documentary. I own a copy of the book on which that documentary was based, and the word "Farrellian" does not appear anywhere. (I think you were talking about Borel's Law (1965), anyway, to which creationists have eagerly referred as saying, "Any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 10⁵⁰ is considered as having a zero probability (i.e., it is impossible)."

The examples can be multiplied but the point is made: Your claims cannot be trusted and must be verified—which is why I'm always asking for your sources. And so I have told you (August 2, 2025), if you want me to interact with any specific thing someone said, you need to provide a properly cited quote so I can verify it in order to engage it.




I did reply to that.

(And what he actually kept saying is, "It gets even better than that.")




He qualifies as theologically informed.




I tried to combine what two?




Who is talking about microbes in Genesis? Not me.




I don't think you even understand my view, which undermines your ability to assess it.




I did, and I did.

Re your last line, i meant post his response to your questions. Not to that talk.

 

[John Bauer]

It was audio. Just listen and respond. You don’t need to be so complicated.

I was taking notes, writing down what he got wrong and detailing why. That isn't complicated. (But it's time-consuming.)

Again, the effort that I put into something you asked for doesn't undermine my credibility.

The two opposing views of cosmology are being combined so extensively by you that people don’t know the difference after hearing you.

First, you say people can't tell the difference—but who exactly? Which arguments are being confused, exactly, and by whom?

Second, my view is not a patchwork of two opposing cosmologies. It is a distinct, independent third alternative that rejects both young-earth creationism and metaphysical naturalism. (Young-earth creationism is not the only view that treats the days of Genesis 1 as normal length, and atheistic naturalism is not the only view that accepts evolutionary science.)

Third, if someone fails to distinguish young-earth creationism from metaphysical naturalism after hearing me, then they weren't listening—because I am not defending either one, nor some hybrid of the two.

Fourth, if someone doesn’t grasp my view as a distinct position, I am glad to clarify it in good faith discussion. But I won't accept caricatures of it.

Appendix: On Good Faith vs. Bad Faith Argument

A person is arguing in good faith when he maintains honesty and sincerity in his arguments, free from hidden agendas or ulterior motives. He engages in constructive discourse, avoiding distortions or personal attacks (i.e., fallacies). He represents his own viewpoint openly and candidly, and represents his opponent's viewpoint accurately and with respect. He acknowledges valid points, evidence, and counter-arguments when they are presented, and stays on topic when faced with challenges and adapts his argument to valid criticisms. Arguing in good faith is about seeking truth and fostering mutual understanding, rather than merely winning the debate or promoting personal interests.

A person is arguing in bad faith when he lacks honesty and sincerity in his arguments, concealing hidden agendas or ulterior motives. He engages in destructive discourse, relying on distortions or personal attacks to undermine his opponent. He misrepresents his own position to appear more reasonable than it is, and misrepresents his opponent’s viewpoint to make it easier to dismiss or ridicule. He ignores or dismisses valid points, evidence, and counter-arguments, frequently straying off topic when challenged, and resists adapting his claims in the face of legitimate criticism. Arguing in bad faith is about winning at all costs, manipulating perception, or advancing personal interests, rather than seeking truth or fostering mutual understanding.

[I] don’t know what you believe. I hear two diametrically different views constantly from you.

There is a solution to not knowing: Ask follow-up questions.

You say there was both gradualism and the six-day event ... This is oxymoronic.

No, sir, that is a caricature that grossly misrepresents my position.

There is a reason why Huxley pounded Darwin til OS came out—to install an entirely opposed view of cosmology that would not have a Creator. My understanding of the 19th century progression of theology is that they (cynics, unbelievers) had been defeated so badly by G Holford that could no longer attack the divinity of Christ. So they went at creation.

Perhaps G Eliot believed she had succeeded in defeating the divinity of Christ by translating Strauss; I study that to try to find out, but have no conclusions yet. But her lover, Spencer, who coined the phrase ‘the survival of the fittest’, shows that by mid century, most of London elites were attacking cosmology. And marriage.

Once again, there are several errors here.

Let's start by identifying for the readers who these people are.

• Charles Darwin, author of the Origin of Species (1859).
  
  ​
• Thomas H. Huxley, known as "Darwin's Bulldog."
  
  ​
• George Holford, an early 19th-century Christian apologist.
  
  ​
• George Eliot, the pen name of Mary Ann Evans, a Victorian-era writer.
  
  ​
• David F. Strauss, a German liberal Protestant theologian.
  
  ​
• Herbert Spencer, an English polymath active in many fields, including sociology.

1. Huxley did not aggressively pressure Darwin to publish the Origin of Species. In reality, Huxley was not made aware of Darwin's ideas until the Darwin-Wallace joint presentation in 1858 at the Linnaean Society. Huxley was not in Darwin's inner circle of confidants prior to publication; this was probably due to Huxley being vocally skeptical of the idea of "progressive development" at first. (See his Royal Institution lectures in 1854-1856). It was not until 1857 that he started to become more open to "species transmutation." Once Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859, Huxley quickly became one of its strongest public defenders. He appreciated Darwin's mechanism (natural selection) because it offered the kind of causal explanation that he thought earlier "developmental" schemes had lacked.

2. Victorian elites were not "defeated so badly" by Holford. In reality, Holford was not a notable figure. While his work was widely read in evangelical circles (e.g., The Destruction of Jerusalem [1805]), he wasn't a central figure in academic theology or philosophy, nor did he engage German higher criticism or the growing secular scientific establishment. The major influencers were people like John Henry Newman and later B. F. Westcott. Strauss's book (translated even later by Evans) shows that the attacks were still alive and escalating after Holford. He mattered for devotional apologetics, not for the trajectory of European theological debate.

