Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ken · 10-22-2003, 12:03 PM

Creationist Ashby Camp made a critique to Theobald's "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution," and Theobald has responded here. Camp draws heavily from Cornelius Hunter, whose arguments are nearly identical to those of CD in this thread. I certainly wish Theobald and CD could go head-to-head, but barring that possibility, this article comes in a close second.

Charles Darwin · 10-24-2003, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by monkenstick
the inactivating events do align with the phylogeny, that was my whole point!

Each monophyletic group has a shared derived STOP codon in its sequence.

But with evolution, identical mutations must have occurred independently in the gene, in separate lineages. The argument for why pseudogenes are powerful evidence for evolution is that the same mutation is observed in different species, and it seems that it would be too much of a coincidence for these to occur independently. So the mutation must have occurred in the common ancestor. But, this reasoning fails because, even under evolution, we must admit to identical yet independent mutations.

Quote:

Originally posted by monkenstick
if a broken gene aligns well with the phylogeny, then ID has big problems, because homology and phylogeny are claimed to be due to common design, which requires that the characters used to derive the phylogeny actually have a function (which pseudogenes don't)

So unless you invoke ridiculous amounts of convergence (which aren't supported by the few papers you dredged up) to explain away the evidence, what we have here is the common descent of a broken gene - and a big problem for ID and YEC

I've already explained that creationism allows for two different explanations: there may actual be a function for these genes that we don't know of; or these genes may become inactivated independently. You've stated you don't buy the first explanation. OK. But the second explanation entails nothing more than what you are already accepting under evolution. There are no "ridiculous amounts of convergence." If you still think this is the case, perhaps you can carefully elaborate so I can understand your belief. Why does the second explanation require all this convergence?

Charles Darwin · 10-24-2003, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Charles, the lack of a nested hirearchy COULD NOT be explained by "multiple abiogenesis events and rapid rates of change that occurred in the past". It is ludicrous to suggest that these could completely erase any trace of a nested hirearchy.

Why is that?

Charles Darwin · 10-25-2003, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
...Waaait a minute...

...And how can you possibly know that "God does not deceive"?

I don't know that. I'd appreciate it if you could stop mischaracterizing my points.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
You admit that creationism is "falsifiable". According to you, this is achievable by a "compelling" theory of evolution. Therefore, if I'm navigating correctly through the fog of misapplied terms, what you're actually saying is that you admit that a naturalistic, materialistic, godless Universe is possible, and that evidence for it might yet be presented that would "compel" even YOU.

Is this correct? And what evidence for this would be "compelling"?

Evidence for evolution.

Charles Darwin · 10-25-2003, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Are there any other "scientific theories" besides creationism that require formulating a "compelling" conflicting theory to be falsified?

I don't know, but in any case, I fail to see your point.

lpetrich · 10-25-2003, 01:37 AM

Charles Darwin:
But with evolution, identical mutations must have occurred independently in the gene, in separate lineages. ...

Why so? It most likely occurred in some shared ancestor of those lineages.

've already explained that creationism allows for two different explanations: there may actual be a function for these genes that we don't know of; or these genes may become inactivated independently.

Or such features could be put into place to give the appearance of being the result of evolution -- the Philip Gosse Omphalos hypothesis of created appearance.

Alternatively, independent inactivation is possible, though at the exact same spot is very improbable.

monkenstick · 10-25-2003, 03:05 AM

Quote:

But with evolution, identical mutations must have occurred independently in the gene, in separate lineages. The argument for why pseudogenes are powerful evidence for evolution is that the same mutation is observed in different species, and it seems that it would be too much of a coincidence for these to occur independently. So the mutation must have occurred in the common ancestor. But, this reasoning fails because, even under evolution, we must admit to identical yet independent mutations.

i'm not saying it isn't possible, i'm saying that its incredibly unlikely that the inactivating mutations are all due to convergent mutations, due to their number and distribution

the convergent mutations they identified occured in only two species, and are well explained by the phenomenon of lineage sorting. The convergent mutations you're appealing to have to occur in 4 members of hominidae, and 5 members of hylobatidae, in precisely the distribution that accords with the current phylogeny

its not that creationist explanations are impossible, just that they're incredibly unlikely and unparsimonius when compared to the evolutionary explanation

Quote:

There are no "ridiculous amounts of convergence." If you still think this is the case, perhaps you can carefully elaborate so I can understand your belief. Why does the second explanation require all this convergence?

I've already explained it CD, it requires 9 convergent mutations for the inactivating mutations to agree with the structure of the families in the current tree,

and enough convergent mutations such that the entire tree differs by two terminal nodes (for species that only diverged very recently in history) from the currently accepted tree when there are 323823762662400 possible topologies (I actually figured it out based on the number of species included)

furthermore, you haven't given us any reasons as to why we would expect one sort of convergent mutation in hominids, and another in gibbons - what possible explanation can you offer for the preference for one site over another in the different lineages when the sites in question are only 45 nucleotides apart?

