Comment #19391

Posted by Jonathan Abbey on March 9, 2005 05:02 PM (e) (s)

Give Fred credit, he made hardly any absolute claims of what is or isn’t true.. all he did was express a view that skepticism as to unproved details is not unjustifiable.  I think you do him a disservice in seeking to eviscerate him in this way.

I actually wrote him an email response earlier today:

Thanks for a typically incisive article, Fred.  I am one of those who take
the plausibility of Evolution as being most consistent with how I observe
the world working around me, but I very much appreciate your thoughtful
critique.  Not all evolutionists will reflexively take what you have written
and read ‘heathen!’ into it.  If by happy chance you actually are a heathen,
well, that’s of course your own look out.  I don’t get that from this article,
though.  Small comfort, I expect.
 
I would like to say that scientists are investigating just about everything
you write about, and that what they are doing is as fascinating as your questions.
 
On biogeneis: I’ve a few interesting links that I’ve come across that talk about
experimentation in the field.  The first two talk about a research program to
create simple structures capable of Darwinian evolution from some RNA and bubbles
of fatty acids.
 
http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2004/articles_2004_Before…
http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/006006.html…
 
The next link is a computer simulation that analyzes the necessity of structural
separation among early replicators in order to evolve more complex (and reliable)
replication machinery.
 
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/jour…
 
Life is complicated stuff, but I think it’s clear that it’s either not as hard
to come about as we intuitively suspect it is, or that there was something that
helped it past the hard parts.  Intelligent Design folks claim that, at a minimum,
something helped it past the hard parts, but I suspect that life in this universe
just isn’t that hard.  It may be that a Creator created the universe in that way
on purpose, but then one has to wonder how and why the Creator came about.
 
On your starlings vs. guacamayos conundrum:  I think the matter of things is that
different living things go their own way through history, and everybody is
optimizing for slightly different things, as a result of their unique history.
Guacamayos may be colorful not because it makes them easier to find, but because
the guacamayo ladies decided at some point that they just liked that sort of thing.
Ditto the starlings.  Who knows?  You’re right that the ‘just so stories’ are not
to be relied on as evidence for evolution, but most of the Darwinian skeptics I’ve
met tell ‘just can’t be so’ stories which are equally difficult to base a reliable
argument on.
 
As far as significantly beyond-the-mean human intelligence being maladaptive: That
may be true only recently. One of the things that seems to keep life interesting
on this planet is that the natural and competitive environment around each of us
is always changing, and what might have helped (or been neutral to) an ancestor
might help us slightly less today.  Perhaps society (which evolves faster than we
do, culturally and technologically) has evolved to the point where you don’t have
to be that smart to survive well enough to have a mess of kids.
 
Thanks very much for all of your material.  It’s a joy to read intelligent,
elegant, and curmudgeonly writing such as your own.
 
Jon

Comment #19393

Posted by plunge on March 9, 2005 05:10 PM (e) (s)

The last point seems hard to grasp for most creationists today. They seem to think that all the babbling about bit sand the UPB actually means something in terms of being able to calculate the likihood of some sort of self-replicator coming into being.  How they think they can calculate the probability of something happening without:

a) knowing EXACTLY what the target somethings are  (we don’t)
b) knowing at least roughly what sorts of environments the target somethings have to form in (we don’t, or at least, we vaguely know only some of them)
c) in some way modeling causal reality of how all the different things in these environments interact

The biggest headslapper is c).  Somehow, people like Dembski et al have convinced themselves that you can model the complex causal realities of the natural world by simply flipping a bunch of coins in indepedant, repeated trials!

Comment #19395

Posted by plunge on March 9, 2005 06:00 PM (e) (s)

Jonathan Abbey, you might want to mention that while biologists can indeed be prone to telling “just so” stories, the fact is most of them then go on to try and test the implications of those stories to see if they make sense.  For instance, biologists didn’t simply “just so” the idea that bdelloid rotifers had become asexual at some specific point in their evolutionary past: they actually thought up a way to test the idea and even get a pretty decent date onto when it happened.

Comment #19396

Posted by Jonathan Abbey on March 9, 2005 06:08 PM (e) (s)

Oh, no doubt.  I think Fred is extrapolating popular recountings of evolutionary stories into the work of professional biologists, but I don’t.  To the extent that ‘just so’ stories are ever told, however, I think that ID’ers like Behe are worse.

Comment #19397

Posted by Mark in OC on March 9, 2005 06:43 PM (e) (s)

You stated that: Some immediate examples of evolution in action are found at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.  Further examples are given at Observed Instances of Speciation. 
So, we have taken care of the “evolution happens” issue.  If you don’t think so, then there really isn’t any point for you to continue reading anything but the Bible and the obits.

If that’s the case, it’s time to win some money…$250,000.00.  Here’s the challenge:

The general theory of evolution believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

Observed phenomena:
Most thinking people will agree that..
1. A highly ordered universe exists.
2. At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.
3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.

Go to www.drdino.com on:
How to collect the $250,000:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable.

PS. let us know if you win, OK?
We’re still posting over at Vox Day’s blog…

Comment #19398

Posted by Gary Hurd on March 9, 2005 06:44 PM (e) (s)

Thanks very much for all of your material.  It’s a joy to read intelligent, elegant, and curmudgeonly writing such as your own.

What!

I nearly had lip cramp.  Fred has made no effort to read the scientific literature on the orign of life research.  He knew diddly to begin with, and then has the unmitigated gaul to argue that his total ignorance- which is willful as most of the article I can cite (35 pages worth that I have read)are available for free- justifies a rejection of the sciences.  This is either dishonest, lazy or stupid.  Mr. Reeds use of words suggest that he is not stupid.  The fact that he maintains his “blog” suggest that he is not lazy.  I see little alternative to dishonesty.  Dawkins is famous for suggesting insanity, but I think he is too kind.

Comment #19399

Posted by Jonathan Abbey on March 9, 2005 06:52 PM (e) (s)

I’ve been reading Fred’s stuff for a couple of years now.  I wasn’t thanking him for his scientific opinion on evolution.  I do appreciate his asking intelligent questions, and for accepting that there might be intelligent answers to them, despite his ignorance.

Comment #19400

Posted by Gary Hurd on March 9, 2005 06:56 PM (e) (s)

Hello Mark.  Perhaps you should read Kent Hovind FAQs: Examining “Dr. Dino”

The phony “Doctor”  Kent Hovind’s offer of any money to anyone seems in poor taste since he has also insisted that he is bankrupt in order to avoid paying income tax, and been arrested when trying to evict rent paying tenants of his properties.

Comment #19403

Posted by Randall on March 9, 2005 07:03 PM (e) (s)

Mark, after you’re done reading the TalkOrigins articles on evidence for macroevolution and other examples of speciation, you may want to look at why Kent Hovind’s challenge is designed to be impossible to win.  Quick summary: To win, you’d need to prove things which science doesn’t actually claim, and you’d need to prove them to the satisfaction of people hand-picked by Hovind (think he’ll get impartial judges?).

Comment #19404

Posted by Russell on March 9, 2005 07:16 PM (e) (s)

Mark in OC (Oblivious Confusion?) wrote:

The general theory of evolution believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

Wow! That’s 5 out of 5 WRONG! Though you could make that last one right with a little rephrasing, i.e. “amphibians evolved from fish” etc.

