Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Quetzal · 03-04-2002, 06:14 AM

John: It was probably a good thing your letter didn't get published. Although I totally agree with the sentiment, the bit about "the proponents of ID don't submit their work to scientific journals" could have given a sharp creationist (if there is such an animal) ammunition. Behe has been whining for years about everybody turning his BS down when he tries to get it published. <a href="http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&i d=450" target="_blank">Here's</a> an example from the Discovery Org. website. Not that his claims aren't totally spurious - just that assertions like that can get the cretinists all in a dither BECAUSE Behe can make the claim...

John Solum · 03-04-2002, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Morpho:
John: It was probably a good thing your letter didn't get published. Although I totally agree with the sentiment, the bit about "the proponents of ID don't submit their work to scientific journals" could have given a sharp creationist (if there is such an animal) ammunition. Behe has been whining for years about everybody turning his BS down when he tries to get it published. <a href="http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&i d=450" target="_blank">Here's</a> an example from the Discovery Org. website. Not that his claims aren't totally spurious - just that assertions like that can get the cretinists all in a dither BECAUSE Behe can make the claim...

Hi Morpho,

Thanks a lot for the link. Actually, I'm glad to see a proponent of ID attempting to pass peer review. I still think the claim that ID/creationism attempts to bypass peer review is valid since that appears to be their standard operating procedure. Based on my experience Behe's behavior is unusual. I'll read the paper Behe references so I can get a better idea of how valid his complaints are.

Incidentally, have you read this article?

<a href="http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i17/17a00801.htm" target="_blank">http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i17/17a00801.htm</a>

I'd recommend reading the whole thing, but here are a couple of interesting paragraphs:

Quote:

Many intelligent-design proponents believe there is a conspiracy to keep their ideas out of scientific circles. "I've been in public life a long time," says Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute. "This is one of the most blatant forms of viewpoint discrimination that I have seen."

Critics counter that the theory's advocates are the ones who are conspiring to curtail the debate. Rather than submit papers to respected scientific journals, critics say, they publish books. Rather than present papers at mainstream scientific conferences, they hold their own.

Lehigh's Mr. Behe is one researcher who says he has, in fact, submitted articles to scientific journals, and he adds that their rejection is a sign of the mainstream's close-mindedness.

Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University and a leading critic of the intelligent-design movement, says such a view turns the scientific process on its head. If a researcher's theories are rejected, he says, that means that they have failed as good science, not that they're being suppressed.

Mr. Miller also wonders why Mr. Behe, a member of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, has never presented his ideas at its annual conference, which is his right. "If I thought I had an idea that would completely revolutionize cell biology in the same way that Professor Behe thinks he has an idea that would revolutionize biochemistry," he says, "I would be talking about that idea at every single meeting of my peers I could possibly get to."

Mr. Behe responds that he prefers other venues. "I just don't think that large scientific meetings are effective forums for presenting these ideas," he says.

Baylor's Mr. Dembski also has little interest in publicizing his research through traditional means. "I've just gotten kind of blas� about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print," he says. "And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more."

tgamble · 03-04-2002, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Solum:
Mr. Behe responds that he prefers other venues. "I just don't think that large scientific meetings are effective forums for presenting these ideas," he says.

That's true. people there aren't gullible and ignorant enough to buy Behe's claims!

Baloo · 03-04-2002, 11:06 AM

Quote:

I also suggest that Mr. Lee research the views of members of the faculty at Christian colleges such as Hope College or Calvin college, many members of which are theistic evolutionists...

Since I graduated from Hope's science program just two years ago (though conservative in many ways, Hope does NOT expel atheists), I can personally testify to the truth of this statement; in fact, Biology and Chemistry professors at Hope have stood at the forefront of many local Western Michigan battles to keep creationism out of public high school classrooms.

