Pat Sullivan Blog

Why I take High Dose Vitamin C

I have been a proponent for sometime of the benefits of taking lots of Vitamin C.  I now take close to 10 grams per day of Jigsaw Health's Sustained Release Vitamin C , and am gradually increasing it.  There are tons of studies I can point to that show it has a tremendous impact preventing and even reversing a number of chronic illnesses. There are some studies you see talked about in the press saying Vitamin C does not do much but ALL of those studies were done using very low doses of C.  Like doing a study on birth control pills, giving the women 1 pill per month and then saying "See, birth control pills doesn't work."

C is also the most versatile anti-oxidant you can take.  But these studies are not why I am taking C.  The real reason I take lots of Vitamin C and believe everyone else should too, is because I believe our bodies were designed to make Vitamin C but lost that ability through a disaster to our DNA.  Virtually all mammals make their own C and they make a lot of it.  Up to 3 times more when they are under stress.  It takes 4 different enzymes in mammals to turn glucose into Vitamin C.  Humans all have 3 of the 4 enzymes needed to do the same thing.  But we lost the ability to make the 4th enzyme. And we DO have a non-working gene in our DNA for that 4th enzyme! 

This is a disaster!  Think about it.  If the body could turn excess sugar into Vitamin C instead of only turning it into FAT, no one would be fat.  No one, would likely have diabetes.  Excess sugar and fat impacts virtually all the disease processes.  AND now we no longer have all the wonderful protective, preventive properties of Vitamin C.

Everyone who reads my blog knows that I also believe we were Intelligently Designed by a Creator.  But I also believe in evolution!  No, NOT the kind of evolution that says we all got here by chance.  That is called Macro evolution.  I don't believe in that at all.  Not even close.  But I do recognize that mutations to our DNA absolutely do happen.  The problem is that those mutations are 99.99% of the time damaging to our DNA and to us.  They don't add information to our DNA, they delete information.  Dr. Sanford from Cornell U wrote a book called Genetic Entropy that does a great job of proving that.  I have my own theory of when, where and how this happened to us but suffice it to say that somewhere early on, this gene mutated and all of us lost the ability to make Vitamin C.

That is why I take lots of Vitamin C.  And if you read a bit you will also find lots of scientific reasons to take high dose Vitamin C as well.  This book is a GREAT one to start with.  Or go here to read what Jigsaw says about it.

Darwinists still losing the marketing war

I did a post last year that got many Darwinists in an uproar with many hateful comments on my blog and the post being copied and trashed on numerous other evolution blogs.  Basically I said that I thought the Darwinists were losing the marketing war for the minds of the American people.  I said this because a Gallup poll found that 66% of Americans believed that God created the world and still did not believe in evolution.  And this after a total domination of Darwin only teaching in public schools.  One would have thought that virtually everyone now would believe in evolution.  But they don't.

And now it is getting worse.  A recent Zogby poll reports that 78% of Americans think that teachers should have the academic freedom to teach BOTH the strengths AND weaknesses of evolution in the classroom.  This of course is cause for apoplexy for the Darwin Fundamentalists who want Dawinism taught as though there were no weaknesses.  They want it taught that it is absolutely true and no weaknesses exist.  They want total control of the classroom so that absolutely no contrarian views sneak in to attack their religion, Darwinity.

It gives me great hope for America that the concept of academic freedom is still valued by the great majority of Americans.  The censorship that the Darwinists want may still happen by government or judicial fiat, but it won't be because Americans want it!  Of course, that doesn't matter to the Darwinists!

Thoughts on DNA, Vitamin C and Origins

I have not blogged much the past months for a variety of reasons.  Mainly I have been very focused on getting Flypaper on solid ground.  We have made a lot of progress and I am more confident in our ultimate success than I have been since becoming CEO a year ago. Dec and Jan will be big months in launching the Flypaper Platform aimed at Corporations and Service Providers who use and create lots of Flash content. 

With this post I decided to dip my toe back into the ID controversy.  Even though I am not a scientist and I tend to get hammered when I do this. The post is a bit "random"and I hope it hangs together as you read it.

I read an interesting book and have had a number of thoughts (insights?) that I want to share  primarily to other layman for their consideration.   I am well aware that scientists on both sides of the ID/Darwinist arguments will have already delved deeply into these issues and both will have even better arguments for or against my thoughts and ideas. That is fine.

1.  It was interesting to me to learn that it is likely that the human body once had the ability to make Vitamin C. Most likely in large quantities.  I had wondered why most mammals make large amounts of Vitamin C but humans did not. Under stress, animals will make even larger amounts.  Vitamin C is a great antioxidant and is involved in MANY enzymatic reactions including the making of neurotransmitters.  I wondered why the "Designer" gave this ability to goats and such, but not to us? 