Charles Darwin · 10-25-2003, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rlogan
I would like to know if anyone has a citation for what the creationists offer as a leading source for their view (Besides Genesis - that's a quick read).

I've tried to work on this thread, but its too "jumpy" and I'd like to sit down and go through a coherent front-to-back presentation from the creationist side.

So far I've been to some websites and found them lacking in coherency. I've seen the creationist "network" on satellite, and that was also lacking.

I want to give it a "fair hearing", but so far it looks like snake oil salesmanship. Give me the best they've got.

Thanks.

Here are a few that might help:

Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
Evolution: A theory in crisis
Darwin's God
Darwin's Proof
Darwin on Trial
Darwin's Black Box
The Origin of Species
The Mystery of Life's Origin

Charles Darwin · 10-25-2003, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Outblaze
[B]As pointed out to you earlier, relegating scientific theories of origins to the same status as any other story of origins renders the theories meaningless. But I think you know that. And I think you also know that independently of any preconceived idea, science must proceed on the assumption that the problems it approaches are soluble. There's always time to call on "other stories" after all attempts at finding a natural explanation have failed. In the case of the origin of life, this is still far from being the case. However, as long as the problem is not solved under your paradigm, your tendency to invoke "other stories" will likely subsist.

Because your paradigm defines it as supernatural. Which brings us back full circle to NottyImp's point, why should I believe your supernatural story over others?

I'll call that supernatural story and raise you an even more compelling one (at least to Hindus): If I'm unable show you how Krishna creates, then you will not accept it?

An argument inferring creationism based on the appearance of a planted fossil record�a "just-so" story indeed, to borrow your mantra.

Btw, the horse sequence remains a good example of gradualism, PE being in fact a strictly populational phenomena, and therefore gradual.

It's irrelevant to science CD, as are all supernatural stories.

�Or if both were wrong and Krishna is right, you would rule out the truth a priori? Your pleading for your supernatural paradigm is falling on deaf ears. It was rejected 150 years ago and offers nothing to biologists today in the way of explaining the abundance of variation found in nature.

Are you saying forensic science is not science?

You are misunderstanding; I'm not asking you to believe in creationism. I am asking why evolution is a fact. Your defining creationism as out of bounds sounds like a protectionist ploy.

Why reject the Hindu creation story? Because it calls for no beginning.

You falsely criticize me for 'just-so' stories, and then inform us that the horse sequence is a good example of gradualism. This shows how evolution can be morphed to fit just about anything. Now we are to believe that stasis and the abrupt appearance of new species are good examples of gradualism.

lpetrich · 10-25-2003, 11:30 AM

Charles Darwin:
Why reject the Hindu creation story? Because it calls for no beginning.

And why is that supposed to be a good reason?

You falsely criticize me for 'just-so' stories, and then inform us that the horse sequence is a good example of gradualism.

I wonder what CD thinks the horse sequence is; does he think that it's a big jump from Hyracotherium straight to Equus? And I doubt that he has ever looked at any equid fossils; in fact, I predict that his response will be a lot of quote mining.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-22-2003, 12:03 PM	#771
Ken Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Duncanville, TX USA Posts: 64	Creationist Ashby Camp made a critique to Theobald's "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution," and Theobald has responded here. Camp draws heavily from Cornelius Hunter, whose arguments are nearly identical to those of CD in this thread. I certainly wish Theobald and CD could go head-to-head, but barring that possibility, this article comes in a close second.

10-25-2003, 01:37 AM	#776
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Charles Darwin: But with evolution, identical mutations must have occurred independently in the gene, in separate lineages. ... Why so? It most likely occurred in some shared ancestor of those lineages. 've already explained that creationism allows for two different explanations: there may actual be a function for these genes that we don't know of; or these genes may become inactivated independently. Or such features could be put into place to give the appearance of being the result of evolution -- the Philip Gosse Omphalos hypothesis of created appearance. Alternatively, independent inactivation is possible, though at the exact same spot is very improbable.

10-25-2003, 11:30 AM	#780
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Charles Darwin: Why reject the Hindu creation story? Because it calls for no beginning. And why is that supposed to be a good reason? You falsely criticize me for 'just-so' stories, and then inform us that the horse sequence is a good example of gradualism. I wonder what CD thinks the horse sequence is; does he think that it's a big jump from Hyracotherium straight to Equus? And I doubt that he has ever looked at any equid fossils; in fact, I predict that his response will be a lot of quote mining.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.