Theophage · 03-05-2002, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Nathan Lee

Engineering senior

*sigh* Why am I not surprised?

randman · 03-05-2002, 09:14 PM

I think the idea that every fossil is somehow "evidence" of evolution is why a great many people like myself no longer listen to, nor respect the claims of evolutionary theory.
Fact is the fossils are just as much powerful evidence against evolution as evidence for it.
The fact is there is considerable debate, and exageration and at times fabrications, concerning the exact evolutionary paths from species to species. This is indisputable.
Nonetheless, evolutionary theory is presented as if the fossil record shows these transitions. It does not. In fact, that is why there is such considerable debate about the exact evolutionary paths. What is done is an extinct species is considered "transitional" due to similarities, and these similarities are heralded as evidence.
Maybe it is evidence, but maybe not. Certainly, the fossil record doesn't show the in-between species. The exact transitions are not shown, and often a supposed transition, at least from my recollection, is no longer an actual transisition but that branch died out, or we shared a common anscestor, or something along those lines.
Well, the impression was given that the fossil record clearly showed these transitions. That is what is taught, and I can tell you when you discover that is a lie, it has an impact.
You can argue finding fossils in different strata is evidence, and you can argue that similarities are evidence, but at the same time, the fossil record is also powerful evidence against evolution and for creation/ID. I certainly don't hink it supports gradualism, and similarities don't equate to proof of ancestry unless you presume that to be the case.
That presumption is based on the idea that the only valid explantion for similarities are common descent, but it can equally be explained by a common Creator.

Vorkosigan · 03-05-2002, 10:04 PM

Be gentle, folks.

Well, the impression was given that the fossil record clearly showed these transitions. That is what is taught, and I can tell you when you discover that is a lie, it has an impact.

Transitions are abundant, especially at the higher classification levels. <a href="http://biology.semo.edu/courses/bi120/stdygd20.html" target="_blank"> Here is a page discussing these claims in Gish and the realities of the reptile-mammal transition.</a> The transition and modification of the bones of the ear in mammals is a clear and well-known case, one of the best known, laid out in thousands of fossils from around the world.

Why don't you relate the circumstances under which you thought you found out you had been lied to? I'd be interested to know.

Nonetheless, evolutionary theory is presented as if the fossil record shows these transitions. It does not. In fact, that is why there is such considerable debate about the exact evolutionary paths.

Sure, where information is lacking, things are debated. But note that the debates are rather restricted. For example, no serious paleontologist argues that birds evolved directly from bacteria, or that reptiles and mammals do not have shared ancestors. Usually, the debates are over the exact relationships between allied groups. For example, did birds evolve directly from dinosaurs, or do they and dinosaurs have a common ancestor from which they separated?

You can argue finding fossils in different strata is evidence, and you can argue that similarities are evidence, but at the same time, the fossil record is also powerful evidence against evolution and for creation/ID.

How would you use the fossil record to do this?

I certainly don't hink it supports gradualism....

"gradualism" is a red herring. All evolutionary scientists agree that rates of evolution vary between times, places and species. Sometimes new species can emerge in a few thousand years or remain relatively stable for long periods of time.

.... and similarities don't equate to proof of ancestry unless you presume that to be the case.

So you would argue that gray wolves, great danes, chihuahuas and coyotes are not related in any way? It would be your claim that sharks and rays share no common ancestor; indeed, have no ancestors, so they were created with shared DNA. You believe that lions, tigers, leopards, jaguars, bobcats, manx cats, and pumas are all unrelated in any way, and were created seperately. Camels, llamas and vicunas share no relationships; they are stand-alone. Blue whales, fin whales, dolphins and killer whales are unrelated to each other. Note that many of these species can have offspring if artificially inseminated (all of the camelids are interfertile); indeed a couple have been known to interbreed in the wild, though not normally. So if they are not related through common ancestors, how is it they can interbreed?

How do you account for the similarities in these groups, if not common ancestry? Note the common ancestry is confirmed by two independent routes, once through morphology -- the shape of the animal -- and DNA studies. You would aargue, I guess, that it is all coincidence that animals scientists have long thought were closely related (chimps and humans, for example) are also closely related by DNA studies.

Michael

Daggah · 03-05-2002, 10:37 PM

randman, the fossil record actually DOES show a fairly smooth transition from species to species, considering the rather limited size of the fossils we humans have so far collected.

Furthermore, we now have other ways of discerning relationships, ways that have pretty much confirmed that common descent is essentially a fact.

I'm ripping off a few posts I, myself made on another forum, so this will be fairly long, but:

...

Alright, Croi, the thing is that the cytochrome C stuff is basically a prediction that evolution makes that has actually been verified. The reasoning is this: cytochrome C is completely unrelated to physical appearance. If evolution is true, then if you look at one species (Species X) that evolution claims is evolved from another (Species Y), then DNA inherited by X from Y should be remarkably similiar. Consequently, the protein sequences coded for by that DNA will also be remarkably similiar. And if you then compare Species X or Y's DNA to Species Z's DNA, where Species Z is one that is either a very distant relative, then you should see more difference between the species X or Y and species Z. Because the protein sequences are derived from the DNA, then you should also see those differences there, as well. If humans inherited its DNA for its cytochrome C sequence from the same species that chimpanzees did, then the sequences should be similiar. That is the prediction that evolution makes.

