Skeptics choke on frog
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
Skeptics choke on Frog:
was Dawkins caught on the hop?
First published in:
Prayer News (both Australia and UK) p. 3, November
1998
Our new video From a Frog to a Prince
(right) is having a beneficial effect. It
illustrates the amazing design in living things,
and the encyclopedic information stored in the DNA,
required as a blueprint for all the designs. It
also shows that mutations and natural selection
merely remove information, not add information, as
particles-to-people evolution requires.
One of its highlights is the stumping of the
ardently atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins1 by
the simple question: ‘Professor Dawkins, can you
give an example of a genetic mutation or an
evolutionary process which can be seen to increase
the information in the genome?’
If anyone should know any true scientific (i.e.
observable and testable) evidence that mutations
and natural selection can add information, Dawkins
should. However, the video shows that Dawkins was
unable to provide any experimental evidence, and
gave an ‘answer’ completely unrelated to the
question.
Dawkins is a hero of the Australian Skeptics, who
helped bring him to Australia (showing their
anti-Christian bias contrary to their professed
religious neutrality — see How Religiously Neutral
are the Anti-Creationist Organisations?). It was
obviously too much for the Skeptics that their hero
was stumped. In their magazine The Skeptic, the
editor, Barry Williams, published a vitriolic
article accusing the video of deception, as well as
smearing creationists in general.2
These tactics should surprise no one familiar with
the Australian Skeptics. To us, allegations from
the Australian Skeptics have a big question mark
over their credibility. After all, their leading
light Ian Plimer in his book Telling Lies ...
bragged about blatantly deceiving creationists, and
that book has the full support of the rest of the
Australian Skeptics (see The Ian Plimer Files)
Since the Australian Skeptics clearly think the end
(combatting creationism) justifies the means
(deception), how can anyone be sure that anything
else they write is not deception for the good of
the ‘cause’?
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to
belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which
forbids bearing false witness; atheistic skeptics
like Plimer, Dawkins and Williams have no such
inhibitions. We are not saying that all atheists
lie, but that they certainly have no absolute moral
basis for refraining from lies.
Finally, despite all the bluff and bluster by
Dawkins and Williams, they still have not answered
the question!
[snip]
To view the complete article, click on the URL
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=3907>
The video, "From a Frog to a Prince" is available from the Institute for
Creation Research <http://www.icr.org>
For residents of Canada or the U.S. who wish to receive a 10 minute video
excerpt (in VHS format) from the UNEDITED Dawkins interview, which includes
Gillian Brown asking Dawkins:
"Could you give any example of an evolutionary process or mechanism which
can be seen to create new functional information at the genetic level?"
followed by Dawkins' long pause, and eventual response,
send a postal money order for $10 (U.S. funds) to:
DAWKINS VIDEO
Box 27027
Willow Park P.O.
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada V1X 7L7
"Creationist Deception Exposed" by Barry Williams/ "Gillian Brown answers
Barry Williams"
<http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/ca_gb_01.htm>
---
To Barry Williams: When will the next issue of The Skeptic be published,
which I understand will include your response to Gillian Brown, as well as a
new essay on information by Richard Dawkins. Will your response and Dawkins'
essay be available for viewing at the Skeptic website?
David Buckna
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Wesley R. Elsberry
<jaro...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
[...]
DB> "[...] can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an
DB>evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the
DB>information in the genome?"
[...]
Autopolyploid speciation via tetraploidy in orchids.
Information increase is indicated because such tetraploids
are typically more robust and grow to a larger size than
the parent species.
Next...
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"i wish there was something i wanted as badly as he wanted to fry himself" - a.
Richard Harter
>In article <75dt08$1of$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <jaro...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>DB> "[...] can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an
>DB>evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the
>DB>information in the genome?"
>
>[...]
>
>Autopolyploid speciation via tetraploidy in orchids.
>
>Information increase is indicated because such tetraploids
>are typically more robust and grow to a larger size than
>the parent species.