Comment #19405

Posted by RPM on March 9, 2005 07:19 PM (e) (s)

I’m giving the troll too much credit by addressing this, but …

Mark in OC wrote:

The general theory of evolution believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

#1-3 are not even part of biological research, let along evolutionary biology.  They are matters addressed by physicists and astronomers.  #4 is more along the lines of abiogenesis, which is a different field from evolutionary biology.  #5 deals with evolution, and the Talk Origins site has plenty of examples.

3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.

If any evolutioary biologist calls man “the most advanced form of life on this planet” you should check his/her credentials.  It’s an obvious sign of a misunderstanding of evolution.  Extant organisms are not related like rungs on a ladder, but rather like the tips of brances on a tree.

Comment #19406

Posted by Nick B on March 9, 2005 07:22 PM (e) (s)

Thanks, BTW, for sticking your head in there, Doc. I try and get at least some of them to doubt their presumptions of comprehension of science but the vocal ones aren’t all that easy to nail down.

The most annoying part is that ET and most of science really doesn’t argue against anything the Bible or Faith say about God, as long as you aren’t a literalist.

You’d think that ET directly “proved God” wrong the way some of ‘em look at it, though, instead of not having anythng to say about God except what techniques He used in the process of creation if He did create it all.

Part of it is for self-clarification (I always like to test my world construct against the views of others) and part of it is for the lurkers’ consideration. Some of them may think about it and Get It even if the noisy ones don’t.

;-)

Comment #19409

Posted by Nick B on March 9, 2005 07:34 PM (e) (s)

<i>This is either dishonest, lazy or stupid.  Mr. Reeds use of words suggest that he is not stupid.  The fact that he maintains his “blog” suggest that he is not lazy.  I see little alternative to dishonesty. </i>

Well, in the arena of Xtian attitudes, Xtians are sorta like Democrats with Keynesianism and Marxism, or the dangers of The State. Any argument against it has just got no sticking power. You lead them down the logical path, they follow you step by step, all the way, and as you turn around to show them, “See, your idea doesn’t work…” And then turn back and they are gone — POOF! — somehow, they teleported back to where they started from with no memory of the journey.

It’s not actually stupidity, but it is a form of it, sort of like an inability to time-bind or something.

Comment #19410

Posted by Flint on March 9, 2005 07:36 PM (e) (s)

I do appreciate his asking intelligent questions, and for accepting that there might be intelligent answers to them, despite his ignorance.

Except for the little detail that the intelligent answers already exist in abundance, are easy to find and reasonably easy to understand. And that being the case, people remain ignorant not because they can’t find or understand the answers, but because they *don’t like* the answers.

Be careful, Jonathan. In these waters, one can tell a man’s religion by his honesty. Fred knows better and so do you.

Comment #19411

Posted by Jonathan Abbey on March 9, 2005 07:50 PM (e) (s)

And that being the case, people remain ignorant not because they can’t find or understand the answers, but because they *don’t like* the answers.

Be careful, Jonathan. In these waters, one can tell a man’s religion by his honesty. Fred knows better and so do you.

Why are you trying so hard to be insulting?  I assure you it is unnecessary.  And I disagree that intelligent answers are reasonably easy to find and understand.  The question of biogenesis is still very much an open research question, I think, and I don’t remember reading about giraffe ancestry in any issue of Scientific American or Discover in the last 15 years.

Fred is not responding to the technical evolutionary biology literature.  I’m quite sure he hasn’t read it.  What I imagine he has read is the popular presentation of evolution in places like Scientific American and the like, and he has some questions about that.  He hasn’t said ‘evolution is fake, ID rules, d00d’, he has said ‘this doesn’t seem to me to be proved as well as it would need to in order to merit the presumption of certainty’.

And he’s right, it isn’t proved to *certainty*.  Almost nothing is.  It costs us nothing to admit that.

The issue of certainty aside, he has actually posed some good questions.  Maybe he’s dishonest for pretending not already to know the answers, or lazy for not being au courant on the leading journals, but I think that’s a bit harsh.  He’s a skeptic, but from appearances an open minded one, and that’s far and away from the usual sort of ID riff-raff that trolls around here.

He’s also a pundit, and he writes deliberately with full knowledge that lots of people won’t agree with him when he shoots his mouth off.  I think that’s codified in law someplace that pundits get to do that.

Read some of his other stuff, at least, before you condemn him.  He’s a hell of a writer.

Comment #19416

Posted by Gary Hurd on March 9, 2005 09:31 PM (e) (s)

Jon,

Fred Reed is not responding to the deficiencies of journalists incompetently reporting science.  If he were, he might be able to claim some sort of advantaged insight, as he claims to be a journalist.  But he is not making this claim.  Rather he has assumed the pose of a privileged critic informed of the scientific details, and forthrightly announcing that they are faulty.  In order to honestly maintain this, he would have had to shown a little bit of effort at learning what is well known. His bogus “questions’ are proof enough- they are generally ignorant and framed only to be misleading.  He did not honestly present what is readily avialable in scientific publications, free to anyone with the wit to read them.  He is therefore dishonest.

Journalists maybe are tolerant of dishonesty in their ranks, their readers seem to be, but scientists are not.  He is ‘condemned’ because he is dishonest and/or incompetent.

Comment #19418

Posted by steve on March 9, 2005 10:41 PM (e) (s)

Hey Mark in OC:

PS. let us know if you win, OK?
We’re still posting over at Vox Day’s blog…

I love making bets with right-wing christian nuts when they say particularly crazy things. Vox is under the impression that he’s an economic expert. A few years ago, 2003 if I remember correctly, Vox said that the market was going to be obliterated. I bet Vox that he was wrong. Eventually we settled on the metric. He said the S&P would lose over 50% of its value by late 2005. While you’re over at his blog, ask him how this little bet is going.

Comment #19419

Posted by Jonathan Abbey on March 9, 2005 10:48 PM (e) (s)

Fred may be a journalist, but he’s not a science journalist.  The column in question is just something he put up on his web site for his fans to read.  When he was working as a journalist, he tended to go out on patrol with cops in various major cities and report on their experiences.  He’s also had a column in Soldier of Fortune, I believe.  That sort of thing.  Mostly these days he writes about politics, how proud he is of his daughter, what it’s like living as an ex-pat in Mexico, and so forth.

His assumption that his questions have not been addressed or answered may in many cases be bogus, but I don’t believe the questions themselves are.  Mostly, I think the column is about him complaining that his questions are treated like they are bogus and that anyone who doubts something having to do with evolution is an idiot.

I don’t think idiot describes Fred.  Nor do I think scientist or science journalist describes him.  I think curmudgeon describes him.  Uppity would describe him nicely.

And I think for a layman, he asks a lot of good questions that I don’t know the answer to.  How did color vision evolve?  I’m quite certain that it did, and I’m even quite sure that it has been written about in detail (I do recall Dawkins touching on the topic in The Ancestor’s Tale), but I don’t think that I have myself read discussions of the neuro-evolution of it.  I did do some research into neural network modeling of episodic memory in college, so I know there’s a lot of ways in which the brain self-organizes in response to input.  It’s perfectly plausible to me that the color-sensitive receptors came first and the brain just worked with it, but Fred may not know about neural self-organization.  Even if he did, he’s asking for more than plausible in the article.

