Philosoft

Nice to know I'm not alone down here. It was gettin' kinda scary for a while.

Daggah

Nightshade,

Try <a href="http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/seq.html" target="_blank">cytochrome C</a>. Also, if you ask nicely, maybe Scigirl will link you to the picture comparing a human chromosome with corresponding chimp, gorilla, and orangutan chromosomes. It's powerful evidence as well.

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Daggah ]</p>

scigirl

Nightshade,

the pic of human/ape chromosomes is here:
<a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html" target="_blank">http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html</a>

It is from the evolution evidence page:
<a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html" target="_blank">http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html</a>

And you will find more details at my formal debate to douglas here:
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000008" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000008</a>

scigirl

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

Tim Thompson

Nightshade: One of his first proposed evidences was the kalam cosmological argument. He argued that since the universe began created out of nothing (i.e., the Big Bang), that supports the Genesis account.

This form of the argument requires two a-priori postulates: (1) The universe had a beginning, and (2) the universe was created out of nothing.

The idea that the universe had a beginning is not all that bad, given a suitable definition of "universe". However, the idea that the universe was created out of "nothing" has never been a proper scientific idea. It is, in fact, strictly a notion of the popular literature, where there is a tendency to interpret general relativity & the big bang too literally. Even if the big bang is a "quantum fluctuation" in the infinite void, something has to "fluctuate", no matter how you cut it.

As far as I am concerned, this piece of "evidence from astrophysics" is only evidence that the speaker has no feel beyond the popular literature, and is unaware of the astrophysical thinking & theories, on the genesis of the universe.

There is a piece on Kalam Cosmology in the Infidel's Modern Library: <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html" target="_blank">Cosmological Kalamity</a>, by Dan Barker, in which he argues on more philosophical grounds against the idea. He doesn't seem to appreciate the need for the universe to really be created from literal "nothing", though I may have missed it.

Nightshade: One new twist I saw was that he argued that since physcists cannot find the "Higgs Boson" particle that began at the Big Bang, that supports the contention that the universe was created out of nothing.

This is counting the <a href="http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/physics/physics11.html" target="_blank">Higg's Boson</a> out rather prematurely, I think. The latest high-powered particle smashers can barely produce the energy required to find it yet, which is a relly good explanation for why nobody has found it yet! And we can only see the bottom end of the possible range of energies. It may be quite a while before we are even able to cover the search space required. And even then, if the Higg's remains unseen, it is more likely to mean that the "standard model" is wrong, than to mean that the universe was created out of nothing. Indeed, I can't even see the logical connection. Maybe it would sound better if I heard what he actually said, but I just can't imagine how "no Higg's Boson" translates into "the universe was created out of nothing".

I don't know about the other "evidence", but his "evidence from astrophysics" is pretty wimpy stuff.

Kosh

WOW.

So....if we now understand the genetic differences
between all the great apes.....

And if we can do cloning....

And if we can do gene manipulation....

Then it should be possible to "recreate", one
step at a time,the incremental evolutionary
changes that led to modern man? We can go
back and "clone" an animal that would like
that first one where the chromosomes combined
(without all the reversals) - assuming we could
determine the order the reversals occurred?

Asha'man

Even better: we could make talking apes! That would be really neat.

Unless they take over the world, and make a cult out of nuclear weapons or something....

Kosh

Hmmm.... I'll buy into it if we can clone "Nova"
too.... WITH the animal skin mini-skirt!

KnightWhoSaysNi

Last night, I sent an email to Fritzler, the creationist speaker I mentioned. I was surprised to get a lengthy reply soon afterwards! Here are some of the comments he sent me (in italics):

Marv (referring to evolution):
For example, it does not explain how more than 30 thousand genes came to work in concert for a viable human organism. It can't even explain how 350 or so genes that are required for a "minimal" form of life can come into being (evol;ve), let alone be synchronized and fine tuned to create a "life form". The odds against that happening by currently "believed" evolutionary mechanisms is beyond the realm of possibilites (&gt;1 in10 to the 137,195). So, YES, YES, YES, I agree, they key is HOW macroevolution occurred...and on that count it is bankrupt! And if you can't strat to explain HOW it happened, why would you believe that it DID?

This sounds a bit like Behe's arguments. I don't have a strong background in genetics/molecular biology, but this sounds like a "god of the gaps" argument. It also sounds like he's assuming evolution is a completely random process (i.e. the old tornado in a junkyard making a Boeing 747).

I brought up some evidences for evolution from molecular biology: shared retroviruses and pseudogenes in chromosomes of related species, and the evidence of chimp/human common ancestry from translocation of DNA.
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#pred20" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#pred20</a>
<a href="http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/translocation.html" target="_blank">http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/translocation.html</a>

His reply was:
Can you tell me how translocation of genes explain common descent? Why doesn't if reflect common form, common function and a common designer?
How do psuedogenes or retroviruses explain macroevolution? Do introns and exons suggest evolution? What about anti-sense DNA?

