Why don't you all just admit the truth?
Charles Wagner
and after millions of words read, spoken and written in a variety
of books, articles, forums and conversations I have reached the
conclusion that the horrible truth of the matter is that we just don't
have a clue as to where the universe and the life that's in it came
from.
It seems to me that it's time to end this ridiculous bickering and
be brave enough to admit this simple truth. All we have is speculation,
your speculation and my speculation. That's what makes the argument
interminable and absurd. It's gotten to the point where I know in
advance, every argument that will be made by either side at almost any
time. Nothing really new is ever offered because there is nothing new.
The proof that we don't really know is proven by the fact that the
argument continues on. If either side had convincing evidence, everyone
would have packed their bags, folded their tents and gone home long ago.
We also have to face the dismal possibility that we will never
really know. At least not in the forseeable future. Insofar as I can
see, there's not a shred of credible evidence to support the idea that
mutation and natural selection are the mechanisms by which life
progresses from its beginning (if indeed it had a beginning) to its
present state. There's also not a shred of credible evidence that there
exists a supernatural being that created the universe and all the life
in it.
So, we must analyze why the debate goes on. If it's just to generate
discussion and thought provoking ideas, then it probably has some value.
So, newcomers on both sides come into the discussion fresh and full of
piss and vinegar, hoping to convince others of the truthfulness of their
thoughts on the matter. But they're surely travelling down roads that
have already been traversed by countless others. All of the ideas have
been thought of before, all the arguments have been made and almost no
one has changed their minds.
But those of us who have been over and over and over these matters
countless time can clearly see that it will probably never be resolved.
That is, until science can clearly and definitively advance a believable
mechanism by which life has "evolved" or until God almighty himself
comes down from heaven and proclaims authorship. I'm not holding my
breath waiting :-)
So let's be brave about this and admit (gasp!) the horrible truth. No
one alive today has a shred of credible evidence to support either of
these two paradigms. And I defy anyone to prove otherwise.
Charles Wagner
http://www.spec.net/home/cewagner
ZenIsWhen
> I have been involved with this debate for nearly 40 years
>and after millions of words read, spoken and written in a variety
>of books, articles, forums and conversations I have reached the
>conclusion that the horrible truth of the matter is that we just don't
>have a clue as to where the universe and the life that's in it came
>from.
> It seems to me that it's time to end this ridiculous bickering and
>be brave enough to admit this simple truth. All we have is speculation,
>your speculation and my speculation.
TYo bad you didn't learn anything in those 40 years.
Charles Wagner
Regards, Charlie
Andre G Isaak
: The proof that we don't really know is proven by the fact that the
: argument continues on. If either side had convincing evidence, everyone
: would have packed their bags, folded their tents and gone home long ago.
In a world populated entirely by reasonable people, this argument might hold
some weight. We don't live in such a world. Anyone whose read t.o for
more than fifteen minutes ought to realise this.
Andre
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andre G Isaak | GRH 137
Language Studies Program | x2453
Wellesley College | aisaak a t wellesley d o t edu
Charles Wagner
There are plenty of reasonable people in the world. The unreasonable
ones I just usually ignore. They can't be reasoned with at all, so
what's the point? But there are rational, intelligent people on both
sides of this argument, and these are the ones that I'm referring to.
Regards, Charlie Wagner
http://www.spec.net/home/cewagner
Ken Cox
> I have been involved with this debate for nearly 40 years
> and after millions of words read, spoken and written in a variety
> of books, articles, forums and conversations I have reached the
> conclusion that the horrible truth of the matter is that we just don't
> have a clue as to where the universe and the life that's in it came
> from.
What do you mean "we"? *I* have a lot of clues, all gleaned from
the writings of the larger scientific community, which means that
they also have a lot of clues.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Arky
wrote:
>If either side had convincing evidence, everyone
>would have packed their bags, folded their tents and gone home long ago.
That is certainly untrue.
The evidence for an old earth has not stopped some believing in the
6000 yr old version. Religious belief is often held in spite of
evidence to the contrary - it scares me sometimes.
--
Arky
Charles Wagner
Ok, it kind of depends on what you call a "clue" :-)
One person's "clue" may be another's "howler". But more
to the point, I don't see any of these clues that you're referring to.
Now I'm fairly well read in these matters and almost all of what some
people refer to as "clues" is really just speculation...stories that are
made up because they sound good. What clues do *you* see??
Regards, Charlie Wagner
http://www.spec.net/home/cewagner
Matt Silberstein
Wagner <cewa...@spec.net>:
> I have been involved with this debate for nearly 40 years
>and after millions of words read, spoken and written in a variety
>of books, articles, forums and conversations I have reached the
>conclusion that the horrible truth of the matter is that we just don't
>have a clue as to where the universe and the life that's in it came
>from.
> It seems to me that it's time to end this ridiculous bickering and
>be brave enough to admit this simple truth. All we have is speculation,
>your speculation and my speculation.
All we have is speculation. And fossil evidence. All we have is
speculation and fossil evidence. And DNA. All we have is speculation
and fossil evidence and DNA. And chemical experiments. And the Red
Shift. And background hydrogen radiation. And lots and lots of
confirmed predictive models.
[epistemological nihilism snipped]
--
Matt Silberstein
Miss Morris, I'm perfectly capable of fixing my own breakfast.
As a matter of fact, I had a peanut butter sandwich and
two whiskey sours.
_Seven Year Itch_
Mark VandeWettering
> I have been involved with this debate for nearly 40 years
> and after millions of words read, spoken and written in a variety
> of books, articles, forums and conversations I have reached the
> conclusion that the horrible truth of the matter is that we just don't
> have a clue as to where the universe and the life that's in it came
> from.
I suspect there are two rather different ways to arrive at this rather
depressing conclusion:
a) Becoming educated, and realizing that no matter how hard you study,
the universe and all its complexity somehow remain beyond your grasp.
People refer to this as "the more I learn, the less I know."
b) Growing tired of not understanding the universe, so just waving the
white flag and declared it to be uncomprehensible.
One of these is a more valuable than the others, although they lead perhaps
to the same conclusion.
> It seems to me that it's time to end this ridiculous bickering and
> be brave enough to admit this simple truth. All we have is speculation,
> your speculation and my speculation. That's what makes the argument
> interminable and absurd. It's gotten to the point where I know in
> advance, every argument that will be made by either side at almost any
> time. Nothing really new is ever offered because there is nothing new.
If two people speculate on something within the realm of science to understand,
then science also provides a procedure for determining whose speculations have
greater merit. All speculations aren't equivalent in an operational sense:
some make more useful predictions than others. Trying to say that "everything
is speculation" is usually just a rhetorical trick employed by those who
can't convincingly argue their own case.
> The proof that we don't really know is proven by the fact that the
> argument continues on. If either side had convincing evidence, everyone
> would have packed their bags, folded their tents and gone home long ago.
This implies that people are perfectly rational. Of course, they are not.
It is unclear that rationality conveys any particular survival advantage, so
I suspect it is rather less common in the gene pool than might be imagined.
> We also have to face the dismal possibility that we will never
> really know. At least not in the forseeable future. Insofar as I can
> see, there's not a shred of credible evidence to support the idea that
> mutation and natural selection are the mechanisms by which life
> progresses from its beginning (if indeed it had a beginning) to its
> present state. There's also not a shred of credible evidence that there
> exists a supernatural being that created the universe and all the life
> in it.
Regarding the existence of God, of course you are correct. Science has come
to a different conclusion regarding mutation, natural selection, common descent
and the lot.
> So, we must analyze why the debate goes on. If it's just to generate
> discussion and thought provoking ideas, then it probably has some value.
Science _has_ other benefits to society, besides just the manufacture of
dead trees. As an example, consider that up to 2/3rds of all humans will
die of some cause related to their genetics. Understanding the genome
and the basis for genetic disease will pave the way to increased quality
and length of life for many people.
> So, newcomers on both sides come into the discussion fresh and full of
> piss and vinegar, hoping to convince others of the truthfulness of their
> thoughts on the matter. But they're surely travelling down roads that
> have already been traversed by countless others. All of the ideas have
> been thought of before, all the arguments have been made and almost no
> one has changed their minds.
True, intellectual armor can protect people from new ideas, even ones
that are obviously true.
> But those of us who have been over and over and over these matters
> countless time can clearly see that it will probably never be resolved.
I view this basically as an education issue. I bet some people used
similar excuses for racism and bigotry. When people do open their minds
to new ideas, good things generally happen, and what previously seemed
impossible becomes straightforward, even easy.
> That is, until science can clearly and definitively advance a believable
> mechanism by which life has "evolved" or until God almighty himself
> comes down from heaven and proclaims authorship. I'm not holding my
> breath waiting :-)
I'll lay my dollars down on the former, rather than the latter.
(You are mixing abiogenesis with evolution by the way).
> So let's be brave about this and admit (gasp!) the horrible truth. No
> one alive today has a shred of credible evidence to support either of
> these two paradigms. And I defy anyone to prove otherwise.
I admit no such thing. You are wrong. But I suspect your intellectual \
armor won't be beaten down by me...
By the way, the fact that you view this discussion as pointless and incapable
of resolution, yet also say things like "I defy anyone to prove otherwise" makes
you sound like you are trolling for the argument you branded as futile.
Mark
>
> Charles Wagner
> http://www.spec.net/home/cewagner
--
Mark T. VandeWettering Telescope Information (and more)
Email: <ma...@pixar.com> http://raytracer.org
Mark VandeWettering
>
> Is that the best you can do? How pathetic.
Joe?? Is that you?
Mark
Charles Wagner
The fossil evidence shows us two things. One is that life was
different in the past than it is in the present. Some organisms that
lived in the past are no longer in existence today. The second is that
the organisms of the past are related to the organisms of the present.
It tells us nothing at all (correct me if I'm wrong :-) about the
mechanism by which the life of the present "evolved" from the life of
the past. The fossil record surely does *not* inform us that life
"evolved" by the gradual accumulation of beneficial mutations over a
long period of time. Nor does it inform us that a supernatural creator
waved a magic wand and created all of the life forms from mud.
And what does the DNA tell us? It would have us believe that the genes
are older than the organisms that possess them. Now if that's not a
laugher, I don't know what is. Unless youn believe, as I do, that the
genes are older than the organisms that posess them because they arrived
on earth, fully formed, from elsewhere.
Now insofar as red-shift is concerned. We see a red-shift, but we
surely don't know what causes it. It could be some phenomenon that we
aren't aware of. It's pathetic that our entire cosmology and
astrophysics is predicated on an assumption. Same with the CMBR. There
are hundred's of possible other causes besides the "signature of the big
bang". The fact is, we just don't know. Really!
Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
> In talk.origins I read <397F5875...@spec.net> from Charles
> Wagner <cewa...@spec.net>:
>
> > I have been involved with this debate for nearly 40 years
> >and after millions of words read, spoken and written in a variety
> >of books, articles, forums and conversations I have reached the
> >conclusion that the horrible truth of the matter is that we just don't
> >have a clue as to where the universe and the life that's in it came
> >from.
> > It seems to me that it's time to end this ridiculous bickering and
> >be brave enough to admit this simple truth. All we have is speculation,
> >your speculation and my speculation.
>
Andre G Isaak
[n.b. please try to quote material you're responding to before your
response rather than after it; it makes it considerably easier to read]
: Andre,
: There are plenty of reasonable people in the world. The unreasonable
: ones I just usually ignore. They can't be reasoned with at all, so
: what's the point? But there are rational, intelligent people on both
: sides of this argument, and these are the ones that I'm referring to.
Yes, there are plenty of reasonable people in the world but there are
also quite a few unreasonable ones (and they all seem to migrate here for
some strange reason).
However, it is important to consider that evaluating scientific evidence
does actually require a fair amount of time and background. You'll note
that there is no essential disagreement among those who are qualified to
judge that evidence. Within the scientific community, there is no debate
between evolution and creation. Whatever debate there might have been was
settled well over a century ago.
And scientists aren't exactly known for being in total agreement with one
another except in cases where no real doubt exists. This ought to suggest
something to you.
Chris Ho-Stuart
> Matt,
> The fossil evidence shows us two things. One is that life was
> different in the past than it is in the present. Some organisms that
> lived in the past are no longer in existence today. The second is that
> the organisms of the past are related to the organisms of the present.
> It tells us nothing at all (correct me if I'm wrong :-) about the
> mechanism by which the life of the present "evolved" from the life of
> the past. The fossil record surely does *not* inform us that life
> "evolved" by the gradual accumulation of beneficial mutations over a
> long period of time. Nor does it inform us that a supernatural creator
> waved a magic wand and created all of the life forms from mud.
I take the above as saying that the fossil record is data proving
macroevolution, or relationship of living creatures through diverging
lines of shared ancestry.
As you point out, the fossil record does not directly reveal the
processes (microevolution) by which these observed changes have
come about.
On the other hand, we also have direct evidence of microevolution;
or processes by which change arises and accumulates in populations.
Science, by its very nature, relies on inductive reasoning, rather
than formal deduction. Evolutionary theory proposes that the
processes which we observe in the present also worked in the past,
and that this accounts for the observed changes we see in the fossil
record. Although the fossil record cannot prove in a formal deductive
sense whether or not the evident changes arose through the processes
we study in the present, it does provide a consistency check. Is
the proposed mechanism consistent with the observation? This is a
very strong check indeed; I think it would be hard to imagine any
process which meets the tight constraints of consistency with that
evidence, other than the class of processes being studied in the
scientific community.
I think the real reason for continuing debate is not because both
sides have equally good cases or equally well informed advocates.
It is exclusively because some folks have religious objections to
the plain implications of evidence.
The fact is that the evolution/creation debate IS over as far as
mainstream science is concerned, and has been over for more than
a century. The scientific creationism phenonomenon is really only
a few decades old, and has had pretty much zero impact on mainstream
science. Creationists explain this in all kinds of ways, charging
that scientists and journals are biased, or blind, or whatever; but
regardless of what spin one places on it, the plain observation is
that there is no debate within the mainstream scientific community.
The only debate goes on outside, in churches, with non-professionals,
and in various fringe organizations.
This, I submit, negates your initial premise that nothing has been
resolved after 40 years. The issues of scientific creationism have
been resolved long ago, and you are left throwing rocks after
the departing train of knowledge.
Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Charles Wagner
I checked out your website, I hope you check mine! For a minute I
wasn't sure what I was dealing with. When I was a brash, young biker
punk, the word "Pagans" inspired a large measure of fear. They were the
baddest motorcycle gang on Long Island, as I remember.
With regard to speculation, science does indeed provide a mechanism
for determining which speculations are worthwhile. That is, observation
and experiment. It is my opinion that both darwinism and creationism
lack both observational and experimental support, therefore, from a
science point of view, both are equally worthless. I never did
understand why this business of "making predictions" is taken so
seriously. After all, Ptolemy's theories made excellent predictions and
were completely wrong. So I don't rely on the ability to make
predictions. The fact is however, all of science is inductive. The
evidence, both observational and experimental must convince the person
of it's correctness. The better able to persuade a theory is, the
stronger it becomes, until the time comes when it disagrees with
experiment and/or observation, at which point it must be discarded.
I hope sincerely that a natural explanation for life can be arrived
at, and I believe it exists, but it may be far in our future. I'm not so
sure, however, that I even believe that the universe is "knowable". Can
an ant comprehend quantum electrodynamics? We may very well be the ant
is someone elses world!
(BTW, I fully understand the definitions of abiogenesis and evolution. I
don't really think you can address the one, without the other unless
you're willing to restrict your definition of evolution to mere changes
in allelic frequencies without creative power.