I thought we agreed not to do that. :-)
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
I have found an elegant proof that arithmetic is inconsistent.
Unfortunately the universe is too small to contain my proof.
tho...@my-dejanews.com
> David Buckna
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>
Please see following link:
http://outcast.gene.com/ae/WN/SUA10/fishfreeze_497.html
Thank you,
James Powell
sha...@bethelsprings.com
<snip>
>
> One of its highlights is the stumping of the
> ardently atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins1 by
> the simple question: ‘Professor Dawkins, can you
> give an example of a genetic mutation or an
> evolutionary process which can be seen to increase
> the information in the genome?’
>
> If anyone should know any true scientific (i.e.
> observable and testable) evidence that mutations
> and natural selection can add information, Dawkins
> should. However, the video shows that Dawkins was
> unable to provide any experimental evidence, and
> gave an ‘answer’ completely unrelated to the
> question.
How come I, a newcomer to this newsgroup and a real novice in most scientific
areas, know very well that mutations can be beneficial and can add information
and you don't? Why would you act like you are part of some group stumping
evolutionists, which you call skeptics when in fact you are the skeptic, when
you don't know something so basic as this, a foundation of the evolutionary
theory?
It makes me doubt your assertion that he was stumped. It is much more likely
that he did not know how to give an answer that you and your skeptic friends
would understand. In fact, your assertion that his answer was unrelated to
the question proves this. He is an expert, by your own admission, and you
know less about the subject than a novice like me. You are in no position to
assert that his answer was unrelated. Instead, you should say, "I was too
ignorant of the subject to understand his answer."
<snip>
> In their magazine The Skeptic, the
> editor, Barry Williams, published a vitriolic
> article accusing the video of deception, as well as
> smearing creationists in general.2
Actually, judging just from what you've written, the video is deceptive. And
it is proper to smear special creationists in general, because your post is
typical of them.
I am a creationist and a Christian who is actually part of a kingdom from God
that looks and behaves like the churches in Scripture, which is incredibly
rare. I don't care to grant the terms creationist or Christian to the
special creation pseudo-science, because they cause the name of Christ to be
blasphemed by their ignorance and stubbornness.
> Since the Australian Skeptics clearly think the end
> (combatting creationism) justifies the means
> (deception), how can anyone be sure that anything
> else they write is not deception for the good of
> the ‘cause’?
I don't know the Australian Skeptics, but I do know that this is a case of the
pot calling the kettle black, if indeed their is any deception in their
practices.
> Of course, biblical creationists are committed to
> belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which
> forbids bearing false witness;
Their is no "of course" about it, except that biblical creationists, so
called, claim to be bible followers. The evidence of their behavior, and
yours, expressly denies that claim. Personally, I think they are a plant of
the devil to discredit the Bible and the name of Christ to all thinking
persons.
<snip>
> To view the complete article, click on the URL
>
> <http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=3907>
>
> The video, "From a Frog to a Prince" is available from the Institute for
> Creation Research <http://www.icr.org>
>
> For residents of Canada or the U.S. who wish to receive a 10 minute video
> excerpt (in VHS format) from the UNEDITED Dawkins interview, which includes
> Gillian Brown asking Dawkins:
>
> "Could you give any example of an evolutionary process or mechanism which
> can be seen to create new functional information at the genetic level?"
>
> followed by Dawkins' long pause, and eventual response,
>
> send a postal money order for $10 (U.S. funds) to:
>
> DAWKINS VIDEO
> Box 27027
> Willow Park P.O.
> Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada V1X 7L7
>
> "Creationist Deception Exposed" by Barry Williams/ "Gillian Brown answers
> Barry Williams"
>
I recommend this, because you'll find that Dawkins answer is not what it is
made out to be in this article. A pause does not prove that a person does not
know the answer to a question. Especially when it is a question that can be
answered by about everyone who even participates in a forum like this.