Well I learned that we actually have 3 of 4 needed enzymes present in our systems to turn glucose into vitamin C.  And we apparently have in our genome the ability make the 4th enzyme, but a mutation somewhere in our history caused this last enzyme to not be made.  This had to happen very early in our history since no one can make Vitamin C.  I wondered why we don't see a mixture of some who do and some who don't make it? 

I love this writer on Intelligent Design

Roddy Bullock, a freelance writer and the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio and author of The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, has written some of the best, most insightful articles regarding the controversies between Darwinisn and Intelligent Design.  I have stayed away from this topic because I have been busy with my job at www.flypaper.com but I still retain a strong interest in the subject.

I especially like his article "Atheism and the Long Lever of Darwinism: Moving the World".  I think it is the most concise summary of the situation as it exists today.  And the situation is not a good one IMO.  Given that worldviews shape governments, judicial systems, educational systems and what people do in the day to day existence, it portends bad things I believe.  Atheistic societies have not fared well in history it seems to me.

I think you might enjoy all his articles here.

Evolution: Final Thoughts and Resignation

I have lots of comments on my posts regarding evolution.  Some are good comments, many are pretty lame and silly.  Some ugly.  But let me try to put my finger on a few things that seem to be key in the debate and apparent deep misunderstanding of my post  Evolution:What should life look like.  And then let me end the debate for this writer.

1.) When I say, "we should see some weird stuff"  I mean evolution should produce some half way done  "features" in species.  Hooves on a fin for example, or non working rudiments of bat-like sonar in a human.  I think I realized last nite as I went to bed, why evolutionists see this thinking as "dumb", "not scientific",  "obviously being dishonest" etc.  The reason is their belief and understanding of evolution says none of those examples EVER could/would happen.  Natural selection would never select for them because the features don't work, don't provide some advantage.  So to them, all my questions and observations that include these kind of statements are simply stupid in their view.  I think I get that.

2.) I also think I see if they were to allow the potential for dead end, incomplete features, there would be lots of these examples in the fossil record and currently in real life.  Those examples are not clearly found.   According to evolutionists, these types of non working things cannot exist. At least not long enough to be passed along through replication.  There are many possible reasons offered as to why transitional, non-working features are not found.  Or claims that they are everywhere.  Just look into the mirror.  Also, lots of "coulda, woulda, shouldas"  This also seems to mean evolutionists buy into the idea of irreducibly complex machinery.  If a new feature evolves, in order for it to be selected, it HAS to do something of value.  So every single change towards a new species must somehow work and thus is irreducibly complex.  I may be wrong but that is what they seem to be consistently saying.

3. ) I also see that historically, evolutionists have argued that seemingly incomplete, dead end features like the appendix, tonsils and junk DNA etc. show conclusively that unguided evolution produced these unneeded features and thus we obviously evolved and were not designed. Which obviously contradicts their arguments in 1.) and 2.)  Evolutionists want it both ways.  They say evolution, by definition can only produce and select for things that have some advantageous function in order to be passed along to offspring.  But when a seemingly non-functional feature does get selected, evolutionists scream "see, an intelligent designer would never do this!"  And then to boot, many of these alleged dead end features have now been proven to actually have critical function previously unknown.  Evolutionists conveniently forget their past arguments.  The appendix and tonsils were puzzles to my belief we probably were designed.  But when science later discovered the purpose for these organs my confidence in design was strengthened.  Same for the many recent discoveries about so called junk DNA.  Long held to be proof of random, unguided evolution, the discovery of purpose for most of our DNA takes away a major argument and is strong confirmation of design. I am very certain the evolutionists would scream foul on this but to this observer they are wrong.