When we look at the sequences, then it is quite clear that the prediction here is true. There is no other real reason to expect to see this similiarity, unless it's just a coincidence. If it's a coincidence, then it would be unlikely to see similiar things happen in other organisms. But we do see this type of thing. We see similiarities in junk DNA that evolution also predicts we'll see. We see similiarities in pseudogenes that evolution, again, predicts. These aren't ad hoc explanations. There is little reason to believe that one would find these similiarities so utterly consistently if evolution were not true. And what if, when we found the cytochrome C sequences, we found them to be remarkably different, and lacking the pattern that evolution would predict? Evolutionists would have a lot of explaining to do. But when we did learn about this, that's not what happened. The discoveries being made in molecular biology have all been consistent with evolution so far. Every future discovery is a test of evolutionary theory. And, if the pattern continues, those tests will continue to be passed - with flying colors.

I'm essentially explaining to you how evolution could be falsified here, so pay attention. It may come in handy if evolution is, in fact, not true.

But don't take my word for it. Look for yourself. The sequences I'm going to show you are abbreviated, using this as a guide. Spaces are there to make it easier to read. You can go here and here to see for yourself that I'm not making this up.

This is the cytochrome C sequence for a human:

mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne

This is the cytochrome C sequence for a chimp:

mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne

See the similiarity?

It's reasonable to expect that mice and rats are similiarly related. This is the cytochrome C sequence for a mouse:

mgdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg eradliaylk katne

Here is the sequence for a rat:

mgdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg eradliaylk katne

And a guinea pig:

gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqaagfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge radliaylkk atne

Again, see the similiarities in the sequences?

A rabbit is a mammal as well, but has very little in common with a human or a monkey, and more similiar to a mouse or rat (but not very similiar there, either). According to evolution, we should see more differences with monkeys and humans than we do with rats or mice. Here is the sequence for a rabbit:

gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkde radliaylkk atne

For comparison, here is the sequence for corn:

asfseappgn pkagekifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan knkavvween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylkeat a

Corn, of course, should be completely different from mice, rats, humans, monkeys, rabbits, etc., etc. That's what we see, in fact. However, it should be similiar to sunflowers:

asfaeapagd pttgakifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan knmaviween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylktst a

Are you beginning to see the pattern here?

...

Quoting TalkOrigins:

Quote:

With this in mind, consider again the molecular sequences of cytochrome c. It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works just fine in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein (Tanaka et. al 1988a; Tanaka et al. 1988b; Wallace and Tanaka 1994). In fact, the cytochrome c genes from tuna (fish), pigeon (bird), horse (mammal), Drosophila fly (insect), and rat (mammal) all function well in yeast that lack their own native yeast cytochrome c (Clements et al. 1989; Hickey et al. 1991; Koshy et al. 1992; Scarpulla and Nye 1986). Furthermore, extensive genetic analysis of cytochrome c has demonstrated that the majority of the protein sequence is unnecessary for its function in vivo (Hampsey 1986; Hampsey 1988). Only about a third of the 100 amino acids in cytochrome c are necessary to specify its function. Most of the amino acids in cytochrome c are hypervariable (i.e. they can be replaced by a large number of functionally equivalent amino acids) (Dickerson and Timkovich 1975). Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 1093 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on these genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey 1986; Hampsey 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254). For perspective, the number 1093 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html" target="_blank">Source</a>

...

(end reposts)

Also, randman, similiarities in junk DNA aren't really explainable by any other current theory - except evolution. What we see in the genetic record is consistent with everything we'd expect to see according to evolutionary theory.

So, randman, I'm afraid you really don't have a leg to stand on here.

bluefugue · 03-05-2002, 10:57 PM

Quote:

That presumption is based on the idea that the only valid explantion for similarities are common descent, but it can equally be explained by a common Creator.