Honestly, I’d expect that to get detailed answers to many of his questions, he’d need a graduate level education in zoology / molecular biology / evolutionary biology.  I think the root of his problem is that he’s wanting to know for himself at a detailed level how this stuff happens rather than taking the word of the scientific community on it, but that a lot of the details are either not yet known, or are not disseminated down to where the layman can read the details.

Comment #19421

Posted by DaveScot on March 10, 2005 12:28 AM (e) (s)

Dr. GH,

I must have missed the part where science has observed mutation plus selection creating a (choose one or more):

1. novel body type
2. novel tissue type
3. novel organ

Be a good chap and give me the reference for that. 

Thanks in advance.

Comment #19422

Posted by DaveScot on March 10, 2005 12:36 AM (e) (s)

Jonathan wrote:

I think you do him a disservice in seeking to eviscerate him in this way.

Nah.  Dr. GH is just doing his part to endear the academic community with the unwashed masses.  And the curs don’t even have the common courtesy to appreciate what an effort it is for people like Dr. GH to descend to their level to speak to them.  It’s an outrage, dammit.

Comment #19423

Posted by Jonathan Abbey on March 10, 2005 12:38 AM (e) (s)

DaveScot

Just because I believe that Fred Reed is asking questions in a sincere, if ignorant, way, doesn’t mean that you trolling like that doesn’t make you a pernicious twit.  The events you’re asking about are ones that would be expected to take a very long time indeed to develop, perhaps into the hundreds of thousands if not millions of years for vertebrates.  You’re asking for something that evolutionary theory doesn’t predict should likely be directly observable in human time scales, and then asking that mutation be directly observed bringing it about.

Given that you’re not even interested in having the proper questions asked _or_ answered, shouldn’t you run off and play with your dolls or something?

Comment #19424

Posted by DaveScot on March 10, 2005 01:28 AM (e) (s)

Jonathan,

I’m interested in making clear what a huge extrapolation of actual observations is made when crediting mutation/selection for all the observed diversity. 

You don’t have a problem with clarity do you?  After that long pompous speech about trying to make things clear to laymen I think I made a very clear point for you.  Practice what you preach and spread the word.

Comment #19425

Posted by DaveScot on March 10, 2005 01:45 AM (e) (s)

Jonathan wrote:

The events you’re asking about are ones that would be expected to take a very long time indeed to develop, perhaps into the hundreds of thousands if not millions of years for vertebrates.

Pay attention.  I didn’t mention vertebrates.  A bacterium mutating into a yeast would be fine.  I’m not picky.  Show mutation/selection generating any novel body type, any novel tissue type, any novel organ.

You’re asking for something that evolutionary theory doesn’t predict should likely be directly observable in human time scales, and then asking that mutation be directly observed bringing it about.

And you sir, are asking me to accept as a matter of faith that time empowers mutation/selection to accomplish things that have never been observed.

I thought faith was the stuff of religion and empirical evidence was the stuff of science.  Am I wrong?

Comment #19426

Posted by DaveScot on March 10, 2005 01:52 AM (e) (s)

Jonathan Abbey wrote:

Just because I believe that Fred Reed is asking questions in a sincere, if ignorant, way, doesn’t mean that you trolling like that doesn’t make you a pernicious twit.

Coming from you, I’ll take pernicious twit as a compliment.

Thank you.  I’m flattered.

Comment #19427

Posted by Jonathan Abbey on March 10, 2005 02:00 AM (e) (s)

I’m interested in making clear what a huge extrapolation of actual observations is made when crediting mutation/selection for all the observed diversity.

Yes, and you’ve made it clear for _ever_ that you consider such extrapolations to be unjustified, no matter how strong the inferential evidence.  We get your opinion.  Why keep sniping at it in every post?

You don’t have a problem with clarity do you?  After that long pompous speech about trying to make things clear to laymen I think I made a very clear point for you.  Practice what you preach and spread the word.

You didn’t clearly state anything, you asked a snarky question seeking to prove a point that you’ve tried to make over and over again, and that hasn’t convinced anyone.

Pay attention.  I didn’t mention vertebrates.  A bacterium mutating into a yeast would be fine.  I’m not picky.  Show mutation/selection generating any novel body type, any novel tissue type, any novel organ.

Fine, you’re not picky.  You want to see direct observation of any change that evolutionary theory says should take on average thousands or millions of generations, and you’re not picky about whether it is a bacterium or a vertebrate.  How fair minded of you.

And you sir, are asking me to accept as a matter of faith that time empowers mutation/selection to accomplish things that have never been observed.

I’m not asking you to accept anything, whether as a matter of faith or not.  You clearly have no interest in considering anything but your own point of view.  You demonstrate this by your refusal to internalize the evolutionary argument, and by your constant demand for evidence for that which evolutionary theory does not predict.

Comment #19428

Posted by DaveScot on March 10, 2005 02:25 AM (e) (s)

Jonathan,

I don’t have a problem with holding out mutation/selection as a strong explanatory mechanism for diversity.  What I have a problem with is holding it out as the only mechanism and pretending it doesn’t have problems that would make one want to consider other explanations.

Comment #19429

Posted by DaveScot on March 10, 2005 02:40 AM (e) (s)

Jonathan wrote:

I’m not asking you to accept anything, whether as a matter of faith or not.  You clearly have no interest in considering anything but your own point of view.  You demonstrate this by your refusal to internalize the evolutionary argument, and by your constant demand for evidence for that which evolutionary theory does not predict.

Good grief, Jonathan. 

YOU clearly have no interest in considering anything but your own point of view.

YOU demonstrate this by your refusal to even consider intelligent design worthy of mention.

And by YOUR constant demand for evidence of a designer when that’s something that ID doesn’t predict is observable.

From my objective POV, you are little different than a bible thumper.  You both have articles of faith where you assume things to be true that have never been observed and are by definition unobservable.  You are both convinced you have the correct answer.  You both refuse to acknowledge any possibility that the other is right.

I can understand this kind of behavior in the unwashed masses.  I can’t understand it from people like you.

Comment #19430

Posted by Ed Darrell on March 10, 2005 02:43 AM (e) (s)

DaveScot said: 

I’m not picky.  Show mutation/selection generating any novel body type, any novel tissue type, any novel organ.

Remind me of the problem here: Mosquitoes have developed immunity (not just resistance) to DDT through the novel mechanism of now being able to digest the stuff rather as a nutrient, and break it down.  How is this example insufficient for your challenge?

Comment #19433

Posted by Jonathan Abbey on March 10, 2005 02:56 AM (e) (s)

Hey, I acknowledged in the first comment on this post the argument for creationism.  I acknowledge that God might have done it all.  I just don’t acknowledge that evidence has been presented for that proposition.  There is massive, interlocking, mutually supporting evidence for evolution.  Given the direct observation and characterization of genetic mutations, the evidence from molecular biology for a succession of small mutations over time and the vast quantity of replicators and the time for replication that Earth has had, the question becomes why you think the evidence does not suffice to point to micromutations giving rise to large-scale changes over time.  What intercedes to prevent the small changes from accumulating to large changes?