I'm a little dismayed that you view me as closed-minded and
unwilling to be persuaded. Quite the contrary, I could easily be
persuaded in either direction by credible evidence. As of now, I have no
firm position. And a lot of people I talk to find that disconcerting.
BTW, how does "trolling for an argument" differ from "starting a
conversation"? You make trolling sound like something bad. Is it?
Matt Silberstein
Wagner <cewa...@spec.net>:
>Matt,
> The fossil evidence shows us two things. One is that life was
>different in the past than it is in the present. Some organisms that
>lived in the past are no longer in existence today. The second is that
>the organisms of the past are related to the organisms of the present.
It shows us more than that. It shows us detailed ways they were
related. And it is *evidence*, not just speculation.
>It tells us nothing at all (correct me if I'm wrong :-) about the
>mechanism by which the life of the present "evolved" from the life of
>the past.
It tells us about the path. It gives clues to selection and rates of
evolution. And we have direct observations of the present to tell us
much more about the mechanisms.
> The fossil record surely does *not* inform us that life
>"evolved" by the gradual accumulation of beneficial mutations over a
>long period of time.
Take out the "beneficial" and it certainly is evidence for life having
changed via accumulation of changes over long periods of time.
> Nor does it inform us that a supernatural creator
>waved a magic wand and created all of the life forms from mud.
It says nothing about anything supernatural.
> And what does the DNA tell us?
How organisms are related. In particular, it gives details about the
nested hierarchy that connects all life.
> It would have us believe that the genes
>are older than the organisms that possess them.
I suppose that is one way of looking at it.
> Now if that's not a
>laugher, I don't know what is.
Your strawman, you react how you like to it.
> Unless youn believe, as I do, that the
>genes are older than the organisms that posess them because they arrived
>on earth, fully formed, from elsewhere.
Do you have evidence, not as someone recently said, speculation, but
evidence for the existence of genes "elsewhere"? Do you have evidence,
not speculation but evidence, for how it got here?
> Now insofar as red-shift is concerned. We see a red-shift, but we
>surely don't know what causes it.
We have a very good suspicion. We know that it is directly related to
how far away the object it. We know that moving away from us would
cause a red shift. And the predictive model based on this has been
confirmed. Again, not simply speculation as you claimed, but evidence
and predictive models.
> It could be some phenomenon that we
>aren't aware of.
Sure, it could be. Do you have evidence or just "could be"?
> It's pathetic that our entire cosmology and
>astrophysics is predicated on an assumption.
It is pathetic that you can't distinguish between as assumption and
evidence and predictive models.
>Same with the CMBR. There
>are hundred's of possible other causes besides the "signature of the big
>bang". The fact is, we just don't know. Really!
Which, of course, is not what you said before. But I can deal with
this new goal post. Yes, we don't have some magical cosmic Absolute
Knowledge. SFW? Absolute Knowledge about anything seems beyond our
abilities. The inability of science to produce Absolute Knowledge does
not mean that all ideas are equal. There may be "hundred's" of other
possibilities, all you have to do now is show that you can find one
that is at least as good at predictions and at least as parsimonious.
Until then *your* only weapon is unevidenced speculation.
Charles Wagner
There's no question among scientists that evolution has occurred. But
they fail to define what they mean by evolution. If you simply mean
"change over time" I'm among the believers. If you mean darwinism, you
can count me out. There is considerable debate and disagreement among
scientists about the mechanism of evolution. All you need to do is read
the journals to discover this. But there's a tremendous fear of
creationism, and stemming this growing tide is more important in many
cases that defensible science.
Steve Emmett
> <snipped>
> Now insofar as red-shift is concerned. We see a red-shift, but we
> surely don't know what causes it. It could be some phenomenon that we
> aren't aware of. It's pathetic that our entire cosmology and
Never heard of the doppler effect huh? Explains quite nicely frequency shift
based on motion of the source/observer. (I'm ignoring cosmological and
gravitational redshifts for the sake of simplicity NOT to exclude otherwise
experimentally verifiable effects.)
> astrophysics is predicated on an assumption. Same with the CMBR. There
Certainly you're not saying that ALL of astrophysics is based on ONE
assumption and that assumption is the red-shift? How would the red-shift
effect change how astrophysics models nuclear burning that occurs within
stars? How does the red-shift effect how gas forms into stars and stars form
into galaxies?
> are hundred's of possible other causes besides the "signature of the big
> bang". The fact is, we just don't know. Really!
There aren't hundreds of other explanations. There are several competing
theories, one of which is the most likely based on its predictive capabilities
that can be validated through experimental observations.
Mark VandeWettering
>
> Matt,
> The fossil evidence shows us two things. One is that life was
> different in the past than it is in the present. Some organisms that
> lived in the past are no longer in existence today. The second is that
> the organisms of the past are related to the organisms of the present.
> mechanism by which the life of the present "evolved" from the life of
> "evolved" by the gradual accumulation of beneficial mutations over a
> waved a magic wand and created all of the life forms from mud.
I've tried to formulate a response to this, but I suspect that others have
tread the fossil record road far more completely than I can. I'll merely
direct you to the very capable FAQ...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
> And what does the DNA tell us? It would have us believe that the genes
> are older than the organisms that possess them. Now if that's not a
> laugher, I don't know what is. Unless youn believe, as I do, that the
> genes are older than the organisms that posess them because they arrived
> on earth, fully formed, from elsewhere.
Ummm. Genes _are_ older than the organisms that possess them. Isn't that
rather obvious? Certainly the ability for cells to manufacture (for example)
hemoglobin has been around far longer than I've been around...
Genes are the heritable ability to manufacture proteins. You inherit those
from your ancestors. They are older than you are. I can't imagine what you
think genes are if you can't understand this.
> Now insofar as red-shift is concerned. We see a red-shift, but we
> surely don't know what causes it. It could be some phenomenon that we
> aren't aware of. It's pathetic that our entire cosmology and
> astrophysics is predicated on an assumption. Same with the CMBR. There
> are hundred's of possible other causes besides the "signature of the big
> bang". The fact is, we just don't know. Really!
There is a broad gap between not being mathematically proven and not being
useful to predict the properties of the universe. It is remarkably difficult
to develop a theory which encompasses red shift which doesn't contradict the
available evidence or otherwise challenge certain fundamental premises that
all science operates on. It is perhaps possible that red shift could be
caused by some other effect than Doppler shift. People have proposed various
ideas in this regard: light slowing down far from earth, gravity weakening
etc... The problem with these are is that there is no evidence that such things
are occurring. Indeed, there is significant evidence that gravity works just
the same at the jets of M87 as it does here. These aren't speculation, anymore
than seeing your keys on your kitchen counter means that somebody put them there.
Chris Ho-Stuart
> Andre,
> There's no question among scientists that evolution has occurred. But
> they fail to define what they mean by evolution. If you simply mean
> "change over time" I'm among the believers. If you mean darwinism, you
> can count me out. There is considerable debate and disagreement among
> scientists about the mechanism of evolution. All you need to do is read
> the journals to discover this. But there's a tremendous fear of
> creationism, and stemming this growing tide is more important in many
> cases that defensible science.
I don't understand this.
If by "Darwinism" you mean the theory exactly as formulated by
Darwin, then I think we can say that there have indeed been some
changes over the last 140 years.
If by "Darwinism" you mean a general umbrella term for theories
which involve natural selection (Darwin's major contribution)
then you are plainly incorrect. There is certainly debate on
the mechanisms of evolution; but there is no serious doubt that
natural selection is central for the development of adaptation.
The debate that exists is not at this level; all you need do is
read the journals to discover this.
There is, I agree, fear that creationism is having an insidious
effect on basic education. This fear is well founded, and stemming
the tide of ignorance is very important indeed. But that is not a
scientific debate; and has nothing at all to do with the particular
disagreements that exist within science.
So I am a bit confused as to what you are saying.
Do you think creationism has anything at all to offer to the debates
and disagreements which we agree exist within science? We don't
have complete knowledge, to be sure. But some of your comments seem
to recognize that there are some basic facts about change over
time which are a starting point for investigation. On the other
hand, other comments you make seem to suggest that hidden within
creationism there are arguments of some merit, which are -- or should
be? -- part of the substantive scientific debate on the issues.
Could you please clarify?
Cheers -- Chris
Charles Wagner
> I take the above as saying that the fossil record is data proving
> macroevolution, or relationship of living creatures through diverging
> lines of shared ancestry.
I am not saying that the fossil record supports macroevolution. The fact
that organisms are related (and they clearly are) does not allow us to
infer anything about the nature of this relationship, that one "evolved"
from to other or is "descended" from the other.
> On the other hand, we also have direct evidence of microevolution;
> or processes by which change arises and accumulates in populations.
I would not deny for a moment that microevolution occurs. Changes in the
frequencies of alleles in populations are strongly supported by
observational and experimental evidence. I object to the "leap of faith"
in which vast creative power is bestowed on these trivial changes.
> Evolutionary theory proposes that the processes which we observe in >the present also worked in the past, and that this accounts for the >observed changes we see in the fossil record.
This is a pretty thin argument. There may be processes at work that we
are unaware of, or don't understand, such as the influx of new genetic
material of extraterrestrial origin or the modification of pre-existing
genetic material by processes on the cellular level that we don't
understand. Also, horizontal transmission of genetic material by viruses
is an unresolved possibility.
> Although the fossil record cannot prove in a formal deductive
> sense whether or not the evident changes arose through the processes
> we study in the present, it does provide a consistency check. Is
> the proposed mechanism consistent with the observation? This is a
> very strong check indeed; I think it would be hard to imagine any
> process which meets the tight constraints of consistency with that
> evidence, other than the class of processes being studied in the
> scientific community.
In my opinion, evolution clearly fails this consistency check. The
proposed mechanism (gradual accumulation of beneficial mutations over a
long period of time) is not supported by the observational evidence,
which shows in some cases, the almost complete absence of intermediaries
between families when there should be large numbers of them. One example
is the birds. Another is the angiosperms.
> I think the real reason for continuing debate is not because both
> sides have equally good cases or equally well informed advocates.
> It is exclusively because some folks have religious objections to
> the plain implications of evidence.
Fortunately, I have no religious agenda to cloud my reason.
> The fact is that the evolution/creation debate IS over as far as
> mainstream science is concerned, and has been over for more than
> a century. The scientific creationism phenonomenon is really only
> a few decades old, and has had pretty much zero impact on mainstream
> science. Creationists explain this in all kinds of ways, charging
> that scientists and journals are biased, or blind, or whatever; but
> regardless of what spin one places on it, the plain observation is
> that there is no debate within the mainstream scientific community.
> The only debate goes on outside, in churches, with non-professionals,
> and in various fringe organizations.
I don't know how you can say this after having read the various
scientific journals. All that scientists agree unanimously on is that
change has occurred over time. Beyond that, there is practically no
consensus of opinion on how this change took place.
> This, I submit, negates your initial premise that nothing has been
> resolved after 40 years. The issues of scientific creationism have
> been resolved long ago, and you are left throwing rocks after
> the departing train of knowledge.
I'm sorry to inform you of this sad fact, but the creationists are
stronger than they ever have been. And the reason they are so strong is
because they have addressed questions, concerns and issues that
scientists chose to ignore. Like Haldane's dilemma. Now scientists are
being forced to face up to the mountain of unanswered questions that
creationists are raising. But I think this is good. Science had become
too complacent about evolution and had failed to look for alternate
explanations when confronted with serious problems. They tried to sweep
them under the rug, so to speak and ignore them. But now they're being
aired in the light of day. An example of this is the absence of
transitional fossils between classes. Even Niles Eldredge was forced to
concede this dilemma. Gould and he proposed P.E. mainly to explain this
embarrassment, but it backfired by drawing attention to what had been a
trade secret.
Andre G Isaak
: Andre,
: There's no question among scientists that evolution has occurred. But
: they fail to define what they mean by evolution. If you simply mean
: "change over time" I'm among the believers. If you mean darwinism, you
If you claim that scientists fail to define what they mean by evolution,
you're not reading enough science. Evolution is defined as a change in
allele frequency within a population over time. I douby you'll find any
scientist using a significantly different definition from this.
: can count me out. There is considerable debate and disagreement among
: scientists about the mechanism of evolution. All you need to do is read
On the specifics, yes, but there is a general concensus that certain
mechanisms such as natural selection ('Darwinism' as you call it) and
genetic drift are involved. There is no dispute over the existence of
these mechanisms.
: the journals to discover this. But there's a tremendous fear of
: creationism, and stemming this growing tide is more important in many
I don't think you'll find many scientists exhibiting 'tremendous fear of
creationism', except, perhaps, where (anti)-educational lobbies are
concerned.
Charles Wagner
> Never heard of the doppler effect huh? Explains quite nicely >frequency shift based on motion of the source/observer.
Even Hubble was not sure that the red-shifts he was seeing were caused
by Doppler effect. That's an assumtion that lacks any credible support.
> Certainly you're not saying that ALL of astrophysics is based on ONE
> assumption and that assumption is the red-shift?
No, I'm not. I didn't mean to give that impression.
> There aren't hundreds of other explanations. There are several >competing> theories, one of which is the most likely based on its >predictive capabilities that can be validated through experimental >observations.
I would not rule out that red-shift is related to recessional
velocity, but I would certainly keep the door open to other
possibilities.
Gyudon Z
>The fossil evidence shows us two things. One is that life was
>different in the past than it is in the present. Some organisms that
>lived in the past are no longer in existence today. The second is that
>the organisms of the past are related to the organisms of the present.
>It tells us nothing at all (correct me if I'm wrong :-) about the
>mechanism by which the life of the present "evolved" from the life of
>the past.
That is a gap scientists fill in with DNA evidence, morphology, biogeography,
our present understanding of genetics, the observed instances of speciation,
etc. etc.
>The fossil record surely does *not* inform us that life
>"evolved" by the gradual accumulation of beneficial mutations over a
>long period of time. Nor does it inform us that a supernatural creator
>waved a magic wand and created all of the life forms from mud.
But it offers more support for the natural selection model than for the fiat
lux model.
> And what does the DNA tell us? It would have us believe that the genes
>are older than the organisms that possess them. Now if that's not a
>laugher, I don't know what is.
Makes perfect sense to me; the genes in my body are older than I am; they
belonged to my parents before I got them.
>Unless youn believe, as I do, that the
>genes are older than the organisms that posess them because they arrived
>on earth, fully formed, from elsewhere.
I call that a laugher; you need some empirical evidence to go with that claim.
> Now insofar as red-shift is concerned. We see a red-shift, but we
>surely don't know what causes it. It could be some phenomenon that we
>aren't aware of.
But, until we become aware of it--that is, until we find some empirical
evidence suggestive some other reason for the Doppler effect, your arguments
are predicated on worse assumptions than ours, for we assume things that
explain the empirical evidence. Your arguments hinge on empirical evidence that
so far hasn't even been found.
>It's pathetic that our entire cosmology and
>astrophysics is predicated on an assumption. Same with the CMBR. There
>are hundred's of possible other causes besides the "signature of the big
>bang".
Name three.
>The fact is, we just don't know. Really!
<snip Matt's post>
"Between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
Mark VandeWettering
>
> Mark,
> I checked out your website, I hope you check mine! For a minute I
> wasn't sure what I was dealing with. When I was a brash, young biker
> punk, the word "Pagans" inspired a large measure of fear. They were the
> baddest motorcycle gang on Long Island, as I remember.
*sigh* Actually, I have nothing to do with pagans.org, but my ISP does,
and they keep botching the forwarding records for raytracer.org. I'll have
to have a word with them. They've fixed it a number of times, but it keeps
getting reset. I've changed my signature in the meantime. Thanks...