You say this like it's something new. Of course the fossil record and morphological similarities can be explained by a Creator. Anything could be explained by a Creator. That is precisely why it is worthless as a scientific explanation.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: IesusDomini ]

randman · 03-06-2002, 07:25 AM

OK, let's pick a specific species that is fairly easy to grasp like a bird, or something along those lines that is felt to be transitional, and then let's fill in the blanks.
What are the previous 5 species that the species in question evolved from, and what are the next 5 species. Where did the evolutionary chanegs take place, and when, and how many? In other words, you just can't say well this dinosaur had feathers and then try to plug it in. What other physiological differences are there? In other words, how many mutations would it take to for one of the species/steps to evolve into the other? I realize that there is debate as to mutations, but this questions still needs to be answered, and then proven.
Moreover, this has to be macro-evolutionary change. The idea that species can breed into different species within the same kind is not contested, and is used in non-evolutionary models.
So fill in the blanks and convince me the fossil redord shows the transitions. I have heard paleontologists say these types of transitions are not shown. If they are, I want to know.
My understanding of Gould and Eldridge's ideas, or former ideas, is that they proposed these species to species changes occuurred in small groups in an isolated fashion and at a rapid pace geologically speaking so that fossils were not left in suffficient numbers to find.
If these fossils are there, I want to know.
By the way, please don't list something like a bacterium. While I recognize bacteria and similar organisms are indeed very relevant, I want something that I can more easiy lay hold of intellectually and examine and see what has been written about it.
All I have seen thus far is that evolutionists pawn off micro-evolutionary changes as macro-changes as Talkorigins does so much I got bored with it, and lists "in-between" extinct species and calls them transitional but don't actually show the immediate transitions.
Can ya'll help?
If I am right, and I beleive I am, then my take is that evolutionists should admit that the fossil record is problematic for them. One of the main reasons I have rejected evolution is the constant overstatement of it's case in such a fashion that I am convinced now that it is a fraud. Not to be offensive, but this is an honestly held view.
Too much of what I was taught from recapitulation, to the fossil record showing the transitions, to pawning off micro-evolution as macro-evolution, etc,...that I basically realized that the main reasons I ever accepted evolution were actually lies that had been taught to me in school.
Hey, I used to read Pravda a little in Russian, and I always thought their propoganda was overly crude. The more I read of evolutionists like the Talkorigin site, and then compare the rebuttals, the more convinced I am that this is more propoganda than science.

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

03-04-2002, 06:14 AM	#11
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	John: It was probably a good thing your letter didn't get published. Although I totally agree with the sentiment, the bit about "the proponents of ID don't submit their work to scientific journals" could have given a sharp creationist (if there is such an animal) ammunition. Behe has been whining for years about everybody turning his BS down when he tries to get it published. <a href="http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&i d=450" target="_blank">Here's</a> an example from the Discovery Org. website. Not that his claims aren't totally spurious - just that assertions like that can get the cretinists all in a dither BECAUSE Behe can make the claim...

03-05-2002, 09:14 PM	#16
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	I think the idea that every fossil is somehow "evidence" of evolution is why a great many people like myself no longer listen to, nor respect the claims of evolutionary theory. Fact is the fossils are just as much powerful evidence against evolution as evidence for it. The fact is there is considerable debate, and exageration and at times fabrications, concerning the exact evolutionary paths from species to species. This is indisputable. Nonetheless, evolutionary theory is presented as if the fossil record shows these transitions. It does not. In fact, that is why there is such considerable debate about the exact evolutionary paths. What is done is an extinct species is considered "transitional" due to similarities, and these similarities are heralded as evidence. Maybe it is evidence, but maybe not. Certainly, the fossil record doesn't show the in-between species. The exact transitions are not shown, and often a supposed transition, at least from my recollection, is no longer an actual transisition but that branch died out, or we shared a common anscestor, or something along those lines. Well, the impression was given that the fossil record clearly showed these transitions. That is what is taught, and I can tell you when you discover that is a lie, it has an impact. You can argue finding fossils in different strata is evidence, and you can argue that similarities are evidence, but at the same time, the fossil record is also powerful evidence against evolution and for creation/ID. I certainly don't hink it supports gradualism, and similarities don't equate to proof of ancestry unless you presume that to be the case. That presumption is based on the idea that the only valid explantion for similarities are common descent, but it can equally be explained by a common Creator.