If you were really interested in clarity, you would at least address yourself to that question.  The fact that you pick on the fact that large evolutionary changes tend to happen over a really long time as if it were a weakness rather than one of the essential characteristics of the theory shows that you’re not serious.

Comment #19435

Posted by DonkeyKong on March 10, 2005 03:45 AM (e) (s)

Funny…

Evolutionists have a bunch of fallacies that they state over and over….I will try and rephrase them so that you can see what I find funny…….

1)  Even if an all powerful God created the first life from dust we still know that he didn’t created more than one species.  Because we made theories and monkeys and humans are very similiar…

2)  Evolution is caused by random mutations which although extreamly unlikely to have singlehandedly formed the complex forms we have now, are able to make complex life because they are guided by this process natural selection that we don’t understand and can’t quantify.

3)  The evolution movement has backed away from biogenesis, false claims about life on Venus, Jupiter, the moon and Mars.  Most evolutionists have backed away from survival fo the fittest as well.  But evolution has always been proven right, those other parts were never part of evolution, expecially the parts that didn’t turn out the way we wanted.  Evolving from dust….please that is not part of evolving without any outside interference…

4)  Creationists are silly for believing a unknown non-random cause make mutations in DNA causing lifes varied makeup.  We all know it was a unknown random cause…how silly they are. Ocman’s razor and all that.

5)  Evolution has been proven.  Because I said so.

6)  No you misunderstand, evolution happened.  Didn’t you hear me say so.

7)  Look at these sceptical non-evolutionists how ignorant they are.  Questioning how frequent large scale mutations are when none are observed in current life….how dare you question our dogma.

8)  Of course evolution is true we are here aren’t we?  There is no God and no little green men therefore evolution is true until you can prove a theory for how life started.  Nevermind the holes in this theory.

9)  The first ancestor and all creatures even remotely similiar to it are all dead leaving only creature 4 or 5 orders of magnitude more complex than it, they evolved thats why they aren’t there, dumbass.  Asking why are there still monkeys when humans have evolved from monkeys is not a valid question, dumbass.

10)  Evolution is a gradual process whereby the entrophy of life is reduced allowing more complex life with more information stored in its DNA.  But missing links are ok too.

Do you see why these arguments are silly yet?

Comment #19437

Posted by plunge on March 10, 2005 04:06 AM (e) (s)

Yes, Donkey, your straw man arguments against evolution DO seem pretty silly.  I can’t even quite make sense of what half of them mean.

Comment #19439

Posted by Nic George on March 10, 2005 04:15 AM (e) (s)

Jeez, things are getting nasty down at Pandas Thumb today!

Comment #19443

Posted by Grey Wolf on March 10, 2005 05:43 AM (e) (s)

1) Even if an all powerful God created the first life from dust we still know that he didn’t created more than one species.  Because we made theories and monkeys and humans are very similiar…

about 50% correct. God may or may not have created the first life form. I rather doubt it. Most Christians, if they follow the commands of their religion, would think as I do. Hypothesis were made, checked, found them correct, and thus a theory was developed. And we have concluded there was an original unique life form (or small group) because human and bacteria are very similar.

2)  Evolution is caused by random mutations which although extreamly unlikely to have singlehandedly formed the complex forms we have now, are able to make complex life because they are guided by this process natural selection that we don’t understand and can’t quantify.

False. Very false. Evolution is caused by extremely commom mutations (3 or so per individual. That gives you, what, 99.999% chance of having at least one?) which combined (not singlehandedly) with natural selection, which we understand very well, make evolution possible. We can’t predict weather past three or four days. Compared to that, evolution is very predictable.

3)  The evolution movement has backed away from biogenesis, false claims about life on Venus, Jupiter, the moon and Mars.  Most evolutionists have backed away from survival fo the fittest as well.  But evolution has always been proven right, those other parts were never part of evolution, expecially the parts that didn’t turn out the way we wanted.  Evolving from dust….please that is not part of evolving without any outside interference…

Evolution theory never said anything about those topics, as far as I know. Show me peer-reviewed articles that show otherwise, or admit you pulled that our from where the sun doesn’t shine. And yet the jury is still out about our chances of finding life in Mars and other planets and moons of our solar system - it just has not much to do with evolution, except in a roundabout way.

I already explained survival of the fittest to you. You didn’t listen, or attempt to defend your statement demonstrating that you’re a troll. But at least don’t come back repeating the same mistake. It makes you look even worse.

No idea what your point is about dust. You must surely know that evolution does not state that we evolved from dust, unless you go way back to the Big Bang (straw man) or define “dust” to include microbiotic creatures (but then it’s not really dust anymore).

4)  Creationists are silly for believing a unknown non-random cause make mutations in DNA causing lifes varied makeup.  We all know it was a unknown random cause…how silly they are. Ocman’s razor and all that.

Learn to spell. Or at least go back to school.

Creationists can believe what they want, as long as they don’t force everyone else to do the same, since it’s unconstitutional. Tell you what, do some research, get proof that there is an agent behind mutations, and come back. I’m young, I’ll wait.

5)  Evolution has been proven.  Because I said so.

Evolution has been proven due to the thousands of fossils that agree with the theory. Not to mention the countless other methods of research. But maybe you’ll find a unicorn, proving that the Bible was right all along, and not evolution. Go on, look for one.

6)  No you misunderstand, evolution happened.  Didn’t you hear me say so.

Evolution is happening. It has been reproduced in labs. You can see it in the natural world. There are examples and studies all around. Open your eyes, for a change.

7)  Look at these sceptical non-evolutionists how ignorant they are.  Questioning how frequent large scale mutations are when none are observed in current life….how dare you question our dogma.

Large scale mutations take millions of years. There are many examples. Look at the evolution of whales from land mammals to sea giants. See the change from dinosaurs to birds. Except in those people who need to not understand, both count as large scale.

8)  Of course evolution is true we are here aren’t we?  There is no God and no little green men therefore evolution is true until you can prove a theory for how life started.  Nevermind the holes in this theory.

Are you even English? I am not, and have a better grasp on your language that you have.

At any rate, you look like an utter imbecile, sorry I have to say this, I don’t mean it as an insult, every time you go back to the old, old, tired cannard that evolution means that God doesn’t exist. It has been pointed out to be false for over 100 years. Most Christians accept it. Only fundamentalists disagree. So, what side are you on?

9)  The first ancestor and all creatures even remotely similiar to it are all dead leaving only creature 4 or 5 orders of magnitude more complex than it, they evolved thats why they aren’t there, dumbass.  Asking why are there still monkeys when humans have evolved from monkeys is not a valid question, dumbass.

You must disagree with the “there can be monkeys and humans at the same time”. Please explain why, if you will. Try a simpler one, like if I and my cousin descend from my grandfather, why you feel one or the other can’t exist. We even have different surnames.

And given that more than 3000 million years have passed since those first life forms, why would you expect any of the original ones to be able to compete with the current ones? Better life forms than them have been driven to extinction.

10)  Evolution is a gradual process whereby the entrophy of life is reduced allowing more complex life with more information stored in its DNA.  But missing links are ok too.

For example:
DNA(1): AAA
evolves into
DNA (2): ABA
which evolves into
DNA (3): ABAABA

2 has more information than 1. 3 is more complex than 2, and contains more information. Both are easily obtained via mutation, and has been very demonstrated.