> With regard to speculation, science does indeed provide a mechanism
> for determining which speculations are worthwhile. That is, observation
> and experiment. It is my opinion that both darwinism and creationism
> lack both observational and experimental support, therefore, from a
> science point of view, both are equally worthless.
For observational support, I'd say consider the book "The Beak of the Finch:
by Jonathan Weiner. It is well written, and won a Pulitzer. It also details
some experimental data on guppies that I found interesting.
> I never did
> understand why this business of "making predictions" is taken so
> seriously. After all, Ptolemy's theories made excellent predictions and
> were completely wrong.
Better theories make better predictions. It really is as simple as that.
> So I don't rely on the ability to make
> predictions. The fact is however, all of science is inductive. The
> evidence, both observational and experimental must convince the person
> of it's correctness.
Evidence is neither correct nor incorrect. It is just evidence. Lines
of reasoning are correct or incorrect.
> The better able to persuade a theory is, the
> stronger it becomes, until the time comes when it disagrees with
> experiment and/or observation, at which point it must be discarded.
Obviously one way to convince people that your theory is good is to make
a series of predictions that can be tested. The theory of relativity
for instance (a hard theory for some to swallow) made the prediction that
light is bent by gravitational fields, and predicted the amount of that
affect. Later experiments that recorded stellar positions during
the eclipse agreed precisely with relativity's predictions. When
numerous other predictions are also borne out by experimentation, one
has to admit that perhaps the theory does say something useful about
the universe.
> I hope sincerely that a natural explanation for life can be arrived
> at, and I believe it exists, but it may be far in our future. I'm not so
> sure, however, that I even believe that the universe is "knowable". Can
> an ant comprehend quantum electrodynamics? We may very well be the ant
> is someone elses world!
I view this as an open (and largely philosophical) question. Of course,
you've claimed something quite different: that creationism and evolution
are equally speculative. That just isn't true.
> (BTW, I fully understand the definitions of abiogenesis and evolution. I
> don't really think you can address the one, without the other unless
> you're willing to restrict your definition of evolution to mere changes
> in allelic frequencies without creative power.
Creative power? What is that? Does it exist? How can I measure it?
> I'm a little dismayed that you view me as closed-minded and
> unwilling to be persuaded. Quite the contrary, I could easily be
> persuaded in either direction by credible evidence. As of now, I have no
> firm position. And a lot of people I talk to find that disconcerting.
The evidence is credible to anyone willing to engage in the practice of science.
There are people (perhaps even the majority) who do not wish to attempt to
understand the universe on that basis. I doubt I can convince those people
of the validity of the fossil evidence, or DNA, or any other line of endeavor.
Indeed, it is pointless to try. In that sense, one part of your thesis is
correct. Of course, the other part, the part where some kind of equality is
drawn between creationism and evolution is incorrect. One is a description based
on the available evidence that enables us to make predictions of how the universe
operates, and one does not.
I've been quote mining lately, here is another for your consideration:
It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is.
Physics concerns what we can say about Nature.
Niels Bohr
> BTW, how does "trolling for an argument" differ from "starting a
> conversation"? You make trolling sound like something bad. Is it?
It is unlikely to be productive. If you have specific arguments to make about how
the available evidence is lacking, by all means, please present it. I learn a great
deal about subjects through conversations like this, and many people here will jump
in with useful discussion. But don't make other people do your work: it is your
responsibility to make your own arguments, not merely naysay those of others.
Mark
>
> Regards, Charlie Wagner
> http://www.spec.net/home/cewagner
--
Mark T. VandeWettering Telescope Information (and more)
Email: <ma...@pixar.com> http://www.geocities.com/raytracer
http://tempest.idle.com/~markv
Charles Wagner
> Ummm. Genes _are_ older than the organisms that possess them. Isn't that
> rather obvious? Certainly the ability for cells to manufacture (for example)
> hemoglobin has been around far longer than I've been around...
> Genes are the heritable ability to manufacture proteins. You inherit those
> from your ancestors. They are older than you are. I can't imagine what you
> think genes are if you can't understand this.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The first metazoans
appear approximately 600 million years ago. Before that time, there were
no multicellular organisms. But genetic analysis using molecular
sequencing and other types of analysis, seems to show that some genes
diverged more that 600 m.y. ago, maybe up to a billion years ago, before
the organisms that contain them existed. The question is, how can a gene
"evolve" absent an organism?
Charles Wagner
I meant among reputable, rational, intelligent, educated thinking
people. (Yes, there are some creationists who meet these standards!)
Arky wrote:
>
> On 26 Jul 2000 17:30:33 -0400, Charles Wagner <cewa...@spec.net>
> wrote:
>
> >If either side had convincing evidence, everyone
> >would have packed their bags, folded their tents and gone home long ago.
>
Gyudon Z
>I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The first metazoans
>appear approximately 600 million years ago. Before that time, there were
>no multicellular organisms. But genetic analysis using molecular
>sequencing and other types of analysis, seems to show that some genes
>diverged more that 600 m.y. ago, maybe up to a billion years ago, before
>the organisms that contain them existed. The question is, how can a gene
>"evolve" absent an organism?
Genes don't evolve absent an organism. I don't know why you think that the
genes in question couldn't have diverged before multicellular organisms
existed; but then, I'm not all that clear on what you're talking about. Could
you clarify what you mean about genes diverging?
Matt Silberstein
Wagner <cewa...@spec.net>:
>Mark,
>
>> Ummm. Genes _are_ older than the organisms that possess them. Isn't that
>> rather obvious? Certainly the ability for cells to manufacture (for example)
>> hemoglobin has been around far longer than I've been around...
>> Genes are the heritable ability to manufacture proteins. You inherit those
>> from your ancestors. They are older than you are. I can't imagine what you
>> think genes are if you can't understand this.
>
>I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The first metazoans
>appear approximately 600 million years ago. Before that time, there were
>no multicellular organisms. But genetic analysis using molecular
>sequencing and other types of analysis, seems to show that some genes
>diverged more that 600 m.y. ago, maybe up to a billion years ago, before
>the organisms that contain them existed. The question is, how can a gene
>"evolve" absent an organism?
They diverged while still unicellular. What problem do you have with
that?
Matt Silberstein
Wagner <cewa...@spec.net>:
[snip]
> With regard to speculation, science does indeed provide a mechanism
>for determining which speculations are worthwhile. That is, observation
>and experiment. It is my opinion that both darwinism and creationism
>lack both observational and experimental support, therefore, from a
>science point of view, both are equally worthless.
Except for darwinism, which has plenty of evidentiary support. Perhaps
you can explain what you mean by "darwinism", I mean Common Descent,
descent with modification, and differential reproductive success.
>I never did
>understand why this business of "making predictions" is taken so
>seriously.
Please note this sentence, I will come back to it.
>After all, Ptolemy's theories made excellent predictions and
>were completely wrong.
And so, when a conceptually simpler system that made almost as good
predictions, with the clear expectation that it would eventually make
better predictions, people abandoned the Ptolemaic system. All you
need to do is make better predictions or provide similar quality
predictions with conceptual simplicity.
>So I don't rely on the ability to make
>predictions. The fact is however, all of science is inductive. The
>evidence, both observational and experimental must convince the person
>of it's correctness. The better able to persuade a theory is, the
>stronger it becomes, until the time comes when it disagrees with
>experiment and/or observation, at which point it must be discarded.
Ok, please explain to me the difference between making predictions,
which you don't take seriously, and have the theory agree with
observation. ISTM that the theory can only agree/disagree with
observation if it make predictions. How do you imagine this
"agreement" working without predictions?
[snip]
>(BTW, I fully understand the definitions of abiogenesis and evolution. I
>don't really think you can address the one, without the other unless
>you're willing to restrict your definition of evolution to mere changes
>in allelic frequencies without creative power.
How do you know it lacks this "creative power"? It certainly works in
simulation, we see the development of nylon eating bacteria, etc.
> I'm a little dismayed that you view me as closed-minded and
>unwilling to be persuaded. Quite the contrary, I could easily be
>persuaded in either direction by credible evidence. As of now, I have no
>firm position. And a lot of people I talk to find that disconcerting.
> BTW, how does "trolling for an argument" differ from "starting a
>conversation"? You make trolling sound like something bad. Is it?
Yes. Trolling is presenting views you don't hold in order to create
nasty debating.
Louann Miller
Charles Wagner wrote in message <397F7520...@spec.net>...
>Andre,
> There's no question among scientists that evolution has occurred.
But
>they fail to define what they mean by evolution. If you simply mean
>"change over time" I'm among the believers. If you mean darwinism,
you
read
>the journals to discover this. But there's a tremendous fear of
>creationism, and stemming this growing tide is more important in many
You haven't defined your own house brands of 'evolution' and
'creationism' either. Is this one of the ones where detailed chains of
related species are no problem unless they happen to be humans and
chimps?
Louann
wilkins
<cewa...@spec.net> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> > Ummm. Genes _are_ older than the organisms that possess them. Isn't
> > that
> > rather obvious? Certainly the ability for cells to manufacture (for
> > example)
> > hemoglobin has been around far longer than I've been around...
> > Genes are the heritable ability to manufacture proteins. You inherit
> > those
> > from your ancestors. They are older than you are. I can't imagine
> > what you
> > think genes are if you can't understand this.
>
> I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The first metazoans
> appear approximately 600 million years ago. Before that time, there were
> no multicellular organisms. But genetic analysis using molecular
> sequencing and other types of analysis, seems to show that some genes
> diverged more that 600 m.y. ago, maybe up to a billion years ago, before
> the organisms that contain them existed. The question is, how can a gene
> "evolve" absent an organism?
>
> Regards, Charlie Wagner
> http://www.spec.net/home/cewagner
>
I thought that metazooans are found up to 850mya. Am I wrong?
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production, Hall Institute
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/~thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
Charles Wagner
Louann,
> You haven't defined your own house brands of 'evolution' and
> 'creationism' either. Is this one of the ones where detailed chains of
> related species are no problem unless they happen to be humans and
> chimps?
>
> Louann
'Evolution' and 'creationism' are not my terms so therefore I don't have
to define them. Evolutionists should define 'evolution'. It's their
jargon. But it seems that you get a different definition from everyone
you talk to. It ranges from "changes in frequencies of alleles in
populations", the most restricted and narrow definition, all the way to
darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, neutral theory, Oparin's hypothesis,
Miller and Fox, ultradarwinism and just about everything in between.
That's why it's so hard to argue these points. Everyone has a different
idea about what it is and it mutates every time a problem arises.
My proposition is simple. We simply don't know how life began and how
it came to be in the state that it's in today. We know that most all
living things are related. We know that because the biochemical
processes are essentially the same in all cells, suggesting a common
origin. The genetic code, insofar as we know, is the same in all living
organisms. That is also suggestive of a common origin. But beyond that?
Nothing less than a complete mystery.
George Acton
>
> Mark,
>
> > Ummm. Genes _are_ older than the organisms that possess them. Isn't that
> > rather obvious? Certainly the ability for cells to manufacture (for example)
> > hemoglobin has been around far longer than I've been around...
> > Genes are the heritable ability to manufacture proteins. You inherit those
> > from your ancestors. They are older than you are. I can't imagine what you
> > think genes are if you can't understand this.
>
> I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The first metazoans
> appear approximately 600 million years ago. Before that time, there were
> no multicellular organisms. But genetic analysis using molecular
> sequencing and other types of analysis, seems to show that some genes
> diverged more that 600 m.y. ago, maybe up to a billion years ago, before
> the organisms that contain them existed. The question is, how can a gene
> "evolve" absent an organism?
Clue: not all organisms are metazoans.
--George Acton
Chris Ho-Stuart
Charles Wagner <cewa...@spec.net> wrote:
> Chris,
>
>> I take the above as saying that the fossil record is data proving
>> macroevolution, or relationship of living creatures through diverging
>> lines of shared ancestry.
>
> I am not saying that the fossil record supports macroevolution. The fact
> that organisms are related (and they clearly are) does not allow us to
> infer anything about the nature of this relationship, that one "evolved"
> from to other or is "descended" from the other.
That is a strange point of view. However can you possibly say
"related" if you cannot say anything about the nature of the
relationship?
What the fossil record reveals is that living and extinct
organisms are related as if by descent from shared ancestors.
It is not possible to say that one paleospecies is definitely
the ancestor of another; but the principle of relationship of
diverging lineages is as solid as anything gets in science, and
it IS possible to say with considerable confidence that one
paleospecies is closely related to another -- by which MEANS
by shared descent from a near common ancestor (for which direct
descent is a special case).
This is an inference, to be sure, but not one in any credible
dispute, any more than there is much dispute over the inference
that atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons.
>> On the other hand, we also have direct evidence of microevolution;
>> or processes by which change arises and accumulates in populations.
>
> I would not deny for a moment that microevolution occurs. Changes in the
> frequencies of alleles in populations are strongly supported by
> observational and experimental evidence. I object to the "leap of faith"
> in which vast creative power is bestowed on these trivial changes.
Trivial is a loaded word. For example, I do not consider the
differences between humans and chimpanzees to be trivial. I
do, however, KNOW that that the differences in genome are quite
small, by comparison with other species. And we OBSERVE that
quite small differences in genome can correspond to non-trivial
differences in the body. There is no leap of faith in the
observation that small differences of genome are highly
significant; and there is no leap of faith in the observation
that there are a substantial number of paleospecies closely
related to humans which are progressively more closely related
to chimpanzees as you go back in time.
Interestingly, we do not have a good record for chimpanzee
ancestry. This is not particularly surprising, given that
they are forest dwellers whereas the Homo and Australopithecus
genuses were likely savannah dwellers. Fossilization in a forest
is much less likely.
But that we are related to chimpanzees is not in dispute.
That means precisely that we had a common ancestor.
>> Evolutionary theory proposes that the processes which we observe in
>> the present also worked in the past, and that this accounts for the
>> observed changes we see in the fossil record.
>
> This is a pretty thin argument. There may be processes at work that we
> are unaware of, or don't understand, such as the influx of new genetic
> material of extraterrestrial origin or the modification of pre-existing
> genetic material by processes on the cellular level that we don't
> understand. Also, horizontal transmission of genetic material by viruses
> is an unresolved possibility.
Thin? It is fundamental to any application of science to the past.
There is zero evidence for extra-terrestrial genetic material
having any effect on evolution, and no reason to think it
necessary. It is possible extra-terrestrial material could
have a role in origins of life -- and actual evidence on the
matter would be very interesting. But new genetic material?
Forget it! Genes are observed to be very specifically coded
in complex molecules tightly integrated into living organisms.
We might get some amino acids from space, but the notion of
genes from space is merely silly.
The roll of exotic transmissions mechanisms is worthy of study;
but not as a replacement for processes we know and observe. If you
have any reason to think additional processes are at work, fine.
This IS an area of active study. But to equate this kind of
investigation for exotic transmission mechanisms with denial of
the straightforward and obvious inference that processes we can
study in the present worked also in the past is absurd. The study
of these exotic transmissions relies on the very same assumption
that we can study processes in the present to learn about the past.
>> Although the fossil record cannot prove in a formal deductive
>> sense whether or not the evident changes arose through the processes
>> we study in the present, it does provide a consistency check. Is
>> the proposed mechanism consistent with the observation? This is a
>> very strong check indeed; I think it would be hard to imagine any
>> process which meets the tight constraints of consistency with that
>> evidence, other than the class of processes being studied in the
>> scientific community.