4.) The appendix etc. is one basis of my observation and statements regarding "weird stuff."  Random mutation, it seems, would regularly take features down a dead end and those dead ends would be readily apparent ala the appendix (before function was later discovered) etc.  But given the assumption that evolution is true, this simply cannot be.  Evolution HAS to continually produce features that work in some way.  That seems to require an evolutionary mechanism yet undiscovered.  That unknown mechanism has to be able to rapidly (as opposed to Darwin's slow) produce major jumps.  For instance, evolution has to produce a working liver and do so pretty fast ( sort of immediately) in order for mammals to survive.  At some point in time, a random change altered one type of cell into a brand new, previously non-existent liver cell.  In order to evolve into an actual working liver, a HOST of other random changes would have to simultaneously take place in order for that new liver cell to be of use.  The hormonal system (if it existed at the time) would have to blindly create hundreds of protein machines to turn on and off functions in the liver.  Other machinery would have to happen in order for these liver cells to reproduce (and stop reproducing to avoid cancer) and somehow  gather together to form the liver organ.  They would have to attach (if a system to attach existed) themselves correctly to the rest of the body.  Circulation systems (if they existed at the time) would have to develop rapidly to get fluids/blood in and out of the liver.  The liver would have to somehow acquire filtering and detoxification systems.  And all of the machines, systems and attachments would have to know how to self replicate, a function/feature that magically has to be in existence from the very beginning otherwise evolution could NEVER work. There has to be some unknown evolutionary mechanism to put all of this wonderfully intricate system together, VERY FAST otherwise you would be left with a partial system that does not work, thus not be selected and passed on to the next generation.  Thousands of these intricate systems exist in all species. Just in the cell alone, as many as 37,000 functional RNA proteins all intricately work together for the purpose of creating and sustaining life.  The probability of 37,000 functional proteins alone ever existing in a "just so" manner seems to be on a magnitude as to be incalculable.  A number so large as to produce incredulity.  For the hard core evolutionist, no matter how incredulous or improbable, it is no problem at all.  It had to happen via known evolutionary processes because no other explanation is allowed.  Only materialistic, natural explanations please.  "You stupid, dishonest scumbag, let me explain to you how it COULD HAVE happened.  And since it could have happened, it DID happen.  So there you ignorant slut!"  Convincing indeed!

Orac blasts my ID view as well

In a rather long post, the famed ORAC weighs in on my observations about what life should look like if macro evolution were true. 

I carefully read his post and all the comments.  I must be really thick in the head because I don't get what they are saying to refute my thoughts and observations.  I understand the words and concepts but I usually still find myself saying "so what."  I follow their arguments but these often seem trivial or simply name calling.  "Gee, isn't he stupid??"    Their refutations are interesting but I don't see why they are necessarily true.  I seem to always be able to say "maybe, but what about this?"  Or "that makes no sense at all."  Much of what they say readily fits into my post entitled "Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda.

I know evolutionists absolutely believe what they believe.  That is fine.  But so much of it seems to be just that.  Belief.  And not very convincing except to themselves.  Not unlike the belief of Christians or Muslims or whatever.  The beliefs are all accepted as obviously true among everyone in their circle.  What plays in Decatur though?  Not that something that plays in Decatur is necessarily true.  But it sure does predict what the common man is going to do or believe.

But to the evolutionists, the common man is stupid.  Unable to understand the nuances of established science.  That is where they fail it seems to me.  They dance around major issues like origins. Like how/when/why did self replicating organisms appear.  They hand wave around major questions and focus on everything that comes after those problems.  As if the problems did not exist.  They leave those problems to the time god.  They don't even consider that the probability of the things they believe is virtually zero.   They ignore the fact that natural selection needs something living and replicating already existing to even begin to operate.  Spontaneous Generation is a fact!  Life simply happened and then evolution took it from there.  Ignore the man behind the curtain!!

They look at incredibly complex, amazingly intricate, living, self replicating, protein machinery and say "well it exists thus it had to evolve because I believe everything evolved."  It is the definition of so called science. 

ORAC and Meyers either miss or ignore my main point.  We should see some weird things if macro evolution were true.  I believe there should be obvious things we can point to that are obviously in transition and despite the hand waving, we really don't.

I was involved with developing software.  We had a version that was shipping.  We had a version that was under development, sometimes more than one version.  There were always features that we could see in part but they were not done and did not work.  At any one time you could look at an upcoming release and see things that were new and finished, and other features that were new and not finished.  That is what I am talking about.  We should be able to readily see "features", lots of them, in life that are not working but are on their way to becoming something useful.  Evolutionists insist that there is never a time when a feature is not working at least in part.  Otherwise, natural selection will not select for it by replicating it in the next generation. Logically, in terms of development (software or real estate or whatever) there are always times where things appear very unfinished.   Ok, the 3 legged cow may be a bad example but a 4 legged cow with no hooves yet, or no fully developed muscles to allow it to walk yet seems logical to me.  OK, the muscles to move the previous fins worked but the muscles for walking are quite different.  Transitioning from one to the other would take eons of time.  But across many species there should be many examples of features that don't work yet. 

Orac and Meyers and their followers are obviously very smart people.  It just seems to me they refuse to see the big picture and are too willing to wave their hands and arms over many things that even they really don't have answers for.  But they think they do.  And when they don't, they have the time god to bail them out.  Even when the mathematics indicate something highly improbable.  That is no problem for them because the believe!!

At the end of the day I don't much care.  Until one of them comes up with insights and examples that the common man understands and accepts, they will keep talking to their little groups of believers castigating anyone who see things differently than they.  I love America where we get to do that!!

Pharyngula rips me regarding Intelligent Design

If you are interested, my post on "Evolution: what should life look like" was featured on the Pharyngula site. It isn't pretty but you may enjoy it.  I put a comment towards the bottom of his site asking a question of interest. 

Evolution: What should life look like?