And there is no such thing as “entrophy” of life, or of anything else.

Conclusion: DonkeyKong has no knowledge of the subject he speaks of, the language he speaks in or even basic civility. He has provided nothing new - i.e. that isn’t already covered in talk.origins’ creationist claims list - and is not even capable of defending his own words but, as usual, tries to bring the same arguments back again after they have been rebutted.

Ergo: he is a troll. I wish I was studying social studies. The patterns of behaviour of Internet trolls are consistent, predictable and in general, thesis material.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Comment #19444

Posted by John A. Davison on March 10, 2005 06:07 AM (e) (s)

All genetic events are or were instantaneous events occurring in the order of seconds. There never was a gradual genetic change and there never will be. Since evolution WAS a series of genetic changes it follows that all such steps were instantaneous and without intermediate stages. That evolution was a gradual process flies in the face of everything we know from the fossil record and from the laboratory bench. I can’t believe that any objective human being could still subscribe to such nonsense. I presented this perspective in my paper “The Case for Instant Evolution” so I am sure not going to repeat it here. You can find the unexpurgated version of this paper in Terry Trainor’s Talk Origins forum where he kindly has stored other of my papers in the Document section. For those who still frequent decent libraries you can read the paper sans the conclusion section (the referees were horrified at my conclusions so they deleted that section)in Rivista di Biologia 96:203-206, 2003.

John A. Davison

Comment #19445

Posted by DonkeyKong on March 10, 2005 06:27 AM (e) (s)

Grey

1)  Your theory rests on LUCA, your proof of LUCA is your theory…see a problem yet?

2)  Please do the math on your mutation rate…no really DO THE MATH.  There isn’t enough time.

3)  Carl Sagan, heard of him?  And biogenesis is evolution’s God.  Without biogenesis you rely on a completely seperate mechanism from randomness which if a second mechanism exists would put in doubt your complete theory.  Biogenesis is essential to evolution.

4)  Do you think random mutations guided by a mystical natural selection is more likely than a non random process?  This is your religion it doesn’t belong in school.

5)  Usually answering a parody with wholehearted acceptance of the parodied aspect is frowned upon, but I am sure the kool-aid drinkers miss the irony.  BTW unicorns are real, you probably call them rhinos.

6)  Evolution has not been reproduced in labs.  Biogenesis has not been reproduced in labs.  Simple experiments that you THINK show evolution occur in the lab.  Evolution is a very large theory reaching back millions of years there are tons and tons of apparently false aspects to evolution starting with biogenesis.

7)  Unless you can show a feasible guiding function large scale mutations may take trillions of years.  DO THE MATH…  You are assuming the timeline fits before you figure out what is happening.

8)  Not English, American.  It is statistically unlikey that you have a better grasp of english than I.  I have dyslexia which limits the spelling.  I am in a state of not knowing regarding evolution.  That is where all intelligent scientists must be.  I can see the strength of the fossil data but I also seem to have a greater appreciation for the weaknesses that most of the anti-creation priests.

9)  If you base your theory on a linear driving function that goes from 1 mutation deviating from species to 2->3->4 etc and you claim that natural selection acts as a guiding function by favoring certain traits then you are faced with a delima.  Were monkeys or humans more fit?  Why do you a believer have the power to say LUCA was eliminated because Natural selection punishes the unfit but monkeys weren’t because Natural selection does not punish the unfit?  Yes if it suits me No if it doesn’t and the burden of proof is on you???

10)  Local minimization of entrophy is possible and can be observed in gas and quantom particles for short periods of time.  I am talking about self assembly and increasing order in genetics sustained over time.  This energy needed to sustain the lower entrophy is a clear opposing force to natural selection as higher complexity requires more energy to replicate.  It is not clear to me that natural selection would win.  And in the event that the laws of nature are structured to have natural selection win who is to say that it isn’t ID?

<Insert insult here>
<Insert Troll refference here>
<Insert lack of origionality here>
<Classy huh? >

Comment #19446

Posted by plunge on March 10, 2005 06:31 AM (e) (s)

“All genetic events are or were instantaneous events occurring in the order of seconds. There never was a gradual genetic change and there never will be. Since evolution WAS a series of genetic changes it follows that all such steps were instantaneous and without intermediate stages.”

The logic is patently false.  Yes, genetic changes do happen near instantaneously.  But their actual effects may not actually be felt for thousands of years (not all impact morphology directly in the next generation).  Or they may be weeded out right away.  The fact is that translating gene changes into changes to the average morphological of entire breeding populations is not a direct or simple pathway.  And it is only by the slow _accumulation_ of these genetic effects that variation in morphology increases, and it is this variation that natural selection actually then works upon (not the gene changes themselves, at least, not in modern animals).  Not to mention that the genetic effects that occur from mutations by and large are in general very minor, if not completely neutral.

“That evolution was a gradual process flies in the face of everything we know from the fossil record and from the laboratory bench.”

Nothing about the fossil record suggests anything other than gradual change over time.  The rates of change aren’t constant, but the changes in morphologies are almost all gradual changes rather than successful saltational jumps.  While most of the fossil record gives you just a rare random smapling of these gradual changes, there are actually quite a few situations in which whole generations of creatures fossilize one right after (and on top of) the other.  Diatoms are one example, and certain snails are other.  And from looking at these nearly complete records, we can see exactly what evolution predicts: gradual changes in morphology.

Comment #19447

Posted by Grey Wolf on March 10, 2005 06:35 AM (e) (s)

John A. Davison, the first claim in the first essay I accessed in your web page claims that evolution is a random process:
“Perhaps the most compelling feature for the Darwinists resides in
their persistent conviction that all of evolution is the result of
blind chance.” (AN EVOLUTIONARY MANIFESTO: A NEW HYPOTHESIS FOR ORGANIC CHANGE, John A. Davison). Since such conviction is not a part of evolution theory, you are shown to have absolutely no idea of the subject you’re trying to cricise. I feel disinclined to read through the rest of it, since you’ve already proven you’re not to be listened to.

It seems to me that this fact has been pointed out at you before, recently. If you answered it, please direct me to the answer.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Comment #19450

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 10, 2005 07:25 AM (e) (s)

Go to www.drdino.com on:
How to collect the $250,000:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable.

Here is MY experience with “Dr” Hovind … .

This is a record of an email conversation I recently (October 1999) had wirh “Dr” Kent Hovind (the doctorate comes from “Patriot University”, an unaccredited Bible college) concerning his Internet offer of $250,000 for anyone who can prove that evolution happens. Note that “Dr” Hovind gives me the very same evasiveness, refusal to answer direct questions, going off on irrelevant non sequiteurs, and eventual pleading that he “doesn’t have the time” to answer me, that I’ve come to expect from EVERY creationist I talk with. Note also that “Dr” Hovind isn’t any more able to tell us all what a “created kind” is than any other creationist-most likely because there is no such thing as a “created kind”.

*********************************************************************

ME:

Dear “Dr” Hovind:

I’d like to take you up on your offer of $250,000 for anyone who can “prove evolution”. I would like to do this using two of the methods you suggest:

If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:

1. The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).

2. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.

3. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonlving matter.