>
> In my opinion, evolution clearly fails this consistency check. The
> proposed mechanism (gradual accumulation of beneficial mutations over a
> long period of time) is not supported by the observational evidence,
> which shows in some cases, the almost complete absence of intermediaries
> between families when there should be large numbers of them. One example
> is the birds. Another is the angiosperms.
Agree that there are some families for which we do not have
a good lineages of intermediaries.
What do you think of other families (like the horse family)
for which we DO have heaps of intermediaries?
Does evolution work for horses, but come into question for
birds?
>> I think the real reason for continuing debate is not because both
>> sides have equally good cases or equally well informed advocates.
>> It is exclusively because some folks have religious objections to
>> the plain implications of evidence.
>
> Fortunately, I have no religious agenda to cloud my reason.
>
>> The fact is that the evolution/creation debate IS over as far as
>> mainstream science is concerned, and has been over for more than
>> a century. The scientific creationism phenonomenon is really only
>> a few decades old, and has had pretty much zero impact on mainstream
>> science. Creationists explain this in all kinds of ways, charging
>> that scientists and journals are biased, or blind, or whatever; but
>> regardless of what spin one places on it, the plain observation is
>> that there is no debate within the mainstream scientific community.
>> The only debate goes on outside, in churches, with non-professionals,
>> and in various fringe organizations.
>
> I don't know how you can say this after having read the various
> scientific journals. All that scientists agree unanimously on is that
> change has occurred over time. Beyond that, there is practically no
> consensus of opinion on how this change took place.
This is false. The consensus of opinion includes many other things.
I have mentioned, for example, the consensus that natural selection
is the basic explanation for adaptive change. Another important area
in which there is wide agreement concerns the relationships between
currently living species.
There is uiniversal agreement (accepting only the lunatic fringe)
that change occurs over time in a lineage of descent. There is
universal agreement that closely related species have relatively
recent common ancestors. And there is universal agreement that
humans are closely related to the great apes. Further -- there is
universal agreement that chimpanzees are more closely related to
humans than to orangutangs; meaning that humans and chimpanzees
have a more recent common ancestor than do orangutangs and
chimpanzees.
There is dispute as to the relationships between chimpanzees,
humans and gorillas; but the evidence is piling up that humans and
chimpanzees are the closest pair of this trio. A few holdouts
against this view do remain, however.
There is universal agreement within science that this question of
relationship is answerable and worthy of investigation.
>> This, I submit, negates your initial premise that nothing has been
>> resolved after 40 years. The issues of scientific creationism have
>> been resolved long ago, and you are left throwing rocks after
>> the departing train of knowledge.
>
> I'm sorry to inform you of this sad fact, but the creationists are
> stronger than they ever have been. And the reason they are so strong is
> because they have addressed questions, concerns and issues that
> scientists chose to ignore. Like Haldane's dilemma.
Rubbish. Haldane was no creationist, and his dilemma has not
been ignored.
If I may speak frankly here -- the only contribution of
creationists has been to dig out a decades old dispute
within science, ignore all the work which has been done
to resolve it, and mislead the gullible with spurious claims.
The only real significance of Haldane's dilemma today is
historical interest, or the ongoing educational problem of
helping people past confusions put about by non-scientists.
In this case, Walter ReMine. See
<http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane1.html>
> Now scientists are
> being forced to face up to the mountain of unanswered questions that
> creationists are raising.
I don't think this is true. I think your mention of Haldane
is proof that there is no such mountain. If there were any
real questions of interest being raised by creationists,
you'd surely be able to find one.
> But I think this is good. Science had become
> too complacent about evolution and had failed to look for alternate
> explanations when confronted with serious problems. They tried to sweep
> them under the rug, so to speak and ignore them. But now they're being
> aired in the light of day. An example of this is the absence of
> transitional fossils between classes. Even Niles Eldredge was forced to
> concede this dilemma. Gould and he proposed P.E. mainly to explain this
> embarrassment, but it backfired by drawing attention to what had been a
> trade secret.
This unoriginal and misleading representation of the work of
Eldredge and Gould is another great example where creationists
have contributed exactly nothing to a genuine and interesting
dispute going on within science. The only contribution of
creationists to the matter of punctuated equilibrium is one
of misrepresentation for the sake of confusing the gullible.
If anyone wants to understand what the dispute was about, don't
whatever you do trust a creationist for a description of what
either party was arguing. The real work, and debate, and resolution,
has all taken place without any useful input or influence from the
creationists at all.
Best wishes -- Chris Ho-Stuart
John Harshman
Well, of course it can't. There are three explanations I can think of:
1) metazoans are older than their fossil record.
2) the time calibration used to date the genetic divergences you are
talking about was faulty.
3) the genes in question were present in the protist ancestors of metazoans.
Likely it's some combination of all these. Some time calibrations, for
example, do point to just about 600my. There are trace fossils attributed
to metazoans that are older than any metazoan body fossil. And many of the
genes in today's metazoans are also present in today's protists.
As far as I can tell, you do agree that the evidence for evolution
(=common ancestry) is good; you just don't believe natural selection is an
adequate mechanism. We could argue about that, but you've already conceded
the major portion of what the creationists in TO argue about.
--
*Note the obvious spam-defeating modification
to my address if you reply by email.
Gyudon Z
>
>> You haven't defined your own house brands of 'evolution' and
>> 'creationism' either. Is this one of the ones where detailed chains of
>> related species are no problem unless they happen to be humans and
>> chimps?
>>
>> Louann
>
>'Evolution' and 'creationism' are not my terms so therefore I don't have
>to define them. Evolutionists should define 'evolution'. It's their
>jargon. But it seems that you get a different definition from everyone
>you talk to. It ranges from "changes in frequencies of alleles in
>populations", the most restricted and narrow definition, all the way to
>darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, neutral theory, Oparin's hypothesis,
>Miller and Fox, ultradarwinism and just about everything in between.
>That's why it's so hard to argue these points. Everyone has a different
>idea about what it is and it mutates every time a problem arises.
You are the one who is currently using these terms, and as such, it is your
prerogative to define them. In fact, when someone asks you to (especially
considering the different definitions enumerated above), it is, in fact,
incumbent on you to define what *you* mean when you say evolution.
<snip rest>
Pat James
(in message <397F882D...@spec.net>):
> Arky,
> I meant among reputable, rational, intelligent, educated thinking
> people. (Yes, there are some creationists who meet these standards!)
other than semismartguy and Ford, who?
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
Jim Lovejoy
>
> Louann,
>
> > You haven't defined your own house brands of 'evolution' and
> > 'creationism' either. Is this one of the ones where detailed chains of
> > related species are no problem unless they happen to be humans and
> > chimps?
> >
> > Louann
>
> 'Evolution' and 'creationism' are not my terms so therefore I don't have
> to define them. Evolutionists should define 'evolution'. It's their
> jargon. But it seems that you get a different definition from everyone
> you talk to. It ranges from "changes in frequencies of alleles in
> populations", the most restricted and narrow definition, all the way to
> darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, neutral theory, Oparin's hypothesis,
> Miller and Fox, ultradarwinism and just about everything in between.
> That's why it's so hard to argue these points. Everyone has a different
> idea about what it is and it mutates every time a problem arises.
> it came to be in the state that it's in today. We know that most all
> living things are related. We know that because the biochemical
> processes are essentially the same in all cells, suggesting a common
> origin. The genetic code, insofar as we know, is the same in all living
> organisms. That is also suggestive of a common origin. But beyond that?
> Nothing less than a complete mystery.
That is close to complete horse pucky.
We also have a very good idea of how closely species are related to each
other, and that they are related by descent with modification.
It also seems that if God is involved in the diversification of life,
that he doesn't want us to know it, because he's gone to some trouble to
make it look as though it came about by natural causes.
Cheers
Jim Lovejoy
>
> In talk.origins I read <397F5875...@spec.net> from Charles
> Wagner <cewa...@spec.net>:
>
> > I have been involved with this debate for nearly 40 years
> >and after millions of words read, spoken and written in a variety
> >of books, articles, forums and conversations I have reached the
> >conclusion that the horrible truth of the matter is that we just don't
> >have a clue as to where the universe and the life that's in it came
> >from.
> > It seems to me that it's time to end this ridiculous bickering and
> >be brave enough to admit this simple truth. All we have is speculation,
> >your speculation and my speculation.
>
> All we have is speculation. And fossil evidence. All we have is
> speculation and fossil evidence. And DNA. All we have is speculation
> and fossil evidence and DNA. And chemical experiments. And the Red
> Shift. And background hydrogen radiation. And lots and lots of
> confirmed predictive models.
>
But aside from that what has Rome done for us?
> [epistemological nihilism snipped]
wilkins
<ji...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Matt Silberstein wrote:
> >
> > In talk.origins I read <397F5875...@spec.net> from Charles
> > Wagner <cewa...@spec.net>:
> >
> > > I have been involved with this debate for nearly 40 years
> > >and after millions of words read, spoken and written in a variety
> > >of books, articles, forums and conversations I have reached the
> > >conclusion that the horrible truth of the matter is that we just don't
> > >have a clue as to where the universe and the life that's in it came
> > >from.
> > > It seems to me that it's time to end this ridiculous bickering and
> > >be brave enough to admit this simple truth. All we have is speculation,
> > >your speculation and my speculation.
> >
> > All we have is speculation. And fossil evidence. All we have is
> > speculation and fossil evidence. And DNA. All we have is speculation
> > and fossil evidence and DNA. And chemical experiments. And the Red
> > Shift. And background hydrogen radiation. And lots and lots of
> > confirmed predictive models.
> >
>
> But aside from that what has Rome done for us?
No, no. It's "amongst our weaponry..."
[Cardinal Fang, the comfy chair!]
>
> > [epistemological nihilism snipped]
> >
> > --
> > Matt Silberstein
> >
> > Miss Morris, I'm perfectly capable of fixing my own breakfast.
> > As a matter of fact, I had a peanut butter sandwich and
> > two whiskey sours.
> >
> > _Seven Year Itch_
>
--
David Johnston
>
> Mark,
>
> > Ummm. Genes _are_ older than the organisms that possess them. Isn't that
> > rather obvious? Certainly the ability for cells to manufacture (for example)
> > hemoglobin has been around far longer than I've been around...
> > Genes are the heritable ability to manufacture proteins. You inherit those
> > from your ancestors. They are older than you are. I can't imagine what you
> > think genes are if you can't understand this.
>
> I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The first metazoans
> appear approximately 600 million years ago. Before that time, there were
> no multicellular organisms. But genetic analysis using molecular
> sequencing and other types of analysis, seems to show that some genes
> diverged more that 600 m.y. ago, maybe up to a billion years ago, before
> the organisms that contain them existed. The question is, how can a gene
> "evolve" absent an organism?
>
I don't understand the question. What makes you think there was no
organism?
Boikat
Charles Wagner wrote in message <397F5875...@spec.net>...
> I have been involved with this debate for nearly 40 years
>
> So let's be brave about this and admit (gasp!) the horrible truth. No
>one alive today has a shred of credible evidence to support either of
>these two paradigms. And I defy anyone to prove otherwise.
40 years and you still don't understand that science does not deal in
"proof"?
You must be a creationists that's throwing in the towel then.
Boikat
Gavin Tabor
>
> I have been involved with this debate for nearly 40 years
> of books, articles, forums and conversations I have reached the
> conclusion that the horrible truth of the matter is that we just don't
> have a clue as to where the universe and the life that's in it came
> from.
> It seems to me that it's time to end this ridiculous bickering and
> be brave enough to admit this simple truth. All we have is speculation,
> interminable and absurd. It's gotten to the point where I know in
> advance, every argument that will be made by either side at almost any
> time. Nothing really new is ever offered because there is nothing new.
> The proof that we don't really know is proven by the fact that the
> argument continues on. If either side had convincing evidence, everyone
> would have packed their bags, folded their tents and gone home long ago.
This is something of a truism. Clearly the theological or scientific
evidence (depending on choice) is not fully convincing, because it has
failed to convince everyone. Whether everyone is capable of being
convinced
is a different matter.
> We also have to face the dismal possibility that we will never
> really know. At least not in the forseeable future. Insofar as I can
> see, there's not a shred of credible evidence to support the idea that
> mutation and natural selection are the mechanisms by which life
> progresses from its beginning (if indeed it had a beginning) to its
> present state.
"From the beginning" possibly not - abiogenesis : the study of the
earliest development of life from non-life - is at a very rudimentary
stage. However there is plenty of credible evidence that mutation and
natural selection have created the rich diversity of species we see
today. That evidence takes the form of :
- genetic (twin nested heirachies)
- direct biological experiments (lab breeding and observation of
speciation
in the wild)
- geological (fossil species, eg the whale sequences that are being
discussed here)
- computational (success of Genetic Algorithms)
(there may be bits I've left off here, however that covers the main
points). This evidence has convinced the vast majority of people who
have done any serious work in the area of biology that evolution is
a scientific fact.
Please note that this does not preclude theology, although it does
constrain it.
> There's also not a shred of credible evidence that there
> exists a supernatural being that created the universe and all the life
> in it.
> So, we must analyze why the debate goes on. If it's just to generate
> discussion and thought provoking ideas, then it probably has some value.
> So, newcomers on both sides come into the discussion fresh and full of
> piss and vinegar, hoping to convince others of the truthfulness of their
> thoughts on the matter. But they're surely travelling down roads that
> have already been traversed by countless others. All of the ideas have
> been thought of before, all the arguments have been made and almost no
> one has changed their minds.
One or two seem to have done so. Not so much the main protagonists,
but people who just lurk, may get more out of this than you think.
Anyhow I just enjoy arguing.
> But those of us who have been over and over and over these matters
> countless time can clearly see that it will probably never be resolved.
> That is, until science can clearly and definitively advance a believable
> mechanism by which life has "evolved" or until God almighty himself
> comes down from heaven and proclaims authorship. I'm not holding my
> breath waiting :-)
> So let's be brave about this and admit (gasp!) the horrible truth. No
> one alive today has a shred of credible evidence to support either of
> these two paradigms. And I defy anyone to prove otherwise.
>
> Charles Wagner
> http://www.spec.net/home/cewagner
Gavin
--
Dr. Gavin Tabor
School of Engineering and Computer Science
Department of Engineering
University of Exeter
Charles Wagner
wilkins wrote:
>
> In article <397F8500...@spec.net>, Charles Wagner
> > Regards, Charlie Wagner
> > http://www.spec.net/home/cewagner
> >
>
> I thought that metazooans are found up to 850mya. Am I wrong?
>
Wilkins,
I believe it's closer to 600 million years. The Chengjiang fosssils
in China date at about 570 m.y. ago.
Charles Wagner
You may remember me from another forum. We tangled once before on
blood clotting I think. I know very well that not all organisms are
metazoans. Do you suppose that the genes that control the biochemistry
of vision evolved in bacteria?
Regards, Charlie Wagner
http://www.spec.net/home/cewagner
George Acton wrote:
>
> Charles Wagner wrote:
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > > Ummm. Genes _are_ older than the organisms that possess them. Isn't that
> > > rather obvious? Certainly the ability for cells to manufacture (for example)
> > > hemoglobin has been around far longer than I've been around...
> > > Genes are the heritable ability to manufacture proteins. You inherit those
> > > from your ancestors. They are older than you are. I can't imagine what you
> > > think genes are if you can't understand this.
> >
> > I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The first metazoans
> > appear approximately 600 million years ago. Before that time, there were
> > no multicellular organisms. But genetic analysis using molecular
> > sequencing and other types of analysis, seems to show that some genes
> > diverged more that 600 m.y. ago, maybe up to a billion years ago, before
> > the organisms that contain them existed. The question is, how can a gene
> > "evolve" absent an organism?