I was in Ireland the past 10 days playing golf.  Lots of airplane and bus time.  I got to think a lot, which is always scary I guess.

I found myself thinking about a particular comment I often get from evolutionists on my posts regarding evolution and intelligent design.  "Predictability." One of the claimed elements of a good scientific theory are the predictions one can make based on the theory.  I don't claim to be an expert on all that.  But it made me think about evolution and what I think life should look like if in fact "macro evolution" were true.

As a review, I have advocated that while micro evolution is unquestionably true, it does not automatically follow that macro evolution is also true.  It has not been observed, it has not been demonstrated experimentally as far as I can tell from what I read.  IMO,  Darwinists merely "infer" that macro occurred because they can observe micro.  Much like IDist's infer design because they don't believe Darwinian processes can explain the intricate appearance of design.  Both make inferences which seems a perfectly reasonable thing for scientists to do.

My thoughts took me down what I thought was an interesting path:

If macro evolution occurred, is it still occurring?  Why does it appear to have stopped?  I realize some believe there are evidences of change within our DNA.  That could be standard micro evolutionary processes at work but not necessarily macro.   

I find it interesting that it is NOT OBVIOUS that evolution is still occurring.  Think about it. Look at the world around you.  Things appear basically complete.  It seems to me the theory of macro evolution would predict that we would see MASSIVE evidence of macro evolution still taking place.  It seems we would see many species of plants, animals and humans in transition from one thing to another, creating entirely new species.  Instead we see nothing at all.  That seems rather odd to me.  It does not seem to be what Macro Evolution would predict.  In fact, we almost daily are reminded the number of species is actually declining.  Why is it totally OBVIOUS that species are disappearing during our lifetime and yet no new species are appearing at the same time?

Why would macro evolution somehow take primordial soup and create thru random means this amazingly diverse world we observe and then STOP?  I suppose it can be argued it is because of the massive amount of time and the last 5,000 years is just a nit in time.  But that seems irrelevant to me.  Regardless of where we are on the spectrum of time, there ought to be massive numbers of obvious, incomplete transitional forms for us to observe.   e,g, cows with 3 legs and a partial 4th still in the process of evolving. Multiply that across tens of millions of species.  The amount of macro evolution we should be observing ought to be massive.  And yet there essentially is nothing.

Imagine an area of town where a major real estate development is taking place.  Over the course of the development, on any given day one would observe "incompleteness."  But there would come a time when it basically would be complete.  Some stores will go out of business and a different store takes it's place, but no big changes as a whole. If random macro evolution is responsible for what we see, why would it not be like a massive development where things NEVER appear finished or complete?  What brought macro evolution to a halt?  Could it be that it simply never happened?

To me this makes the "Cambrian Explosion" all that more troublesome for evolutionists.  This refers to the fact that in the fossil record entire species suddenly appear totally complete.  No transitional forms at all.  This in total contradiction to what the theory of macro evolution seems would have predicted. 

Now take what Intelligent Design would predict.  In my own words, say an intelligent being created what we see, including the ability for species to "micro evolve" to allow adaptation to changing environmental conditions.  And say that being, at some point,  reached a place where the creation was basically "finished."  (I am NOT saying that happened in 6 days, blah, blah, blah.)  I think Intelligent Design predicts the world would appear essentially finished. 

I am sure my evolutionary friends will have many points to make I have not thought of, and I welcome their input.  But to this observer it seems odd that things appear complete considering they supposedly were created by totally random events.  Seems those events would still be happening in a very obvious way apparent to us all.

Just to test my thinking, I googled "Evolution Finished".  Turned up some interesting hits.  I liked this one called "Is Evolution Finished?".   And here is an article arguing the opposite of my thinking.  I note it seems it argues that micro evolution is still rapidly occurring.  I don't argue that point.  I think the ability for species to adapt through micro evolution is one of the characteristics of the design.  The danger is to make the mistake in logic to infer macro evolution based on the reality of micro evolution.  If true, we should be regularly observing both.

The Baylor ID vs Evolution Controversy

Here is a very good article from the Waco Tribune regarding Dr. Robert Marks.  Baylor took down his website because he dared to espouse some of the scientific merits of Intelligent Design based on his own research.  Baylor University clearly violated the academic freedom of Dr. Marks, persecuting him for questioning Darwinian evolutionary dogma.  The fact that this Texas Inquisition has gone on so long is rather amazing to me.  It would seem that Baylor would realize how silly it's actions are.  It calls widespread attention to the McCarthy-like approach of the Darwinists.  It shows Darwinists to be religionists of the worst type.

Great Defense of Intelligent Design

I thought this response to a French student's question was really well done.  Essentially, the student asked one of the bloggers at Uncommon Descent, "why do you believe in Intelligent Design?"  A very concise answer is given.   Enjoy.