4. matter cannot make itself out of nothing.

I propose to prove to you that number four of your assertions—”matter cannot make itself out of nothing” is in fact quite wrong. Virtual particles have been observed to from spontaneously out of the quantum vacuum. There is an enormous wealth of observed data from physics labs all over the world to demonstrate this. Please let me know when and where you would like me to submit this in writing so I can collect my check.

I would also like to take up your assertion number two: “No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.” I would like some clarification from you first. What, precisely, is a “fundamentally different kind of animal”? Please define this rather vague and fuzzy term for me. Are horses and donkeys a “fundamentally different kind of animal”? Why or why not? Are humans and chimps a “fundamentally different kind of animal”? Why or why not? Would an animal with lungs be a “fundamentally different kind of animal” than one with gills? Why or why not? Please be as precise and detailed as possible about the boundaries between a “fundamentally different kind of animal”. Tell me EXACTLY what you mean by this, so I cna go ahead and demonstrate an example of “changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal”. By the way, you use the word “animal”—you are certainly aware that evolution happens in plants too. Can I presume that presenting evidence of a change to a “fundamentally different kind of plant” would qualify as well? Or is it your opinion that plants evolve but animals do not?

I look forward to hearing from you.

******************************************************************

HOVIND:

Where did space for the vacuum and the energy to create it come from? Please define species. Since a dog and a wolf are different species why are they inter-fertile? To make it easy and clear to all of average intelligence prove that a dog and a worm have a common ancestor and that a pine tree and a rose do also. There is no question that these are different kinds. I do not believe plants or animals evolve beyond minor adaptations within the preexisting gene pool. Because of my hectic travel schedule I only get to read and respond to e-mail a few times each week. I get too much e-mail to give long answers to each one but I would be glad to talk with you if you need a better answer. The phone is faster for me. I am normally in the office Wed-Fri from 8-4:30 CST at [**phone number deleted so nobody tries to call “Dr” Hovind**]. Some weeks my schedule is different. You can find my itinerary on my web site www.drdino.com or ask my office for one . I hope this is helpful. Thanks, Kent Hovind

*********************************************************************

ME:

>Where did the space for the vacuum and the energy to create it come from?

Would you be so kind as to define “from nothing” for me, please?

>Please define species.

I’m sorry, but how again is this relevant to anything I asked?

You neglect to answer my question. No problem—I’ll ask it again.

What, precisely, is a “fundamentally different kind of animal”? Please define this rather vague and fuzzy term for me.

>There is no question that these are different kinds.

How can we tell? How, precisely, can we know when or if a “kind” has changed into another “kind”? What, exactly, is the boundary between “kinds”? What criteria, precisely, can we use to determine to which “kind” any particular organism belongs? And if you can’t or won’t tell me, of what value is your assertion that one “kind” cnanot change into another? What value is your offer to give $250,000 to anybody who can show “change between kinds” if you can’t or won’t tell us what precisely a “kind” IS?

Or is a “kind” nothing more than whatever you want it to be at the moment? IS there after all no objective or testible definition of a “kind”?

>Because of my hectic travel schedule I only get to read and >respond to e-mail a few times each week. I get too much e-mail >to give long answers to each one but I would be glad to >talk with you if you need a better answer. The phone is faster for >me.

Thanks but I prefer a written record and would prefer that we communciate by email. I understand you are a busy man and am in no hurry. I’ve been waiting for 15 years for a creationist to give me an objective testible definition of a “kind”. I can wait a little longer.

Please email me your definition at your earliest convenience.

*************************************************************************

HOVIND:

Sorry for the generic response but the volume of mail and e-mail we receive here prevents individual personalized responses to each one. I do, however, read all mail that comes to me, though it may take me a few days to get to it.

Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the Offer

Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly on my web site Error! Bookmark not defined..

1. The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately. My word is good.

2. The members of the committee of scientists that will judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few. They are busy people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses. Nor do they wish to waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to do than ask silly questions when they really don’t want answers. I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond to you. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are.

3. Evidence of minor changes within the same kind does not qualify and will not be sent to the committee. For example, doubling the chromosome number of a sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information; it duplicates what is already present in the parent plant. Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can’t be classified as different or new species. The plant may differ in a number of ways - bigger, vigorous as observed in any polyploid plants. Such easily recognizable phenotypic changes have confused many. Some evolutionists have jumped to the conclusion that a new species has been evolved. The key is that no new genetic information has been added. Even a new “species” is not evidence for macro-evolution as the offer calls for. See the conditions of the $250,000 offer.

4. The idea that the majority of scientists believe in the theory is not evidence either. Majority opinion is often wrong and must be corrected. History is full of examples.

5. Anonymous letters will be ignored.

Rather than simply sending in scientific evidence for evolution, some have wasted lots of their time and mine sending letters demanding to know who is on the committee, what bank account the money is in, asking Bill Clinton type questions about the definition of words like “is”, etc. When I do not respond the way they want me to they post notices on their web sites claiming that I owe them the money! It is obvious they are using the Red Herring tactic to draw attention away from the fact that they have no evidence to support the religion of evolution. I tell everyone who inquires, if you have some evidence, send it in, don’t beat around the bush. Give us the best you have on the first try please to save time.

Nearly all responses to my $250,000 offer go something like this: “Of course no one can prove evolution, can you prove creation?” This response is what I expected and wanted. Neither theory of origins can be proven. Both involve a great deal of faith in the unseen. So my next logical question is: “Why do I have to pay for the evolution religion to be taught to all the students in the tax supported school system?” Evolution should not be part of science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. Students are deceived into thinking all types of evolution have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. “Evolution” as presented in the textbooks involves several steps, only the last of which is scientific.

1. Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang

2. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and planetary evolution. Origin of stars and planets.

4. Organic evolution. Origin of Life.

5. Origin of major kinds. Macro-evolution.

6. Variations within kinds. Micro-evolution. Only this one has been observed.

I do not have time or interest in getting involved in long e-mail debates, but I will talk to anyone by phone or debate with any qualified scientist in a public forum at a university, on radio or TV, even a panel of evolutionists against just me as long as there is equal time for each position not each person. If you call, please have a list of topics to discuss or questions to ask and feel free to record the conversation if you like. Just inform me that you are recording and remind me what the questions are, please. I hope this response is satisfactory.

I have taught for years that evolution is nothing but a religion mixed in with real science. Many have been duped into believing in it. There is no evidence that any plant or animal ever can or did change to any other kind or creature. It is time that intelligent people the world over began to admit that the king has no clothes! There is no evidence for changes between kinds of animals. The Bible teaches that God made them to “bring forth after their kind.” This is all that has ever been observed. The same Bible teaches that everyone will face the Creator one day to be judged for everything they have said, done or thought. I recommend that everyone prepare for that day by taking advantage of God’s mercy and forgiveness afforded through the free salvation offered to any who will confess their sin and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord. If you are interested in learning more about becoming a Christian, please call me. I travel a lot but always take time for calls when I am in the office. I am most often in Wednesday through Friday at 850-479-3466.

Sincerely,

Kent Hovind

************************************************************************

ME:

Thank you for your long and irrelevent file which didn’t answer any of the questions I asked. I’ll ask again. And again and again and again, if necessary. Here we go again:

> What, precisely, is a “fundamentally different kind of animal”?