A common designer? I'm not sure if he looked at the link showing the comparison of human/chimp chromosomes side by side showing evidence of translocation, but saying "God just made it that way" seems extremely weak. What does he mean by "anti-sense DNA"?

Marv:
Transitional forms is always an interesting discussion but for the most part it relies on anatomic comparisons and ignores the tremendous changes that have to occur in the genes that orchestrate morphology and function. If anatomic similarity aka "transitional forms" carry the day, I might as well believe that Corvettes spontaneously evolved from a model T.

I think that the model T./corvette analogy is really out of place. Again, I don't have a strong background in molecular biology, but is he right about "tremendous changes" in the genotype to change the phenotype? Didn't that recent Nature article that Jonathan Wells goofed up on attempting to criticize, suggest otherwise? And rejecting transitional forms simply because we don't know exactly how it happened genetically sounds much like a "god of the gaps" argument.

Marv (referring to the National Geographic article on archaeoraptor):
You also assume that National Geographic is NOT peer reviewed. Have you ever submitted an manuscript there? Sorry, but it is peer-reviewed, at least by an eidtor and editorial board.
I would be very curious to know where you got the "fact" that this article (complete with cover illustration) was NOT peer reviewed? And IF it was not peer-reviewed, can you perhaps entertain a reason WHY this exceptional finding wasn't?

Ah, the "evil scientist conspiracy." I don't know if he read my link that addressed those things:
<a href="http://www.linguafranca.com/0007/field-chicken.html" target="_blank">http://www.linguafranca.com/0007/field-chicken.html</a>

Marv:
If science is so wonderfully "self-correcting" why do some evolutionsits still cling to the Haeckel "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny " fabrication, the peppered moth fabrication, and so on? Why do biology teachers cite feathered dinsoaurs as examples of "missings links" or "transitional forms" when reputed examples are still under debate? One could get the impression that science jumps the gun or that there is another agenda here?

More of the dreaded "evil scientist conspiracy" again. Sounds like he read Wells' book, Icons of Evolution. I'll have to read Tamzek's critique here:
<a href="http://www.antievolution.org/people/wells_j/tdo_wells.htm" target="_blank">http://www.antievolution.org/people/wells_j/tdo_wells.htm</a>

Anyway, those are some of his comments. I look forward to writing a reply. Any thoughts? Criticisms?

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

scombrid

Wow, he fires out the misconceptions about science and the evolutionary theory complete with spelling errors as well as any other creationist I've read.

After seeing his mention of the corvette/model-T analogy for common descent, I wonder if he has heard of the battleship/fork phylogeny. <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000255" target="_blank">battleship/fork thread</a>

National Geographic isn't peer reviewed in the same way that hard science journals are. In peer review, at least as I understand it, an editorial board has final oversight but is advised by experts in the field in question. For example; say I want to submit an article to the Bulletin of Marine Science on the reproductive biology of some fish. The editorial board will review it for proper format. If it passes structural merit it will be sent to ichthyologists that have published with the journal in the past in similar areas. For example, If I submit a paper on batch fecundity and spawning frequency, it will likely be sent to a group of scientists that have done extensive work on the batch fecundity and spawning frequency. Some would probably be experts in my sampling methodology and others would likely have general experience with the species of concern. Additionally the article I submit would contain only information pertinent to measuring the parameters specified and some discussion on the success/failure of my methods in light of other similar trials. Supposing I find something neat like interregional differences in egg production within a species; I may speculate on the selection pressures that drive the differences, given that I have supporting literature. In which case the manuscript would probably be sent to some ecologists as well as reproductive biologists.

National Geographic magazine is mass media. Articles are written to sell copy not for the scrutiny of the scientific world. National Geographic articles include drama that has no place in peer-review works. I would never include in a journal article the story of how I froze my ass off installing a submerged fixed hydrophone in february in anticipation of an approaching shad run. It may be entertaining and it may personnalize the story for the reader, but it isn't science. I would include the placement and specs of the hydrophone and that's it. Authors in National Geographic take great speculative liscence as well. They frequently draw firm conclusions on scant evidence. The everyman wants conclusions, not the "what ifs?" of typical science. I see no problem with what they do as the funding National Geographic generates leads to sound science. Hell, they've got some bitchin research vessels, better than anything we've got here (And it's not like we're insignificant in the marine science world). Many authors in National Geographic submit real journal entries on the work that is featured in Nat. Geographic Magazine. I'm guessing that such follow up work is what lead to the discovery of the dinosaur transition hoax.

If that creationist views National Geographic as a peer-reviewed journal, it's no wonder he is a shit-for-brains when it comes to science.

KnightWhoSaysNi

Scombrid,

Thanks for the input, though I don't feel the ad hominem comment at the end was appropriate. He's won scientific awards and is well respected in his field. But I agree, his analysis of evolutionary science and "peer review" regarding this issue is deep flawed with misconceptions.

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>