Shammah Ben-Noach of Judah
--
Behold how good and how pleasant it is!
It can still happen.
Yahshua's kingdom in Bethel Springs, Tennessee
http://www.geocities.com/~yachad
maff91
[crap deleted]
Creationist Deception Exposed
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/crexpose.htm
Why should the scientific and business world take any notice of what
you and your fundie cults' ramblings?
Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and other high tech companies who are
investing billions in developing new technologies, medicines and other
products and services based on the theory of evolution don't seem to
buy your argument.
What is Darwinian Medicine?
http://157.242.64.83/hbes/medicine.htm
Evolution and Origins of disease
http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198nesse.html
Gene Therapy
http://www.natx.com/
Hopeful Monsters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
Genetic Engineering in the Agriculture industry
http://www.pcug.org.au/~jallen/coggene.htm
http://www.pavich.com/links.htm
I quote from _The Origins of Order_ by Stuart Kauffmam
(Page xv) "Thus it is possible to explore sequence spaces for the
first time. I believe this exploration will lead in the coming decades
to what might be called "Applied Molecular Evolution" with very great
medical and industrial implications, such as rapid evolution of new
drugs, vaccines, biosensors, and catalysts".
Creationism is only used by fundamentalist religion business.
The only way you can get people to accept your fantasy is to institute
a theocratic dictatorship and to get all free enterprise nationalized.
*****************************************************
"Science is the true theology" -- Thomas Paine
(as quoted in Emerson: The Mind on Fire page 153)
"The Age of Paine" by Jon Katz
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.05/paine.html
*****************************************************
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
>
> DB> "[...] can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an
> DB>evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the
> DB>information in the genome?"
>
> [...]
>
> Autopolyploid speciation via tetraploidy in orchids.
>
> Information increase is indicated because such tetraploids
> are typically more robust and grow to a larger size than
> the parent species.
>
The following response was sent to me by Jonathan Wells, who gave permision to
post it to this forum:
Jonathan Wells writes:
"Polyploidy" is the spontaneous doubling (or tripling or quadrupling) of
chromosomes. Autopolyploidy occurs in a single species; even more common
is allopolyploidy, in which the spontaneous doubling of chromosomes occurs
after the hybridization of two different species. Polyploidy is an
important cause of reproductive isolation in plants, but is rare (if,
indeed, it happens at all) in animals.
Two observations are in order: (1) Polyploidy is merely the duplication of
existing chromosomes. No new genes are introduced. To call this an
increase in information is analogous to saying that we increase the
information in a book by obtaining a second copy of the same book. (2)
Polyploidy does produce speciation in the neo-Darwinian sense of
establishing reproductive isolation between sexually reproducing
populations. It has been reproduced in the laboratory, starting in the
1920's with the artificial production of an extant species of mint by
hybridization of two other closely related species. But the new species
produced by polyploidy are never dramatically different from the original
species. The polyploid orchid species referred to above is bigger than the
parent species because it has extra copies of genes from which to make more
gene products, not because any new features are added.
According to a standard textbook in evolutionary biology: "Although
polyploidy may confer new physiological and ecological capabilities, it
does not, as far as we know, confer major new morphological characteristics
such as differences in the structure of flowers or frtuis. Thus polyploidy
does not cause the evolution of new genera or other higher taxa." (Douglas
Futuyma, EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, 3rd edition. Sinauer, 1998)
Jonathan Wells
Department of Molecular & Cell Biology
University of California, Berkeley
and
Senior Fellow
The Discovery Institute, Seattle
Kevin D. Quitt
>According to a standard textbook in evolutionary biology: "Although
>polyploidy may confer new physiological and ecological capabilities,
So if it has new capabilities, then there is new information.
> it
>does not, as far as we know, confer major new morphological characteristics
>such as differences in the structure of flowers or frtuis.
Morphological changes are not required by evolution. Evolution is the change,
and the changes are already given.