>
Andrew MacRae
writes:
| I have been involved with this debate for nearly 40 years
|and after millions of words read, spoken and written in a variety
|of books, articles, forums and conversations I have reached the
|conclusion that the horrible truth of the matter is that we just don't
|have a clue as to where the universe and the life that's in it came
|from.
It would be boring if it were any other way. There are always
limitations to our understanding. That does not mean that any possibility
is equally valid, or equally consistent with the available evidence so
far, especially in a scientific context (which is not necessarily what is
being discussed). You may as well say "anything is possible", and leave
it at that.
| It seems to me that it's time to end this ridiculous bickering
Bickering is to be avoided in any circumstance.
|and
|be brave enough to admit this simple truth. All we have is speculation,
|your speculation and my speculation. That's what makes the argument
|interminable and absurd.
No. If that were the case, then there was no point in people like
Newton or Kepler trying to figure out the motion of the planets, or people
like Buffon, Lyell, or Hutton trying to figure out the history of the
Earth, or people like Einstein trying to understand the nature of space
and time, or Bohr or Rutherford trying to understand the nature of the
atom. Yes, the challenges -- basically our limited knowledge -- are vast
and frustrating compared to the great complexity of the universe, but to
abandon the hope of being able to measure some difference in plausibility
between one speculative mechanism and another is to give in to ignorance
by default.
|It's gotten to the point where I know in
|advance, every argument that will be made by either side at almost any
|time. Nothing really new is ever offered because there is nothing new.
That is not the case. New evidence turns up all the time.
Underlying themes may remain persistent, but they do change too as a
result of the available evidence and changing understanding of it.
If it seems, even over a period of decades, as if little progress
has been made in the "creation-evolution debate", though, that could be
because the "debate" was effectively over in many forums of thought more
than a hundred years ago (rather like the "debate" over heliocentrism
versus geocentrism), and most of what has happened since has been a great
deal of denial or misunderstanding of the implications.
| The proof that we don't really know is proven by the fact that the
|argument continues on.
No, that means there still are areas where progress can be made,
because people do not yet understand. The same is true of seemingly
"proven" subjects such as gravity or electromagnetism, which continue to
be argued.
|If either side had convincing evidence, everyone
|would have packed their bags, folded their tents and gone home long ago.
No. You misunderstand the source of the psychology behind it.
Some people are highly unconfortable with the idea that we could be
derived by "natural" processes from other forms of life. Other people are
highly unconfortable with the idea that even if we are derived by
"natural" processes from other forms of life, it does not preclude some
forms of supernatural mechanism that other people want to believe in (in
the same sense that gravity constraining the planets to their orbits does
not mean God does not exist). People confuse scientific work for
something that could differentiate between these two possibilities, and
argue about the implications, not because the scientific interpretations
are tenuous, but because the non-scientific implications that people try
to derive from them (right or wrong) are psychologically very influential.
From those, people try to act in other ways (e.g., political) that affect
everybody else even more. People won't "fold up their tents and go home"
until people have a better understanding of the whole issue, and the only
way to accomplish that *is* to discuss it. I don't expect it to take less
than a few centuries for it to sink in.
| We also have to face the dismal possibility that we will never
|really know.
You could say that about anything that is scientifically or
otherwise studied. It is a feature of our limited understanding and
abilities. I don't think people should be discouraged by the challenge to
the point of abandoning the effort.
|At least not in the forseeable future. Insofar as I can
|see, there's not a shred of credible evidence to support the idea that
|mutation and natural selection are the mechanisms by which life
|progresses from its beginning (if indeed it had a beginning) to its
|present state.
I disagree. There are plenty of shreds.
|There's also not a shred of credible evidence that there
|exists a supernatural being that created the universe and all the life
|in it.
It is debatable whether such shreds even have the potential to
exist and be accurately perceived. One thing is certain: the shreds being
discussed in the dichotomy you have set up are not the same type of
shreds.
| So, we must analyze why the debate goes on. If it's just to generate
|discussion and thought provoking ideas, then it probably has some value.
I think that, primarily, one way or the other, it is, except that
the discussion is a means to a different end, rather than an end in
itself: understanding of the issues, and understanding of eachother's
perspectives of the issues.
|So, newcomers on both sides come into the discussion fresh and full of
|piss and vinegar, hoping to convince others of the truthfulness of their
|thoughts on the matter. But they're surely travelling down roads that
|have already been traversed by countless others.
Yes. So, should they stay home instead, and not travel down those
roads? I don't think so. There is a great deal to be gained by taking a
journey oneself, rather than relying on others for the claim that the
destination is wonderful, or that there is, eventually, a limit to the
roads beyond which you can contribute something new.
|All of the ideas have
|been thought of before, all the arguments have been made and almost no
|one has changed their minds.
No. People have thought of new ideas (or encountered ideas that
are at least new to them), and people have definitely changed their minds
from time to time. You are being overly cynical.
| But those of us who have been over and over and over these matters
|countless time can clearly see that it will probably never be resolved.
It does not have to be *resolved* in some final state for
everybody. It only has to be resolved for one personally. To that end,
it does help to understand what other people think, and to understand what
evidence they thought was helpful, and how they became familiar with it.
|That is, until science can clearly and definitively advance a believable
|mechanism by which life has "evolved"
In many people's opinions, it already has. You don't have to
accept it.
|or until God almighty himself
|comes down from heaven and proclaims authorship. I'm not holding my
|breath waiting :-)
| So let's be brave about this and admit (gasp!) the horrible truth. No
|one alive today has a shred of credible evidence to support either of
|these two paradigms. And I defy anyone to prove otherwise.
So, presuming, hypothetically, that this unresolvability with
regards to God's involvement or not is real, and it will never be resolved
(which in some sense I am agreeing with anyway), what would you propose
doing with this conclusion? You do not have to do anything with it other
than believing it, but what if you were going to use it to decide other
issues?
It is only then, when implementing other things on the basis of
that conclusion (whatever it is), that other people typically get really
anxious. For example, one could decide that because of the acknowledged
uncertainty, both ideas (divine involvement and an evolutionary process)
should be presented in public school science classes. At that point, a
great many people, both that believe in divine involvement and do not,
would probably point out that uncertainty about ultimate causes or
uncertainty about scientific interpretations is not a justifiable reason
for introducing religion into a scientific format (e.g., scientific
uncertainty about the exact nature of gravity does not justify the
mentioning of God as if it were an alternative scientific interpretation).
I know you said nothing about this particular issue, and I am not
trying to put words in your mouth. I mention this example because it is a
fairly popular one among some people, and it shows how, even if
uncertainty about scientific conclusions is widely acknowledged, it does
not change some things, because uncertainty always exists for every
scientific theory. Scientific interpretations are tentative by their very
nature. It does not change what is and is not science or what people
should do with that information in other forums (e.g., political). In
some areas of interest to people, your point, even if valid, would not be
relevant, so plenty of discussion would occur anyway.
|Charles Wagner
|http://www.spec.net/home/cewagner
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
Dick C.
>Arky,
> I meant among reputable, rational, intelligent, educated thinking
>people. (Yes, there are some creationists who meet these standards!)
There are damned few creationists who meet that standard. If did meet
that standard they would drop creationism in a heartbeat.
There is nothing rational, intelligent or educated about worshipping
the first story in a collection of religious stories from bronze age
goat herders.
--
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
Paul J. Gans
> Charles Wagner wrote:
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> > Ummm. Genes _are_ older than the organisms that possess them. Isn't that
>> > rather obvious? Certainly the ability for cells to manufacture (for example)
>> > hemoglobin has been around far longer than I've been around...
>> > Genes are the heritable ability to manufacture proteins. You inherit those
>> > from your ancestors. They are older than you are. I can't imagine what you
>> > think genes are if you can't understand this.
>>
>> I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The first metazoans
>> appear approximately 600 million years ago. Before that time, there were
>> no multicellular organisms. But genetic analysis using molecular
>> sequencing and other types of analysis, seems to show that some genes
>> diverged more that 600 m.y. ago, maybe up to a billion years ago, before
>> the organisms that contain them existed. The question is, how can a gene
>> "evolve" absent an organism?
> Clue: not all organisms are metazoans.
I think he's assuming that there are specific metazoan genes, so
his question is: "how can metazoan genes have evolved before
metazoans did?"
---- Paul J. Gans
Charles Wagner
<<There is certainly debate on the mechanisms of evolution; but there is
no serious doubt that natural selection is central for the development
of adaptation. The debate that exists is not at this level; all you need
do is read the journals to discover this.>>
I think that your statement ignores the contributioms of M. Kimura
and the entire field of Neutral Theory. Not everyone in evolutionary
biology thinks that Natural Selection is the only road to adaptation.
My position is that Natural selection is granted too much creative
power and that while it occurs, it is a trivial (and in most cases
oscillatory) effect. I refer you to the work of the Grants, as reported
in "Beak of the Finch" wherein the changes that they observed, which
occurred among the finches on the Galapagos Islands is clearly
oscillatory in nature. When the conditions were wet, one type of beak
prevailed. When they were dry, another. But when the wet climate
returned, so did the favored beaks. These are clearly changes in allelic
frequencies, but they are not paths to new species, as your "leap of
faith" would have us believe. Another example is the legendary pepper
moths in England, long touted as a good example of evolution. But when
the pollution was cleared up, the white moths are returning to their
former frequencies.
> Do you think creationism has anything at all to offer to the debates
> and disagreements which we agree exist within science? We don't
> have complete knowledge, to be sure. But some of your comments seem
> to recognize that there are some basic facts about change over
> time which are a starting point for investigation. On the other
> hand, other comments you make seem to suggest that hidden within
> creationism there are arguments of some merit, which are -- or should
> be? -- part of the substantive scientific debate on the issues.
First of all, I'm not a creationist and I have no religious agenda to
promote. I don't propose that schools be allowed to promote a religious
viewpoint on evolutionary studies, and I think that scientific
principles should prevail. But scientific principles require
observational and experimental support, not just wishful thinking.
I think that creationism has done some good, in that it has forced
science to defend itself against some valid criticisms of it's long
cherished theories. Out of that may well come new understandings and
knowledge.
Ken Cox
> Ok, it kind of depends on what you call a "clue" :-)
> One person's "clue" may be another's "howler". But more
> to the point, I don't see any of these clues that you're referring to.
> Now I'm fairly well read in these matters and almost all of what some
> people refer to as "clues" is really just speculation...stories that are
> made up because they sound good. What clues do *you* see??
COBE and the CMBR. Observations of bodies at z>4. Particle
physics. Primordial element abundances. The large-scale
structure of the universe. The fossil record. The geochemistry
of the early Earth. Genetic phylogenies. The geological column.
The results of radioisotope dating.
By the way, all of the above are direct observations -- no
speculation or stories involved.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Charles Wagner
<<There are damned few creationists who meet that standard. If did meet
that standard they would drop creationism in a heartbeat.
There is nothing rational, intelligent or educated about worshipping
the first story in a collection of religious stories from bronze age
goat herders.>>
Well, there is a tendency to paint all creationists with a single
brush stroke. It's easy to characterize all creationists as ignorant,
confused, bible-thumping neanderthals that are out to destroy the temple
of science. There are some people like that, but as soon as anyone takes
a religious viewpoint, or even an intelligent design viewpoint, they
seem to be automatically condemned to this stereotype.
You also seem to be saying that if people were intelligent, rational
and educated that they would immediately drop creationism and adopt your
views. This couldn't be further from the truth. Take for example, a man
like Paul Davies, who states that "I belong to the group of scientists
who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny
that the universe is a purposeless accident". Or Sir Fred Hoyle. Or
William Dembski. Or myself.
In fact, it seems to me that the more you learn, and the more you
think about it, and the smarter you are, the more likely you are to see
that darwinian evolution is one of the biggest hoaxes in the history of
science. And the more likely you are to see, as Paul Davies describes,
"that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so
astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact..."
Ken Cox
> I meant among reputable, rational, intelligent, educated thinking
> people. (Yes, there are some creationists who meet these standards!)
Name five.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Charles Wagner
I graduated from NYU in 1968 and I remember many happy :-) hours in
class with Dr. Morrison. I have a whole bevy of "Morrison stories" that
I love to tell my students. In fact, I was taking one of his legendary
organic exams the day Kennedy was shot. Thanks for the memory!
> I think he's assuming that there are specific metazoan genes, so
> his question is: "how can metazoan genes have evolved before
> metazoans did?"
That was exactly my point.
Ken Cox
> I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The first metazoans
> appear approximately 600 million years ago. Before that time, there were
> no multicellular organisms. But genetic analysis using molecular
> sequencing and other types of analysis, seems to show that some genes
> diverged more that 600 m.y. ago, maybe up to a billion years ago, before
> the organisms that contain them existed. The question is, how can a gene
> "evolve" absent an organism?
You seem to keep dropping adjectives (or equivalent qualifiers). As
a result, your statements all refer to different, and successively
larger, groups, so your connections between them are wrong. That is,
you can't go from "metazoans didn't exist before 600 mya" to "organisms
didn't exist before 600 mya", any more than you can go from "primates
didn't exist before 80 mya" to "mammals didn't exist before 80 mya".
Another major problem is that you have confused the first appearance
of these groups in the fossil record with the time they evolved. A lot
of phyla do first appear in the Cambrian, but that's just because hard
parts first evolved then, increasing preservation potential. Soft-
bodied precursors to many of those phyla have been found in Precambrian
strata. The lineages that led to these phyla certainly could have
been around for several hundred million years before that.
Finally, just what genes are you talking about? After all, there are
some genes that all life shares, and some that all eukaryotes share.
I would have no problem with cytochrome genes showing a billion years
of diversification, or even more.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> Ok, please explain to me the difference between making predictions,
> which you don't take seriously, and have the theory agree with
> observation. ISTM that the theory can only agree/disagree with
> observation if it make predictions. How do you imagine this
> "agreement" working without predictions?
Perhaps the way it works in "creation science", where each new
observation is explained as it arises, on an ad-hoc basis and
independently of the other observations and explanations. In
such a system, you *can't* make predictions, only postdictions;
on the other hand, you get every one of the latter right, and
never have to change your theory.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> Matt Silberstein wrote:
> > All we have is speculation. And fossil evidence. All we have is
> > speculation and fossil evidence. And DNA. All we have is speculation
> > and fossil evidence and DNA. And chemical experiments. And the Red
> > Shift. And background hydrogen radiation. And lots and lots of
> > confirmed predictive models.
> But aside from that what has Rome done for us?
What has Rome Done for Us is a dialog. The above is more like Nobody
Expects the Spanish Inquisition.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Andre G Isaak
:
: 'Evolution' and 'creationism' are not my terms so therefore I don't have
: to define them. Evolutionists should define 'evolution'. It's their
: jargon. But it seems that you get a different definition from everyone
: you talk to. It ranges from "changes in frequencies of alleles in
: populations", the most restricted and narrow definition, all the way to
: darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, neutral theory, Oparin's hypothesis,
: Miller and Fox, ultradarwinism and just about everything in between.
: That's why it's so hard to argue these points. Everyone has a different
: idea about what it is and it mutates every time a problem arises.