03-05-2002, 10:04 PM	#17
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Be gentle, folks. Well, the impression was given that the fossil record clearly showed these transitions. That is what is taught, and I can tell you when you discover that is a lie, it has an impact. Transitions are abundant, especially at the higher classification levels. <a href="http://biology.semo.edu/courses/bi120/stdygd20.html" target="_blank"> Here is a page discussing these claims in Gish and the realities of the reptile-mammal transition.</a> The transition and modification of the bones of the ear in mammals is a clear and well-known case, one of the best known, laid out in thousands of fossils from around the world. Why don't you relate the circumstances under which you thought you found out you had been lied to? I'd be interested to know. Nonetheless, evolutionary theory is presented as if the fossil record shows these transitions. It does not. In fact, that is why there is such considerable debate about the exact evolutionary paths. Sure, where information is lacking, things are debated. But note that the debates are rather restricted. For example, no serious paleontologist argues that birds evolved directly from bacteria, or that reptiles and mammals do not have shared ancestors. Usually, the debates are over the exact relationships between allied groups. For example, did birds evolve directly from dinosaurs, or do they and dinosaurs have a common ancestor from which they separated? You can argue finding fossils in different strata is evidence, and you can argue that similarities are evidence, but at the same time, the fossil record is also powerful evidence against evolution and for creation/ID. How would you use the fossil record to do this? I certainly don't hink it supports gradualism.... "gradualism" is a red herring. All evolutionary scientists agree that rates of evolution vary between times, places and species. Sometimes new species can emerge in a few thousand years or remain relatively stable for long periods of time. .... and similarities don't equate to proof of ancestry unless you presume that to be the case. So you would argue that gray wolves, great danes, chihuahuas and coyotes are not related in any way? It would be your claim that sharks and rays share no common ancestor; indeed, have no ancestors, so they were created with shared DNA. You believe that lions, tigers, leopards, jaguars, bobcats, manx cats, and pumas are all unrelated in any way, and were created seperately. Camels, llamas and vicunas share no relationships; they are stand-alone. Blue whales, fin whales, dolphins and killer whales are unrelated to each other. Note that many of these species can have offspring if artificially inseminated (all of the camelids are interfertile); indeed a couple have been known to interbreed in the wild, though not normally. So if they are not related through common ancestors, how is it they can interbreed? How do you account for the similarities in these groups, if not common ancestry? Note the common ancestry is confirmed by two independent routes, once through morphology -- the shape of the animal -- and DNA studies. You would aargue, I guess, that it is all coincidence that animals scientists have long thought were closely related (chimps and humans, for example) are also closely related by DNA studies. Michael

03-06-2002, 07:25 AM	#20
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	OK, let's pick a specific species that is fairly easy to grasp like a bird, or something along those lines that is felt to be transitional, and then let's fill in the blanks. What are the previous 5 species that the species in question evolved from, and what are the next 5 species. Where did the evolutionary chanegs take place, and when, and how many? In other words, you just can't say well this dinosaur had feathers and then try to plug it in. What other physiological differences are there? In other words, how many mutations would it take to for one of the species/steps to evolve into the other? I realize that there is debate as to mutations, but this questions still needs to be answered, and then proven. Moreover, this has to be macro-evolutionary change. The idea that species can breed into different species within the same kind is not contested, and is used in non-evolutionary models. So fill in the blanks and convince me the fossil redord shows the transitions. I have heard paleontologists say these types of transitions are not shown. If they are, I want to know. My understanding of Gould and Eldridge's ideas, or former ideas, is that they proposed these species to species changes occuurred in small groups in an isolated fashion and at a rapid pace geologically speaking so that fossils were not left in suffficient numbers to find. If these fossils are there, I want to know. By the way, please don't list something like a bacterium. While I recognize bacteria and similar organisms are indeed very relevant, I want something that I can more easiy lay hold of intellectually and examine and see what has been written about it. All I have seen thus far is that evolutionists pawn off micro-evolutionary changes as macro-changes as Talkorigins does so much I got bored with it, and lists "in-between" extinct species and calls them transitional but don't actually show the immediate transitions. Can ya'll help? If I am right, and I beleive I am, then my take is that evolutionists should admit that the fossil record is problematic for them. One of the main reasons I have rejected evolution is the constant overstatement of it's case in such a fashion that I am convinced now that it is a fraud. Not to be offensive, but this is an honestly held view. Too much of what I was taught from recapitulation, to the fossil record showing the transitions, to pawning off micro-evolution as macro-evolution, etc,...that I basically realized that the main reasons I ever accepted evolution were actually lies that had been taught to me in school. Hey, I used to read Pravda a little in Russian, and I always thought their propoganda was overly crude. The more I read of evolutionists like the Talkorigin site, and then compare the rebuttals, the more convinced I am that this is more propoganda than science.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.