> Please define this rather vague and fuzzy term for me.

> There is no question that these are different

> > kinds.

> How can we tell? How, precisely, can we know when or if a “kind” > has changed into another “kind”? What, exactly, is the boundary > between “kinds”? What criteria, precisely, can we use to > determine to which “kind” any particular organism belongs? And if > you can’t or won’t tell me, of what value is your assertion that one > “kind” cannot change into another? What value is your offer to give > $250,000 to anybody who can show “change between kinds” if you > can’t or won’t tell us what precisely a “kind” IS?

> > Or is a “kind” nothing more than whatever you want it to be at the > moment? IS there after all no objective or testible definition of a > “kind”? >

> Please email me your definition at your earliest convenience.

I look forward to a responsive response this time.

***********************************************************************

HOVIND:

The $250,000 offer is not just for kinds, it is for proof of the entire evolution religion. Please re-read my offer. Also, what exactly is a definition of species? Also please define evolution.

***********************************************************************

ME:

> The $250,000 offer is not just for kinds, it is for proof of the entire

> evolution religion.

Umm, your offer seems to be getting more and more evasive. Why would THAT be, I wonder … .

Would not establishing change “between kinds” establish that evolution occurs? Why or why not? That, after all, was YOUR suggested approach.

Also, what exactly is a

> definition of species? Also please define evolution.

Umm, sorry, but once again I fail to see how this is relevant to ANY of the questions I asked you. No problem. I’ll just keep right on asking until I get an answer from you.

What is a “fundamentally different kind of animal”? What, precisely, is the dividing line between these “kinds”? How, precisely, can we determine whether or not change “between kinds” has or has not occurred?

I am of course quite sure that your continuing refusal to answer this simple question, or your efforts to “respond” with nonsequiteurs like “define evolution” is NOT simply a dishonest attempt on your part to avoid answering the question. I am quite sure that you DO have a testible and objective definition of a “created kind”, amd am quite sure that you will provide it to me sooner or later if I just keep asking often enough.

I look forward to your testible and objective definition.

**************************************************************************

ME:

Hi, “Dr” Hovind.

It’s been a while since I’ve heard from you. Have you had time yet to prepare an objective testible definition of a “fundamentally different kind” for us yet?

I’m sure you can understand that we wouldn’t want people to get the impression that you are avoiding answering this question.

I look forward to your response.

***************************************************************************

HOVIND:

The exact definition of a kind would be a worthy goal for science. They now waste lots of time trying to convince people that we all came from a rock over 4.5 billion years.

**************************************************************************

> The exact definition of a kind would be a worthy goal for science. They now

> waste lots of time trying to convince people that we all came from a rock

> over 4.5 billion years.

>

How dreadful. However, since YOU are the one who is stating that evolution cannot occur between “fundamentally different kinds”, we may at least presume that you know what a “kind” is. If you do NOT know what a “kind” is, then upon what basis is your statement made that evolution between “kinds” cannot happen?

It is beginning to look an awful lot as though you don’t really know what a “kind” is, and therefore can’t really say that evolution between “kinds” is not possible. I am sure you wouldn’t want people to think this.

Fortunately, you can dispell any such notions simply by telling me clearly, concisely and cleanly—what is a “kind”, and what objective testible criteria can we use to determine to which “kind” any particular organism belongs? How, exactly, can we determine if evolution between “fundamentally different kinds” has or has not occurred? What, exactly, is the borderline between “kinds” than cannot be crossed? And if, as you NOW seem to be saying, there IS NO clear definition of a “kind”, then upon what basis do you make the claim that evolution from one “fundamentally different kind” to another is impossible? How, exactly, can we determine if such evolution is or is not possible?

I look forward to a responsive response from you.

****************************************************************************

I’ve not received any further response from “Dr” Hovind. I suspect that I won’t. But “Dr”, if you are out there reading this, please feel free to email me your verifiable and objective definition of a “created kind” any time you like. I’m still waiting.

Comment #19451

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 10, 2005 07:29 AM (e) (s)

I must have missed the part where science has observed mutation plus selection creating a (choose one or more):

1. novel body type
2. novel tissue type
3. novel organ

Be a good chap and give me the reference for that.

I must have missed the part where IDers have observed any nonhuman intelligence.

Be a better chap and give me the reference for THAT.

Comment #19452

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 10, 2005 07:31 AM (e) (s)

I’m not picky.  Show mutation/selection generating any novel body type, any novel tissue type, any novel organ.

I’m not picky either.  Show a nonhuamn intelligent designer generating …  anything.  Anything at all.  Anything at all whatsoever.

Anything.

ANY-thing.

Any novel ANYthing.

<sound of crickets chirping>

Go back to your flying saucer books, David.

Comment #19453

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 10, 2005 07:35 AM (e) (s)

I don’t have a problem with holding out mutation/selection as a strong explanatory mechanism for diversity.  What I have a problem with is holding it out as the only mechanism and pretending it doesn’t have problems that would make one want to consider other explanations.

What “other explanations” do you have in mind.  “The space aliens did it”?

Show us how your “other explanations” work.  SHow us what your “other explanations” explain.  I’m not picky—-you can use bacteria, yeast, whatever you want.  Just show us how they appeared.

<sound of crickets chirping>

Yep, that’s what I thought.

I’m STILL waiting for you to explain to me why the appearence of life through natural means on another planet is any more or less probable than the appearence of life through natural means here, and how you know.  Other than your say-so.

Is there some sort of problem with your answering that simple question for me … . .?

Comment #19456

Posted by Russell on March 10, 2005 08:29 AM (e) (s)

DaveScot,in comment # 19429, wrote:

evidence of a designer [is] something that ID doesn’t predict is observable.

I suggest we all…
write that down

Comment #19457

Posted by David Heddle on March 10, 2005 08:38 AM (e) (s)

Rev:

I’m STILL waiting for you to explain to me why the appearence of life through natural means on another planet is any more or less probable than the appearence of life through natural means here, and how you know.

Why that is trivial, if you mean any other planet. Do really mean that, or do you mean another earth-like planet?

Comment #19458

Posted by DaveScot on March 10, 2005 08:44 AM (e) (s)

Jonothan Abbey wrote:

the question becomes why you think the evidence does not suffice to point to micromutations giving rise to large-scale changes over time

If by that you mean why won’t I put unwavering faith in the unobserved and unobservable then it’s simply to be consistent.  I don’t take anything as indisputable fact based on faith.  I don’t accept stories in the bible on faith and I don’t accept stories in evolutinary biology on faith.  There’s a plethora of science I can accept based on empirical evidence.

Then there’s the problem.  Large scale changes such as new body types, new tissue types, and new organs have a habit of happening fast with few predecessors.  500 millions years of nothing then BOOM, the first tissue type appears.  3.5 billion years of nothing then BOOM, in the space of 10 million years most of the modern multicellular body types, tissue types, and organ types appear.  Then evolutinary biology, happy as a lark while the biggest prediction of mutation/selection fails (the gradual accumulation of micromutations over billions of years resulting in bottom up evolution), an ad hoc theory of punctuated equilibrium is formulated to explain it like it was no big deal.

I’m supposed to accept that new theory on faith too.