I'm not familiar with the ideas of Oparin, Miller, or Fox -- at least not
by name, so these are tacitly excluded from my remarks below even though
the remarks may well apply to these as well.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'Darwinism' and 'Ultradarwinism', but for
sake of argument, let me assume you're referring to the standard modern
synthesis and a Dawkinsonian interpretation thereof. Apart from 'change in
allele frequency over time' none of these are _definitions_ of evolution;
they are different interpretations of evolutionary theory. Moreover, as
far as I know, these views all assume that the same basic set of
mechanisms are responsible for driving evolutionary change (someone will,
no doubt correct me if I'm wrong on this point). The debate between these
positions is, from the point of view of an outsider, a relatively minor
one: While these camps agree on the basic mechanisms underlying
evolution, they do not agree on the relative importance of these mechanisms.
The reason why the debate between these positions can get heated at times
is not because they represent radically different opposing views, but
rather because they agree on just about everything, which causes those
few points of contention to be blown up into major issues.
The above may be somewhat of a trivialisation, and I don't dispute that
the questions being debated are important ones. However, creationists
attempt to portray these debates as if they represented some
*fundamental* disagreement among scientists over evolutionary theory,
which they most certainly do not. These are questions of details only,
and such questions exist in any domain that's actually worth studying.
Andre
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andre G Isaak | GRH 137
Language Studies Program | x2453
Wellesley College | aisaak a t wellesley d o t edu
Ken Cox
> I think he's assuming that there are specific metazoan genes, so
> his question is: "how can metazoan genes have evolved before
> metazoans did?"
In which case the answer is "Don't confuse the Cambrian with the
appearance of metazoans."
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
dic...@my-deja.com
Charles Wagner <cewa...@spec.net> wrote:
> Dick,
>
> <<There are damned few creationists who meet that standard. If did
meet
> that standard they would drop creationism in a heartbeat.
> There is nothing rational, intelligent or educated about worshipping
> the first story in a collection of religious stories from bronze age
> goat herders.>>
>
> Well, there is a tendency to paint all creationists with a single
> brush stroke. It's easy to characterize all creationists as ignorant,
> confused, bible-thumping neanderthals that are out to destroy the
temple
> of science. There are some people like that, but as soon as anyone
takes
> a religious viewpoint, or even an intelligent design viewpoint, they
> seem to be automatically condemned to this stereotype.
However, you did not say religious, or even ID, you had mentioned
creationist to begin with. And I did not say all religious people.
There are many intelligent and rational religious people. But the few
who insist on worshipping the bible( young earth creationists) do not
fit in that catagory, or at least very few do.
> You also seem to be saying that if people were intelligent,
rational
> and educated that they would immediately drop creationism and adopt
your
> views.
Actually, if they would intelligently consider the claims that
creationism makes, then compare them to the real world, instead of
sticking their heads into the ICR filters they would realize that
creationism does not match the real world. As to adopting my views,
I doubt that.
This couldn't be further from the truth. Take for example, a man
> like Paul Davies, who states that "I belong to the group of scientists
> who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny
> that the universe is a purposeless accident". Or Sir Fred Hoyle. Or
> William Dembski. Or myself.
Let's see now. Fred Hoyle is not a creationist. He is an astronomer who
proposed panspermia, and accepts that evolution has happened. Why are
you including a mathematician among scientists? More of note,
mathematicians have little to do with the study of biology.
Paul Davies appears to accept some form of panspermia, along with
evolution. As a matter of fact, in Philip Johnson's review of the
Davies' book "the Fifth Miracle", Johnson seems to complain about how
Davies is being misled by materialists.
As to you? I have no idea, but if you believe in a literal translation
of the bible, and think that it's poetry is a literal description of
the history of the universe, then you are irrational, and either are
uneducated in biology, or reject it for most likely religious reasons.
> In fact, it seems to me that the more you learn, and the more
you
> think about it, and the smarter you are, the more likely you are to
see
> that darwinian evolution is one of the biggest hoaxes in the history
of
> science.
Bull, the more you learn about what? It seems to me that the only way
you could think that, is if you equate believing the lies put out by
the ICR and related organizations.
And the more likely you are to see, as Paul Davies describes,
> "that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so
> astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact..."
that does not make Davies a Young earth creationist, it only means
he is religious.
BFD.
>
> Regards, Charlie Wagner
> http://www.spec.net/home/cewagner
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mark VandeWettering
> My proposition is simple. We simply don't know how life began and how
> it came to be in the state that it's in today. We know that most all
> living things are related. We know that because the biochemical
> processes are essentially the same in all cells, suggesting a common
> origin. The genetic code, insofar as we know, is the same in all living
> organisms. That is also suggestive of a common origin. But beyond that?
> Nothing less than a complete mystery.
We (meaning scientists) know considerably more than that. That's hardly
surprising, since it is science's charter to explore and explain mysteries.
For instance, humans are most similar in general anatomy to other primates.
Because (as you admitted) the biochemistry of all living things is so similar,
one might hypothesize that at some time in the distant past, we shared a common
ancestor. Because the changes in anatomy between (say) a chimp and a human
are relatively minor, we'd expect this common ancestor to be later than the
ancestor which linked us to (say) horses. We'd also expect that the
genetic differences between humans and chimps to be more closely related than
between humans and horses. These predictions can be made quantifiable using
various genetic clocks to predict the time of these ancestors. This mesh
nicely with various bits of fossil evidence, even when direct ancestry cannot
be established.
It isn't just idle speculation, it is based upon the available evidence. If
you care to argue about this, you must present an argument, not merely assert
incorrectly that it is "a complete mystery." How the fuel injection in my
car works is more or less a complete mystery to me, but that doesn't mean that
it is a miracle, or even that given a modicum of effort, I could learn how it
works.
Mark
>
> Regards, Charlie Wagner
> http://www.spec.net/home/cewagner
--
Mark T. VandeWettering Telescope Information (and more)
Email: <ma...@pixar.com> http://www.geocities.com/raytracer
Mark VandeWettering
>
> Chris,
>
> <<There is certainly debate on the mechanisms of evolution; but there is
> no serious doubt that natural selection is central for the development
> of adaptation. The debate that exists is not at this level; all you need
> do is read the journals to discover this.>>
>
> I think that your statement ignores the contributioms of M. Kimura
> and the entire field of Neutral Theory. Not everyone in evolutionary
> biology thinks that Natural Selection is the only road to adaptation.
It has been some time since I've considered Kimura's Neutral Theory. The
debate of the power of selection relative to randomness _is_ being debated,
although I think it is safe to say that most scientists still favor natural
selection as a more important mechanism. This is different than questioning
common descent as you seemingly did in an earlier post.
Disagreements in science are not evidence that science is doing anything wrong.
Indeed, disagreements are virtually essential to the advancement of science.
All great revolutions come from such disagreements.
> My position is that Natural selection is granted too much creative
> power and that while it occurs, it is a trivial (and in most cases
> oscillatory) effect. I refer you to the work of the Grants, as reported
> in "Beak of the Finch" wherein the changes that they observed, which
> occurred among the finches on the Galapagos Islands is clearly
> oscillatory in nature. When the conditions were wet, one type of beak
> prevailed. When they were dry, another. But when the wet climate
> returned, so did the favored beaks. These are clearly changes in allelic
> frequencies, but they are not paths to new species, as your "leap of
> faith" would have us believe.
Isn't it rather clear that this oscillatory nature is some
sort of response to the oscillatory pressures that the environment places on
living organisms? If the "feast/famine" index of the island varies around
some mean over time, isn't it clear that selection pressures will attempt to
produce birds with a reasonable average fitness? More interestingly, the
Grants gathered data and showed that rather than creating some sort of "average
beaksize finch", fitness was better maximized at two different maxima, corresponding
to the beak size of the larger and smaller species of finches observed. This is
strong indication that natural selection pressures could introduce speciation.
> Another example is the legendary pepper
> moths in England, long touted as a good example of evolution. But when
> the pollution was cleared up, the white moths are returning to their
> former frequencies.
This _is_ in agreement with evolutionary theory. Selection pressures
drove them back to a more useful camouflage color.
> First of all, I'm not a creationist and I have no religious agenda to
> promote.
You do realize that all creationists say this, don't you?
> I don't propose that schools be allowed to promote a religious
> viewpoint on evolutionary studies, and I think that scientific
> principles should prevail. But scientific principles require
> observational and experimental support, not just wishful thinking.
Please, be specific about what part of evolutionary theory represents
wishful thinking. Our role as scientists (both professional and amateur)
is to shine the light of reason on such wooly thinking. Since it is
you who seemingly has problems with evolution, it would appear that you
have to lead by presenting specific examples of where you think
evolutionary theory goes astray.
> I think that creationism has done some good, in that it has forced
> science to defend itself against some valid criticisms of it's long
> cherished theories.
Creationism has done nothing of value. Creationism is fundamentally
anti-science and anti-education. Science has its own mechanisms for
generating criticism and for overturning ideas, mechamisms which have
allowed for centuries of advancement. Creationism is a tired, discarded
philisophy which is debated only in the political arena, not in the
scientific arena. I challenge you to present any creationist argument
which has caused a change in scientific theories.
> Out of that may well come new understandings and
> knowledge.
If creationism wins the political debate, I suspect a new Dark Age will
be the more likely result.
Mark VandeWettering
>
> Arky,
> I meant among reputable, rational, intelligent, educated thinking
> people. (Yes, there are some creationists who meet these standards!)
Educated perhaps, but not scientists. I'd also question "rational".
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
> Well, there is a tendency to paint all creationists with a single
> brush stroke. It's easy to characterize all creationists as ignorant,
> confused, bible-thumping neanderthals that are out to destroy the temple
> of science. There are some people like that, but as soon as anyone takes
> a religious viewpoint, or even an intelligent design viewpoint, they
> seem to be automatically condemned to this stereotype.
Frankly, I care little what people choose to believe in their own homes
and churches. But creationism is founded on a lie: that it is scientific
and deserves equal treatment in schools. This is incorrect. In talk.origins
we tend to debate the scientific merits of evolution, but the fact of the
matter is that within the scientific community, such debates ended a century
ago, with creationism being discarded just as Plolemy's theories were overturned
by Copernicus, and Newtonian physics overturned by Einstein.
> You also seem to be saying that if people were intelligent, rational
> and educated that they would immediately drop creationism and adopt your
> views. This couldn't be further from the truth. Take for example, a man
> like Paul Davies, who states that "I belong to the group of scientists
> who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny
> that the universe is a purposeless accident". Or Sir Fred Hoyle. Or
> William Dembski. Or myself.
It is true that very intelligent people believe ridiculous things. People
believe that going to church makes you more moral, that building more prisons
reduces crime, that drugs are bad, but alcohol is okay. It is at times
rather frustrating.
Addressing each in turn: Paul Davies is a writer. His Mind of God book is
rather like Penrose's Emperors New Mind: by presenting analogy rather than
convincing lines of reasoning. As a writer, perhaps this is excusable, I am
curious as to whether "The Mind of God" outsells "The New Physics"....
Dembski just mangles information theory in whatever way he sees fit, and discards
it at a whim.
Hoyle theorized far out of his element, with some very curious results. I doubt
many think that the steady state universe has any credibility at all.
> In fact, it seems to me that the more you learn, and the more you
> think about it, and the smarter you are, the more likely you are to see
> that darwinian evolution is one of the biggest hoaxes in the history of
> science. And the more likely you are to see, as Paul Davies describes,
> "that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so
> astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact..."
Arguments from lack of personal imagination are not especially convincing.
Mark
>
> Regards, Charlie Wagner
> http://www.spec.net/home/cewagner
--
Mark VandeWettering
>
> Mark,
>
> > Ummm. Genes _are_ older than the organisms that possess them. Isn't that
> > rather obvious? Certainly the ability for cells to manufacture (for example)
> > hemoglobin has been around far longer than I've been around...
> > Genes are the heritable ability to manufacture proteins. You inherit those
> > from your ancestors. They are older than you are. I can't imagine what you
> > think genes are if you can't understand this.
>
> no multicellular organisms. But genetic analysis using molecular
> diverged more that 600 m.y. ago, maybe up to a billion years ago, before
> the organisms that contain them existed. The question is, how can a gene
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Organisms clearly existed
> 600 million years ago. Genes are not confined to multicellular organisms.
I suspect you know this and are trying to make some other point.
It is clear that parents pass their genes on to their children. Perhaps this
causes you some difficulty at the time when parents didn't exist, at the time
of abiogenesis. Given the admittedly speculative nature of theories of
abiogenesis at this time and my relative lack of more than cursory knowledge of
what the current thinking is on that subject, I'll merely assert that while
we don't know the mechanisms at work at that time, we do understand current
genetic mechanisms fairly well, so however they originate is to some degree
immaterial to the operation of evolution once such genetic capabilities were
formed.
Paul J. Gans
> Paul,
> I graduated from NYU in 1968 and I remember many happy :-) hours in
> class with Dr. Morrison. I have a whole bevy of "Morrison stories" that
> I love to tell my students. In fact, I was taking one of his legendary
> organic exams the day Kennedy was shot. Thanks for the memory!
You are very welcome. I regret to say that Robert Boyd, of
Morrison and Boyd, passed away last week. It is the end of
an era.
>> I think he's assuming that there are specific metazoan genes, so
>> his question is: "how can metazoan genes have evolved before
>> metazoans did?"
> That was exactly my point.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
Not just creation science. Sounds to me like both politics
and those explanations brokers use after the fact to explain
why the stock market did what it did.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
> "Paul J. Gans" wrote:
>> George Acton <gac...@softdisk.com> wrote:
>> > Clue: not all organisms are metazoans.
>> I think he's assuming that there are specific metazoan genes, so
>> his question is: "how can metazoan genes have evolved before
>> metazoans did?"
> In which case the answer is "Don't confuse the Cambrian with the
> appearance of metazoans."
While I'm not qualified to say, I'd think that the answer
is that there are no specific metazoan genes. The ability
to be a metazoan is likely an emergent property of an
entire group of genes whose original purpose had nothing
to do with metazoanableness.
If this is so there is no paradox. Not even a monodox.
---- Paul J. Gans
Richard Harter
<ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
There are two PhD's who disagree with you. (Pun supplied by the
reader.)
I still haven't gotten hox and homeobox straightened out so forgive my
errors but isn't the basic patterning genes complex universal in
metazoa?
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
"It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold"
Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur" - Iain Bowen
Mark Isaak
Charles Wagner <cewa...@spec.net> wrote:
>Matt,
> The fossil evidence shows us two things. One is that life was
>different in the past than it is in the present. Some organisms that
>lived in the past are no longer in existence today. The second is that
>the organisms of the past are related to the organisms of the present.
>It tells us nothing at all (correct me if I'm wrong :-) about the
>mechanism by which the life of the present "evolved" from the life of
>the past. The fossil record surely does *not* inform us that life
>"evolved" by the gradual accumulation of beneficial mutations over a
>long period of time. Nor does it inform us that a supernatural creator
>waved a magic wand and created all of the life forms from mud.
> And what does the DNA tell us? It would have us believe that the genes
>are older than the organisms that possess them. Now if that's not a
>laugher, I don't know what is. Unless youn believe, as I do, that the
>genes are older than the organisms that posess them because they arrived
>on earth, fully formed, from elsewhere.
> Now insofar as red-shift is concerned. We see a red-shift, but we
>surely don't know what causes it. It could be some phenomenon that we
>aren't aware of. It's pathetic that our entire cosmology and
>astrophysics is predicated on an assumption. Same with the CMBR. There
>are hundred's of possible other causes besides the "signature of the big
>bang". The fact is, we just don't know. Really!
In summation, for every bit of evidence one cares to point to, it is
always possible that there are other unknown causes. So all evidence,
every last bit of it, is useless. We just don't know anything. Really!!
Why don't you go relax with a nice tall drink of drain cleaner. Sure,
there is some evidence that that might kill you, but we just don't know.