3. Herbert Spencer (who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest") was not the lover of Mary Evans. Her conjugal partner was actually Spencer's friend, George Henry Lewes (who was married to Agnes Jervis, a notoriously unfaithful wife). John Chapman introduced her to Lewes at Jeff's bookshop in the Burlington Arcade on October 6, 1851. Although she knew Spencer, having met him around the age of 32 while living with the Chapmans (1851-1853), and had great affection for him, Spencer totally friend-zoned her, as we say today:

Rumors about Herbert and Marian abounded in 1852 London. The couple seemed inseparable as they took long walks and attended concerts and plays together, so many onlookers believed that marriage was in the offing. Herbert did his best to quash this rumor; and though he described his friendship with Marian as "intimate," he denied that they were romantically involved.

-- George H. Smith, "A Gossipy Interlude: George Eliot, Herbert Spencer, and John Chapman, Part 1," Libertarianism.org, September 3, 2013 (HTML).

It was through Chapman that Marian Evans met Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) and his friend, the critic George Henry Lewes (1817–1878), with both of whom she was to fall in love. ... By June 1852, Marian was reporting to the Brays that she and Spencer were seen so often in one another's company that "all the world is setting us down as engaged" (Letters, 2.35). Marian would have liked nothing better, but Spencer was less keen.

-- Rosemary Ashton, "Evans, Mary Ann [George Eliot] (1819–1880)," Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, last modified September 23, 2004 (HTML).

Evans was rather plain-looking, almost masculine, and Spencer wrote in his Autobiography (1904), as a veiled reference to Evans, "Physical beauty is a sine qua non with me, as was once unhappily proved where the intellectual traits and the emotional traits were of the highest."

See also Joseph Wiesenfarth, "George Eliot (22 November 1819–22 December 1880)," in Victorian Novelists before 1885, ed. Ira Bruce Nadel and William E. Fredeman, vol. 21 of Dictionary of Literary Biography (Detroit: Gale Research, 1983), 145–170.

Having said all that: You were right about one thing, though. As the 19th century wore on, a specific line of critique did emerge regarding origins and cosmology. The Origin of Species provided a naturalistic explanation for life's diversity, undermining the traditional understanding of creation at the time. Figures like Huxley, "Darwin’s Bulldog," did vigorously promote this new framework. And philosophers such as Spencer extended evolutionary concepts into sociology and ethics, including controversial critiques of Victorian marriage and family structures.

The reference to microbes was to clarify that 1, they did not evolve into anything else even if they were there for a period between the ‘spreading out’ and creation week; 2, that the life formed in creation week was thriving, complex and complete , not microbial. This is the real reason why bees and spiders show no evolution, and the real explanation for a Cambrian explosion of fossils.

It is a bit premature and presumptuous (and rude) to claim that your particular view is the "real" explanation, as if all others are not real explanations.

 

[EarlyActs]

re your last line,
You just dismissed the 6 day creation week event of Genesis 1 again. I don't think you hear yourself.

Can you put your view in a few positive lines, instead of so much about all the things you oppose?

I had to for CSR and ICC, if you want a copy, which is probably above.

 

[John Bauer]

re your last line,
You just dismissed the six-day creation week event of Genesis 1 again. I don't think you hear yourself.

Yes, it's far more likely that you understand me better than I understand myself. For sure.

(That was sarcasm, intended to highlight the absurdity of your statement.)

Can you put your view in a few positive lines, instead of so much about all the things you oppose?

I had to for CSR and ICC, if you want a copy, which is probably above.

Sure. Show me what you drafted and I will try to make mine follow suit.

 

[EarlyActs]

John B wrote:
"That's why I posted Seegert's 'book editing' illustration about mutation, to solicit John's comments," you said. "A dismissive response means nothing. I have to know why he objects."

I don't get your game here. The book analogy speaks for itself, and the issue is not whether he used (he did so extensively); it's your unwillingness to trust a person's report.

Glad to hear of your decade in the materials; it's about 4 for me. At that point you know, whether you can create an electronic reference or not.

 

[EarlyActs]

John b wrote:
For example, you claimed that in 1859 Karl Marx produced Das Kapital and unleashed a "final solution" to privately held capital (April 19, 2025). You were wrong on both counts. First, Das Kapital wasn’t produced until 1867, nearly a decade later. Second, it was an economic analysis, not a "final solution" manifesto—a phrase tightly associated with the Nazi genocide (so using it for Marx is deceptive).
I answered this. He spoke in 1849 on the topic and there is no material difference. He was a lifelong failure, living in his mother's house. The material was meant to ruin capitalism, so your criticism means nothing.

 

[EarlyActs]

John B wrote:

Darwin did not answer his pastors explanation about the sudden abundance of creation; he just got angry about it. ... he believed God owed him.

You are not a reliable source for things that were said or things that happened, so people ought to question your claims about such things—as I surely do.

This scene was reenacted in CREATION, a 2009 script with discussion bonus material. The writer was sympathetic to Darwin, as the endnotes indicate. That is in spite of a careful depiction of his mental state worsening as OS was completed! You may object to such a source, but I have not heard a dissenting complaint from his country's viewers. It's very easy to fabricate for the American audience (ie, to depict Darwin as mentally healthy, a real scientist).