Sorry.  I accepted the gradual accumulation of micromutations and bottom up evolution when I was a naive young man.  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  Now I want empirical evidence all this happened the way you claim it does otherwise it’s time to put an alternative explanation on the table so another generation doesn’t get blindsided by this atheist crock of shi!t like I did.  Oh yes, I used to be an atheist just like 70% of the AAAS membership.  No more thank you very much.  I’ve been agnostic for the last 14 years thanks to a few scientists who were brave enough to risk their careers by bucking the establishment to point out the inferential evidence for intelligent design which, IMO and growing number of others, is just as good as the inferential evidence for mutation/selection, if not better.

Comment #19459

Posted by DaveScot on March 10, 2005 09:03 AM (e) (s)

Grey Wolf wrote:

Evolution is caused by extremely commom mutations (3 or so per individual. That gives you, what, 99.999% chance of having at least one?)

That sure explains a lot.

It gives you an 87.5% chance of having at least one.

Comment #19460

Posted by RPM on March 10, 2005 09:04 AM (e) (s)

Grey Wolf wrote:

John A. Davison, the first claim in the first essay I accessed in your web page claims that evolution is a random process:
“Perhaps the most compelling feature for the Darwinists resides in
their persistent conviction that all of evolution is the result of
blind chance.” (AN EVOLUTIONARY MANIFESTO: A NEW HYPOTHESIS FOR ORGANIC CHANGE, John A. Davison). Since such conviction is not a part of evolution theory, you are shown to have absolutely no idea of the subject you’re trying to cricise. I feel disinclined to read through the rest of it, since you’ve already proven you’re not to be listened to.

It seems to me that this fact has been pointed out at you before, recently. If you answered it, please direct me to the answer.

Yeah, I asked him that, and I still haven’t heard an answer.  I can’t take anyone seriously when they say that “Darwinists claim that evolution is a random process.”  Darwinian evolution is, by definition, a deterministic process.  This is a point we should be hammering home as often as possible.  Yes, there are stochastic processes involved in the the most widely held scientific view of evolution (mutation, genetic drift, environmental changes), but natural selection is not random.

Comment #19461

Posted by RPM on March 10, 2005 09:12 AM (e) (s)

DaveScot wrote:

500 millions years of nothing then BOOM, the first tissue type appears.  3.5 billion years of nothing then BOOM, in the space of 10 million years most of the modern multicellular body types, tissue types, and organ types appear.

Wrong again, captain ignorance.  The following would be more appropriate (note, I did not bother checking the dates, so don’t get on my case if Dave got them wrong):

500 millions years of nothing then BOOM, the first tissue type appears in the fossil record.  3.5 billion years of nothing then BOOM, in the space of 10 million years most of the modern multicellular body types, tissue types, and organ types appear in the fossil record.

Check out the molecular evidence (based only on common descent) that shows that those things that appear very quickly in the fossil record actually evolved gradually.  Fossilization is a chance process, so it only gives us snapshots of evolution.  This is very much like how our modern view of the world only gives us a snapshot of the evolutionary process.

Comment #19462

Posted by DaveScot on March 10, 2005 09:14 AM (e) (s)

Ed Darrell wrote:

Mosquitoes have developed immunity (not just resistance) to DDT through the novel mechanism of now being able to digest the stuff rather as a nutrient, and break it down.  How is this example insufficient for your challenge?

They’re still mosquitos, ain’t they?

Mosquitos have been feeding on plants for ages and plants have been producing insecticides as a defense mechanism for ages.

So how do you know this is a novel capability rather than a recessive trait that was there all along?

Comment #19464

Posted by DaveScot on March 10, 2005 09:22 AM (e) (s)

RPM wrote:

Fossilization is a chance process, so it only gives us snapshots of evolution.

Ah yes, another article of faith…  if the fossil record were complete it would back up your claim.

If it were complete it might back up a different claim.

Next!

Comment #19465

Posted by DaveScot on March 10, 2005 09:35 AM (e) (s)

DonkeyKong wrote:

7)  Unless you can show a feasible guiding function large scale mutations may take trillions of years.  DO THE MATH…  You are assuming the timeline fits before you figure out what is happening.

Excellent point.  Darwin believed that the primary means of change for selection to act upon was the heritability of acquired characters.  These are DIRECTED changes made in response to environmental pressures.  Natural evolution could have proceeded orders of magnitude faster with directed changes for selection to act upon.  However, the notion of heritable acquired characters has been falsified.  The only remaining mechanism to generate novelty for selection to act upon is random mutation.  That’s a whole different ballgame than Darwin imagined.

As well, back in Darwin’s day the universe was thought to be steady state - without beginning and without end.  Therefore there was an arbitrarily long amount of time for natural evolution to act out.  Darwinian theory, until it was falsified, was a lot less of a stretch of the imagination.  It still took a leap of faith but it was a much smaller leap.  The so-called modern synthesis requires a huge leap of faith.

Comment #19466

Posted by Emanuele Oriano on March 10, 2005 09:35 AM (e) (s)

Mr. DaveScot,

I know you won’t listen, but it is you who claimed that the fossil record disproved evolution because of the ‘instantaneous’ appearance of new species.

This is false, precisely because fossils are ‘snapshots’ (even more than that; they are individuals, isolated both in time - from their ancestors and descendants - and in space - from the rest of the population they belonged to).

Nobody says “if the fossil record were complete, it would prove this and that”; we all know that these are snapshots, and cannot ever be anything different. However, like the successive frames of a film, they allow us to ‘see’ the motion; like points on a curve, they allow us to reconstruct the curve itself.

The discontinuities creationists love to mention simply aren’t there.

Comment #19468

Posted by Emanuele Oriano on March 10, 2005 09:39 AM (e) (s)

Mr. DonkeyKong, et al.:

Unless you can show a feasible guiding function large scale mutations may take trillions of years.  DO THE MATH…  You are assuming the timeline fits before you figure out what is happening.

I’d love to do the math. Will you please tell me which calculations need to be done for that?

Also, please explain what is a ‘feasible guiding function’, and why the systematic weeding out of anything disadvantageous and promotion of anything advantageous would not fit the definition.

Comment #19470

Posted by Rilke's Grand-daughter on March 10, 2005 09:58 AM (e) (s)

DaveScot:

Darwin believed that the primary means of change for selection to act upon was the heritability of acquired characters.

Unfortunately for you, this is completely false.  Apparently you’ve never read any Darwin - hence the entirely ignorant nature of your criticisms.  Might I suggest that if you wish to intelligently criticize a theory, it would behoove you to learn something about it first?

These are DIRECTED changes made in response to environmental pressures.  Natural evolution could have proceeded orders of magnitude faster with directed changes for selection to act upon.  However, the notion of heritable acquired characters has been falsified.  The only remaining mechanism to generate novelty for selection to act upon is random mutation.  That’s a whole different ballgame than Darwin imagined.

Factually incorrect about Darwin’s opinion.

As well, back in Darwin’s day the universe was thought to be steady state - without beginning and without end.

Once again, you show your ignorance of the history of science - there was quite a lively discussion going on in Darwin’s day about the actual age of the universe.  I don’t believe Darwin ever expressed an opinion.

Therefore there was an arbitrarily long amount of time for natural evolution to act out.  Darwin