Really!!
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"The commonest fallacy is to suppose that since the state of doubt
is accompanied by a feeling of uncertainty, knowledge arises when
this feeling gives way to one of assurance." - John Dewey
Mark Isaak
Charles Wagner <cewa...@spec.net> wrote:
> I think that your statement ignores the contributioms of M. Kimura
>and the entire field of Neutral Theory. Not everyone in evolutionary
>biology thinks that Natural Selection is the only road to adaptation.
Neutral theory leads to drift, not adaptation. Besides natural selection,
what roads to adaptation are there? Please provide references; I would
like to know something about them.
> My position is that Natural selection is granted too much creative
>power and that while it occurs, it is a trivial (and in most cases
>oscillatory) effect. I refer you to the work of the Grants. . . .
I agree. I think the oscillatory nature of selection is
underappreciated.
However, the oscillations occur because of oscillations in the
environment. When the environment shows a long-term one-way trend,
doesn't the very same evidence demand a long-term one-way trend in
selection?
Put another way, Given what we know about mutation, selection, and
changing environments, what prevents macroevolution from being inevitable?
>But scientific principles require
>observational and experimental support, not just wishful thinking.
Have you looked at the experiemental evolution performed by Lenski and
others? (A search for "Lenski" on PubMed (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed)
turned up 72 articles, most of which concern experiments with evolution.)
>I think that creationism has done some good, in that it has forced
>science to defend itself against some valid criticisms of it's long
>cherished theories.
I have yet to hear a valid criticism from a creationist that other
evolutionists have not already been making years earlier.
Robert Grumbine
Paul J. Gans <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>While I'm not qualified to say, I'd think that the answer
>is that there are no specific metazoan genes. The ability
>to be a metazoan is likely an emergent property of an
>entire group of genes whose original purpose had nothing
>to do with metazoanableness.
>
>If this is so there is no paradox. Not even a monodox.
But where do you tie up your boats then?
Aside: Only about 1/3rd of the group's posts of the last few days
are getting here.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Paul J. Gans
> On 27 Jul 2000 14:31:36 -0400, "Paul J. Gans"
> <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>>> "Paul J. Gans" wrote:
>>>> George Acton <gac...@softdisk.com> wrote:
>>>> > Clue: not all organisms are metazoans.
>>
>>>> I think he's assuming that there are specific metazoan genes, so
>>>> his question is: "how can metazoan genes have evolved before
>>>> metazoans did?"
>>
>>> In which case the answer is "Don't confuse the Cambrian with the
>>> appearance of metazoans."
>>
>>
>>While I'm not qualified to say, I'd think that the answer
>>is that there are no specific metazoan genes. The ability
>>to be a metazoan is likely an emergent property of an
>>entire group of genes whose original purpose had nothing
>>to do with metazoanableness.
>>
>>If this is so there is no paradox. Not even a monodox.
> There are two PhD's who disagree with you. (Pun supplied by the
> reader.)
> I still haven't gotten hox and homeobox straightened out so forgive my
> errors but isn't the basic patterning genes complex universal in
> metazoa?
I'm disagreeable, so folks disagree with me... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Wade Hines
>Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>> "Paul J. Gans" wrote:
>>> George Acton <gac...@softdisk.com> wrote:
>>> > Clue: not all organisms are metazoans.
>
>>> I think he's assuming that there are specific metazoan genes,
so
>>> his question is: "how can metazoan genes have evolved before
>>> metazoans did?"
>> In which case the answer is "Don't confuse the Cambrian with
the
>> appearance of metazoans."
>While I'm not qualified to say, I'd think that the answer
>is that there are no specific metazoan genes. The ability
>to be a metazoan is likely an emergent property of an
>entire group of genes whose original purpose had nothing
>to do with metazoanableness.
You appear to be hopelessly misunderstanding the question.
By metazoan genes he simply means genes specific to metazoans
and not genes requied for metazoan-ness. This would be an
associative relationship rather than a necessary relationship.
Next is the assertion that said genes began to diverge before
metazoans appeared.
In simple terms he asks how genes can diverge before a new
population arises.
The answers include simple corrections of false presumptions
as well as some less simple points about the emergence of
populations vs. records of their emergence. There are some
more complex possibilities as well but perhaps they should
await someone really asking a question without excessive false
premises and lots of attempts to answer the wrong question.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Paul J. Gans
> In article <Dh%f5.7$Hg7...@typhoon.nyu.edu>,
> Paul J. Gans <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>While I'm not qualified to say, I'd think that the answer
>>is that there are no specific metazoan genes. The ability
>>to be a metazoan is likely an emergent property of an
>>entire group of genes whose original purpose had nothing
>>to do with metazoanableness.
>>
>>If this is so there is no paradox. Not even a monodox.
> But where do you tie up your boats then?
At my homeodox.
> Aside: Only about 1/3rd of the group's posts of the last few days
> are getting here.
Don't worry. They are a more than representative sampling
of the group. You've missed nothing of importance and have
a lot easier time getting through the posts than the rest
of us... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Ken Cox
> metazoanableness
Don't you just love English?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Charles Wagner
<<In summation, for every bit of evidence one cares to point to, it is
always possible that there are other unknown causes. So all evidence,
every last bit of it, is useless. We just don't know anything.
Really!!
Why don't you go relax with a nice tall drink of drain cleaner. Sure,
there is some evidence that that might kill you, but we just don't know.
Really!!>>
I don't agree that *all* evidence is useless. For sure, science can
never prove anything absolutely but the usefulness of evidence is in
it's ability to persuade. Sure, we can't be absolutely certain that the
sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning, but it has every single
morning for the past few billion years. So we're pretty safe in assuming
that it will continue to do so, and we can base our activities on that
assumption. In the case of drain cleaner, we have observational
evidence, accumulated from thousands of cases that shows clearly that
anyone drinking drain cleaner will at the very least suffer severe
damage to his body.
But what of darwinian evolution? What is the body of observational
and experimental evidence that we rely on to be persuaded?
Micro-evolution? Sure, it happens. But there's no evidence that it can
progress beyond a certain limit to create new species, classes and
phyla. In fact, the experimental evidence using artificial selection
shows clearly that there are limits beyond which you cannot go.
The fossil record? Your theory predicts that to get from one point in
evolution to another, there must be intermediate forms to bridge these
gaps. Does the fossil record reveal evidence of these countless numbers
of trasitional forms predicted by the theory? Clearly it doesn't.
Transitional forms between classes are almost completely absent. Gould
and Eldredge knew this and so does almost every paleontologist. More
than a hundred years of searching for these intermediaries has reveled
their continuing absence from the scene.
And what of historical contingency, the similarities that exist
between forms that suggest that they had a common origin? Well, of
course they did! Any fool can see that. The biochemical processes in the
cells are almost identical and the morphological differences are mostly
cosmetic. So we all had a common origin. But just because forms are
closely related does not necessarily mean that any one is the ancestor
of the other. Take fish for example. It's generally agreed that all
species of fish are sister species, that no one particular fish
"descended" from any other particular fish. To be sure, it says nothing
at all about the possible role of mutation and natural selection in the
process.
No Mark, I'm afraid that darwinian evolution simply lacks the
foundation of observational and experimental evidence that could make it
persuasive. In fact, it's really just a story that someone made up about
how life came to be and it sounded good, real good, and so people
believed it because it was plausible to them, and because they wanted so
badly to believe it. And now, it has attained the great distinction of
advancing from being a scientific theory to being a full-blown religious
belief. People have forgotten that there's no evidence to support it and
they refuse to look because they have...faith.
It's an age old scenario, being repeated over and over again.
Unfortunately, in science, we must often go a long way out of our way to
come back a few tiny steps correctly.
Mark Isaak
Charles Wagner <cewa...@spec.net> wrote:
> I have been involved with this debate for nearly 40 years
>and after millions of words read, spoken and written in a variety
>of books, articles, forums and conversations I have reached the
>conclusion that the horrible truth of the matter is that we just don't
>have a clue as to where the universe and the life that's in it came
>from.
Perhaps you should spend more time looking at the evidence and less time
reading. Lots of crap gets put in books.
> It seems to me that it's time to end this ridiculous bickering and
>be brave enough to admit this simple truth. All we have is speculation,
>your speculation and my speculation. [...]
No, that is not all. We have evidence, too. (At least the evolutionists
do; the creationists don't have much.)
> The proof that we don't really know is proven by the fact that the
>argument continues on. If either side had convincing evidence, everyone
>would have packed their bags, folded their tents and gone home long ago.
First, with all due respect, that is a very dumb argument. The reasons
why people argue for creationism have little or nothing to do with
convincing evidence. The most prolific writers among the creationists, in
fact, have said that evidence is irrelevant to their conclusion; they will
continue supporting creationism no matter what reality shows.
Second, creationism is as common as it is today partly because the matter
was considered settled fifty years ago, and the scientists DID pack their
bags, fold their tents, and go home.
> We also have to face the dismal possibility that we will never
>really know. At least not in the forseeable future. [...]
This and your other posts show that you have little understanding how
reliability (or even certainty) are obtained. A big part of it is looking
at the actual direct evidence. However, that is often impractical. Not
everybody has access to genetics labs and Chinese paleontology field
sites. Furthermore, for such a large field as evolution, there is no
single piece of evidence that makes the case; rather, it is a tapestry
woven from myriad pieces of evidence.
Still, there are things you can look at to determine reliability. The
most important is probably consistency. The theory of evolution touches
upon lots of different fields; it is potentially falsifiable in many
different ways. Yet all the evidence is consistent with the basic theory.
Details remain unresolved (e.g., whether whales are a sister group or a
subgroup of artiodactyls), but the fundamentals are solidly in agreement
with each other, and no evidence significantly challenges the big
picture. This is a major contrast to creationism, which has *NO*
consistent theory, much less a theory which is consistent with the
evidence. That fact alone makes creationism nonviable.
The other thing to look at is people's motives. Almost everyone
supporting creationism is doing so because they want it to be true.
Almost no one supporting evolution is doing so because they want it to be
true. In fact, the motivating forces within science are to tear apart
prevailing theories, as long as one can support one's claims with
evidence. The thermodynamics argument is a good example of this. If
there were evidence that thermodynamics contradicted evolution, then
evolution would have been dead and gone at least fifty years ago.
Nothing is perfectly certain. But there is such a thing as very, very
reliable. And the evidence puts evolution in that category.
Adam Noel Harris
:Chris,
:
:<<There is certainly debate on the mechanisms of evolution; but there is
:no serious doubt that natural selection is central for the development
:of adaptation. The debate that exists is not at this level; all you need
:do is read the journals to discover this.>>
: I think that your statement ignores the contributioms of M. Kimura
:and the entire field of Neutral Theory. Not everyone in evolutionary
:biology thinks that Natural Selection is the only road to adaptation.
Kimura does. Or at least, he has written as much. Don't make me go look
it up. I think you are conflating "adaptation" with "evolution." Natural
selection is not the only, and may not be the biggest, mechanism of
evolution. But it _is_ responsible for adaptation.
[snip]
-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
Mark Isaak
Charles Wagner <cewa...@spec.net> wrote:
> But what of darwinian evolution? What is the body of observational
>and experimental evidence that we rely on to be persuaded?
>Micro-evolution? Sure, it happens. But there's no evidence that it can
>progress beyond a certain limit to create new species, classes and
>phyla. In fact, the experimental evidence using artificial selection
>shows clearly that there are limits beyond which you cannot go.
No, it doesn't. Evolution predicts that selection will slow down when
existing variation is selected out of a population, but mutations will
continue to add new variation, albeit more slowly. There is not one iota
of evidence that microevolution is limited.
> The fossil record? Your theory predicts that to get from one point in
>evolution to another, there must be intermediate forms to bridge these
>gaps. Does the fossil record reveal evidence of these countless numbers
>of trasitional forms predicted by the theory? Clearly it doesn't.
Not countless, but they're there.
I get the impression that your reading has strongly concentrated on
anti-evolution sources. Don't read everything you believe.
Chris Ho-Stuart
> Chris,
>
> <<There is certainly debate on the mechanisms of evolution; but there is
> no serious doubt that natural selection is central for the development
> of adaptation. The debate that exists is not at this level; all you need
> do is read the journals to discover this.>>
>
> I think that your statement ignores the contributioms of M. Kimura
> and the entire field of Neutral Theory. Not everyone in evolutionary
> biology thinks that Natural Selection is the only road to adaptation.
To the best of my knowledge, and as I stated in the words quoted above,
everybody agrees that natural selection is central for the development
of adaptation. I include Kimura in everbody.
Wasn't Kimura heavily into drift? I have often said that drift
is extremely important, and am in my amateur way an enthusiast
for the arguments of the critical importance of contingency in
evolution. Genetic drift is about diversity and variety, but not
about origins of adaptation. I remain persuaded that when it comes
to adaptation, selection is central; and I do not think this is in
any dispute. I suspect people sometimes see adaptation too readily in
features which are not really adaptive at all, and for which drift
or other neutral effects are a better explanation. I think this
might have been Kimura's focus; but I'm presuming without going
back to check any sources. People really interested in Kimura's
perspective look it up rather than trust me on the subject.
I do not disagree with you if you say there is a lot of debate and
alternative points of view within evolutionary theory! I do suspect
think you underestimate the extent of common ground underlying these
debates; but that in itself may be no bad thing.
My primary actual disagreement with you is, I think, concerning
whether or not creationists have ever had anything useful to
contribute in these debates and disagreements that exist within
science.
[snip]
> First of all, I'm not a creationist and I have no religious agenda to
> promote. I don't propose that schools be allowed to promote a religious
> viewpoint on evolutionary studies, and I think that scientific
> principles should prevail. But scientific principles require
> observational and experimental support, not just wishful thinking.
> I think that creationism has done some good, in that it has forced
> science to defend itself against some valid criticisms of it's long
> cherished theories. Out of that may well come new understandings and
> knowledge.
Well -- frankly I have not seen any valid criticisms of long cherished
theories from the creationists. I *have* seen some valid criticisms
being made from within the scientific mainstream, and I have seen
creationists harp upon those disagreements from the sidelines, but
invariably in terms which confuse or misrepresent the actual
positions being debated.
I invite counter-examples.
Best wishes -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Michael L. Siemon
<ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
+ I think he's assuming that there are specific metazoan genes, so
+ his question is: "how can metazoan genes have evolved before
+ metazoans did?"
Is this like Richard's troll about chickens and eggs? :-)
--
Michael L. Siemon We must know the truth, and we must
m...@panix.com love the truth we know, and we must act
according to the measure of our love.
-- Thomas Merton
wilkins
<cewa...@spec.net> wrote:
> wilkins wrote:
> >
> > In article <397F8500...@spec.net>, Charles Wagner
> > > Regards, Charlie Wagner
> > > http://www.spec.net/home/cewagner
> > >
> >
> > I thought that metazooans are found up to 850mya. Am I wrong?
> >
>
> Wilkins,
> I believe it's closer to 600 million years. The Chengjiang fosssils
> in China date at about 570 m.y. ago.
> Regards, Charlie Wagner
> http://www.spec.net/home/cewagner
>
You're right. Schopf reports that the oldest metazoan fossils date
around 560 mya. The fossil jellyfish _Mawsonites_ of the Ediacaran fauna
dates from the 560 mya Pound Quartzite of South Australia (p261)
Schopf, J. William. Cradle of life: the discovery of earth's earliest
fossils. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999.
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production, Hall Institute
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/~thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
Paul J Gans
>In article <MRXf5.14$SP6...@typhoon.nyu.edu>, "Paul J. Gans"
><ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>+ I think he's assuming that there are specific metazoan genes, so
>+ his question is: "how can metazoan genes have evolved before
>+ metazoans did?"
>Is this like Richard's troll about chickens and eggs? :-)
Not at all. I can't see into the original poster's mind
(I did not raise the question) but I'd guess the logic
goes this way: We cleary can not have metazoans before
we had genes that allowed metazoans to exist. Thus we
must have had metazoan genes *before* there were
metazoans. But in that case the organisms with those
genes would have been metazoans, contradicting the
premiss.
Thus there is a paradox -- or so I think the original
poster felt. There are a number of ways out of this
paradox. My favorite would be that there are no such
things as metazoan genes in the sense of this question.
There are others as well.
But no, this is not a troll. At least, my response
isn't.
---- Paul J. Gans
David Johnston
>
> Mark,
>
> <<In summation, for every bit of evidence one cares to point to, it is
> always possible that there are other unknown causes. So all evidence,
> every last bit of it, is useless. We just don't know anything.
> Really!!
>
> Why don't you go relax with a nice tall drink of drain cleaner. Sure,
> there is some evidence that that might kill you, but we just don't know.
> Really!!>>
>
> I don't agree that *all* evidence is useless. For sure, science can
> never prove anything absolutely but the usefulness of evidence is in
> it's ability to persuade. Sure, we can't be absolutely certain that the
> sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning, but it has every single
> morning for the past few billion years. So we're pretty safe in assuming
> that it will continue to do so, and we can base our activities on that
> assumption. In the case of drain cleaner, we have observational
> evidence, accumulated from thousands of cases that shows clearly that
> anyone drinking drain cleaner will at the very least suffer severe
> damage to his body.
More importantly, nobody has an emotional investment in rejecting
the toxicity of drain cleaner. "Drain cleaner is health food" is not
a tenet of anyone's religion.
laser...@my-deja.com
Haldane's Dilemma, when in fact he hasn't read my book.
Misrepresentation doesn't get any bolder than that. I pointed this out
many times on this newsgroup. Yet not one evolutionist objects to
Williams' behavior. Instead they continue to recommend Williams'
website as authentic (as Chris Ho-Stuart did in his post).
Evolutionists practice a double standard, that I continue to document
with many examples. Evolutionists demand scholarship from their
opponents, but not from their fellows.
-- Walter ReMine
_The Biotic Message_
The book evolutionists
don't want you to know about.
http://www1.minn.net/~science
Chris Ho-Stuart's post:
http://x59.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=651262350
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
rich hammett
Is this from the guy who started out saying "I'm not a creationist!"?
rich
Charles Wagner <cewa...@spec.net> is alleged to have said:
> Dick,
> <<There are damned few creationists who meet that standard. If did meet
> that standard they would drop creationism in a heartbeat.
> There is nothing rational, intelligent or educated about worshipping
> the first story in a collection of religious stories from bronze age
> goat herders.>>
> Well, there is a tendency to paint all creationists with a single
> brush stroke. It's easy to characterize all creationists as ignorant,
> confused, bible-thumping neanderthals that are out to destroy the temple
> of science. There are some people like that, but as soon as anyone takes
> a religious viewpoint, or even an intelligent design viewpoint, they
> seem to be automatically condemned to this stereotype.
> You also seem to be saying that if people were intelligent, rational
> and educated that they would immediately drop creationism and adopt your
> views. This couldn't be further from the truth. Take for example, a man
> like Paul Davies, who states that "I belong to the group of scientists
> who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny
> that the universe is a purposeless accident". Or Sir Fred Hoyle. Or
> William Dembski. Or myself.
> In fact, it seems to me that the more you learn, and the more you
> think about it, and the smarter you are, the more likely you are to see
> that darwinian evolution is one of the biggest hoaxes in the history of
> science. And the more likely you are to see, as Paul Davies describes,
> "that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so
> astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact..."
> Regards, Charlie Wagner
> http://www.spec.net/home/cewagner
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
KlownHuntr
see, there's not a shred of credible evidence to support the idea that
mutation and natural selection are the mechanisms by which life
progresses from its beginning (if indeed it had a beginning) to its
present state.>>>>
Of course there is: Ever hear of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis? They were
certainly selected against.
Charles also wrote>>>There's also not a shred of credible evidence that there
exists a supernatural being that created the universe and all the life in
it.>>>
Of course there is: Ever see a 3-year old girl chase a monarch butterfly across
the lawn? If that's not evidence of a Great Architecht...
~KB
If a boxer kills in the ring, he maybe gets another fight. If a clown kills in
the ring, you gotta admit...that's bad box-office. ~George Fawkes
hrgr...@my-deja.com
Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
> "Paul J. Gans" wrote:
> > metazoanableness
>
> Don't you just love English?
If you love English, you gotta be crazy about German!
(Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsstellvertreterswitwenpensions
-auszahlung....)
:-)
HRG.
> --
> Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Larry Handlin
Hey Walter,
How does Robert Williams website misrepresent your views? I
understand you say he hasn't read your book (I don't think I've
viewed the page to come to a conclusion). But, it is theoretically
possible he could have had someone relay your argument and he could
have an effective rejoinder. Before I track down Williams' website,
I'd like to know why it is a misrepresentation. I have your book here
so I can compare the two sources and determine this for myself, but
I'd like to here your argument to give you a fair shake.
Thanks,
Larry Handlin
David Haas
> Robert Williams website pretends to critique my book's material on
> Haldane's Dilemma, when in fact he hasn't read my book.
> Misrepresentation doesn't get any bolder than that. I pointed this out
> many times on this newsgroup. Yet not one evolutionist objects to
> Williams' behavior. Instead they continue to recommend Williams'
> website as authentic (as Chris Ho-Stuart did in his post).
>
> Evolutionists practice a double standard, that I continue to document
> with many examples. Evolutionists demand scholarship from their
> opponents, but not from their fellows.
>
This has nothing to do with the fact that evolution HAS and IS occurring.
Your beef is with individual humans who do not agree with you. If you do
not accept the evidence, which you can find in any modern college text,
thats up to you. The debate over evolution, however, is over. It was
resolved over 100 years ago. In fact modern biological science owes much of
its origins to the controversy which the theory generated at that time.
You are beating a DEAD horse my friend and wasting your time. Why? Maybe
you need to convince yourself?
D. Haas
Pat James
(in message <so23fv...@corp.supernews.com>):
>
> Is this from the guy who started out saying "I'm not a creationist!"?
>
In my experience, when someone (examples: this guy, Jack Crenshaw, others on
request) declares "I am not a creationist" somewhere in his firtst half-dozen
posts, then he _is_ a creationist. The more rabid he is, the earlier he
declares. Creationists (mostly) lie. It's what they do. The very, very few
who are _not_ arrant liars (semismartguy and perhaps two or three others
who've posted here) are all the more precious for their extreme rarity.
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
Wade Hines
>In my experience, when someone (examples: this guy, Jack
Crenshaw, others on
>request) declares "I am not a creationist" somewhere in his
firtst half-dozen
>posts, then he _is_ a creationist.
It was probably my second or third post where I had to tell
people I was not a creationist.
That was after the great remaining but long before moderation
and, I might add, before the home game.
The UofE had not yet be founded, much less moved offshore for
tax purposes. Just think of it, a time before aol. It was a time
when people were more excited about their new IPX than their
latest IPO. The felt effect of gravity was much more common
then.
Still, even in that bygone era, when one could read all of the
posts coming into talk.origins and still have time for a life
(not that people actually did have lives mind you) --- yes even
way back then, in the earliest days of the 90s, stalwart
guardians of the net would wait and pounce on anyone they
suspected might have creationist leanings, and do so in the
name of all that is right and good.
Dick C.
<so23fv...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>Is this from the guy who started out saying "I'm not a creationist!"?
What? You expect honesty from creationists?
--
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
Charles Wagner
>>The debate over evolution, however, is over. It was
>>resolved over 100 years ago.
I guess this falls under the heading of "if you say it enough
times, people will begin to believe it".
In going through the messages in this thread, this same phrase, with
slight modifications, appears more than once.
I'm sorry to inform you of this Dave, but the debate is *not* over
unless you narrow your debating group down to just evolutionists, who
just love "preaching to the choir". It smacks of "my mind's made up,
don't confuse me with facts".
R. Tang
This applies far more to you, I'm afraid, than anyone else.
The debate IS over, as far as science is concerned. It's not for
politics, but that's another area.
--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
Chris Clarke
Charles Wagner wrote:
>
> I have been involved with this debate for nearly 40 years
> and after millions of words read, spoken and written in a variety
> of books, articles, forums and conversations I have reached the
> conclusion that the horrible truth of the matter is that we just don't
> have a clue as to where the universe and the life that's in it came
> from.
Maybe you need to go back to school then. Thecnology and science
marches on, we get better evidence for the big bang from x-ray
telescopes all the time, dna evidence supports evolution, cures for some
types of cancer are on the horizon, and yet you seem to be unaware of
all these scientific discoveries. What have you been doing with your
life?
> It seems to me that it's time to end this ridiculous bickering and
> be brave enough to admit this simple truth. All we have is speculation,
> your speculation and my speculation. That's what makes the argument
Plus evidence. Funny how the scientists have reams of evidence and the
creationists have only one book.
> interminable and absurd. It's gotten to the point where I know in
> advance, every argument that will be made by either side at almost any
> time. Nothing really new is ever offered because there is nothing new.
Here are some new arguments, based on new science:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genemap99/
http://www.dnafiles.org/about/pgm8/index.html
http://www.newscientist.com/ns/970705/features.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990721090148.htm
> The proof that we don't really know is proven by the fact that the
> argument continues on. If either side had convincing evidence, everyone
> would have packed their bags, folded their tents and gone home long ago.
Yeah, if the losing side would actually look at the evidence! But most,
like you still say there is no evidence, when there is tons of it, from
the fossil record up to DNA analysis. Yet, it's never enough to
convince some people, despite 100+ years of advancing medical technology
and longer life spans, people still don't think we are getting a handle
on DNA. They are in for a rather rude awakening, as the links above
will show.
> We also have to face the dismal possibility that we will never
> really know. At least not in the forseeable future. Insofar as I can
Except that, through DNA analysis, we can discover all the mechanisms
leading to evolution. What will you do then?
> see, there's not a shred of credible evidence to support the idea that
> mutation and natural selection are the mechanisms by which life
> progresses from its beginning (if indeed it had a beginning) to its
> present state. There's also not a shred of credible evidence that there
> exists a supernatural being that created the universe and all the life
> in it.
Yeah, ignore the DNA! Nothing to see here! Ignore the mechanisms of
mitosis! Ignore the breeding of fruit flies and yeast! Ignore the
ability to extend the lives of worms by mutating a single gene! Wow,
there sure seems to be a lot of evidence for something that "not a
shred" of evidence exists. Maybe you mean "not a shred of evidence I
want to mention exists, since it will make the second contention look
really weak, since it only has one book of unkown origin supporting it."
> So, we must analyze why the debate goes on. If it's just to generate
> discussion and thought provoking ideas, then it probably has some value.
But let's not discuss evidence, since then the debate would be over. . .
> So, newcomers on both sides come into the discussion fresh and full of
> piss and vinegar, hoping to convince others of the truthfulness of their
> thoughts on the matter. But they're surely travelling down roads that
> have already been traversed by countless others. All of the ideas have
> been thought of before, all the arguments have been made and almost no
> one has changed their minds.
Because the true believers revel in being ignorant. But they'll be the
first to go to a doctor and ask for a cure if they get some genetic
disease caused by a mutation they don't believe exists.
> But those of us who have been over and over and over these matters
> countless time can clearly see that it will probably never be resolved.
> That is, until science can clearly and definitively advance a believable
> mechanism by which life has "evolved" or until God almighty himself
> comes down from heaven and proclaims authorship. I'm not holding my
> breath waiting :-)
Keep your eye on the Human Genome Project then:
http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/project/progress.html
> So let's be brave about this and admit (gasp!) the horrible truth. No
> one alive today has a shred of credible evidence to support either of
> these two paradigms. And I defy anyone to prove otherwise.
>
http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/project/info.html
Chris Clarke
acker james
: Robert Williams website pretends to critique my book's material on
: Haldane's Dilemma, when in fact he hasn't read my book.
: Misrepresentation doesn't get any bolder than that. I pointed this out
: many times on this newsgroup. Yet not one evolutionist objects to
: Williams' behavior. Instead they continue to recommend Williams'
: website as authentic (as Chris Ho-Stuart did in his post).
: Evolutionists practice a double standard, that I continue to document
: with many examples. Evolutionists demand scholarship from their
: opponents, but not from their fellows.
Glad to know you're still around, Walter. I have just finished
posting synopses of all the chapters in "The Emergence of Whales", and
after a "Personal Reflections" post, I will then begin to set the stage
for my next project.
You know what that is, right?
Jim Acker
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Jim Acker
jac...@gl.umbc.edu
"Since we are assured that an all-wise Creator has observed the
most exact proportions, of number, weight, and measure, in the
make of all things, the most likely way therefore, to get any
insight into the nature of those parts of the creation, which
come within our observation, must in all reason be to number,
weigh, and measure." - Stephen Hales
Richard Wein
Charles Wagner wrote in message <397F5875...@spec.net>...
> I have been involved with this debate for nearly 40 years
>and after millions of words read, spoken and written in a variety
>of books, articles, forums and conversations I have reached the
>conclusion that the horrible truth of the matter is that we just don't
>have a clue as to where the universe and the life that's in it came
>from.
>be brave enough to admit this simple truth. All we have is speculation,
>your speculation and my speculation. That's what makes the argument
>advance, every argument that will be made by either side at almost any
>time. Nothing really new is ever offered because there is nothing new.
>argument continues on. If either side had convincing evidence, everyone
>would have packed their bags, folded their tents and gone home long ago.
OK, so by this (il)logic, we should refuse to accept that the earth is round
because there are still some people who insist that it's flat.
Doh!
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
Please change "nospam" to "rwein" in my email address.
Mark VandeWettering
> I guess this falls under the heading of "if you say it enough
> times, people will begin to believe it".
No Charles, the fact of the matter is that no scientific debate on
creationism vs. evolution actually exists. These debates are entirely
political/emotional in nature.
Science of course does have questions about the mechanisms of evolution,
and arguments still exist within the scientific community. But the basic
themes of common descent with variability in reproductive success remain
the central theme of evolution, and indeed, most of biology. Failures
to accept the "creative power" of evolution are largely just preconceptions
seeking justificiation, as absurd as saying that computers can only do what
they are programmed to do.
Creationists would like to claim that there is some conspiracy of silence
which suppresses evidence which is not support for evolution. The main
problem is that creationists _don't have any of this evidence either_.
Indeed, the natural conclusion from there failure to present such
evidence is that it does not exist.
> I'm sorry to inform you of this Dave, but the debate is *not* over
> unless you narrow your debating group down to just evolutionists, who
> just love "preaching to the choir". It smacks of "my mind's made up,
> don't confuse me with facts".
The simple fact of the matter is again, that so-called creation scientists
_have no evidence to bring to the discussion_. The best they can hope to do
is to overinflate the legitimate issues of disagreements in science, and try
to pretend that because this disagreements exist, that their "hypothesis" is
somehow also legitimized. Unfortunately, it isn't so.
Mark
>
> Regards, Charlie Wagner
> http://www.spec.net/home/cewagner
--
Mark T. VandeWettering Telescope Information (and more)
Email: <ma...@pixar.com> http://www.geocities.com/raytracer