--
#include <standard.disclaimer>
_
Kevin D Quitt USA 91351-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list
wf...@enter.netxx
(2)
>Polyploidy does produce speciation in the neo-Darwinian sense of
>establishing reproductive isolation between sexually reproducing
>populations. It has been reproduced in the laboratory, starting in the
>1920's with the artificial production of an extant species of mint by
>hybridization of two other closely related species. But the new species
>produced by polyploidy are never dramatically different from the original
>species. The polyploid orchid species referred to above is bigger than the
>parent species because it has extra copies of genes from which to make more
>gene products, not because any new features are added.
Its a new species but no new features are added....
sounds like a contradiction to me...
>
>According to a standard textbook in evolutionary biology: "Although
>polyploidy may confer new physiological and ecological capabilities, it
>does not, as far as we know, confer major new morphological characteristics
>such as differences in the structure of flowers or frtuis. Thus polyploidy
>does not cause the evolution of new genera or other higher taxa." (Douglas
>Futuyma, EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, 3rd edition. Sinauer, 1998)
however, macroevolution can be a consequence as you admit..
yes, we already know that it happens. thank you.
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca wrote:
> An obvious example of this supposedly unanswerable question is the
>acquiring of resistance to antibiotics, and, also, additional genetic
>modifications to allow this resistance to occur in bacteria without great
>disadvantage in the absence of antibiotics. Experiments have been
>performed on clonal bacteria which did not have genes for resistance to
>antibiotics, and then some subsequently acquired it through mutation, and
>those mutants became abundant to the exclusion of non-resistant ones due
>to selection. It is plain old evolution by mutation, inheritance, and
>natural selection. I only wish it were not so easy to find an example
>where organisms have evolved new genetic information to circumvent
>techniques humans have developed to control them.
Lee Spetner discusses antibiotic resistance in his book, "Not By Chance!", as
well as some other examples of mutations.
What follows is an excerpt from the discussion of antibiotic resistance in
microorganisms, and insecticide resistance in insects (pp. 138-144). In the
book, this excerpt was preceded by a discussion showing that the more
specific is a message (or an enzyme) the greater the information content, and
vice versa.
The excerpt follows:
==========================================================================
All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out
to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it. Let's examine
what's known about the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics and of insects
to pesticides.
Some bacteria have built into them at the outset a resistance to some
antibiotics. The resistance comes from an enzyme that alters the drug to
make it inactive. This type of resistance does not build up through
mutation. J. Davies and his colleagues at the University of Wisconsin
expressed the opinion that the purpose of the enzyme may not be to offer
resistance to the drug. They did not profess to know its primary purpose,
but they considered it to be directed toward attacking small molecules
involved in some other, but so far unknown, cell function [Davies et al.
1971]. In their opinion, drug resistance in these cases may be only
fortuitous. On the other hand, our commercial antibiotics are the natural
products of certain fungi and bacteria [Aharonowitz and Cohen 1981]. One
might therefore expect that some bacteria would be endowed with an enzyme
providing resistance to them.
Bacteria that are not resistant can become resistant through infection by a
virus that carries the gene for resistance. The virus may have picked up
the gene from a naturally resistant bacterium. Also, bacteria can be
deliberately made resistant by artificially introducing into their DNA the
gene encoding the enzyme. Scientists today can transfer sections of DNA
from one organism to another. The gaining of antibiotic resistance in this
way is not an example of how evolution might add information. The genome of
the bacterium that acquired the resistance does indeed gain information.
But there is no gain for life as a whole. The resistant gene already
existed in some other bacterium or virus.
But some bacteria can mutate to become resistant to a drug to which it had
been sensitive. In these cases the function is new. Could such a mutation
demonstrate neo-Darwinian evolution?
Scientists have studied how streptomycin and other mycin drugs keep
bacteria from growing, and how a point mutation makes bacteria resistant to
the drug [Davies et al. 1971, Davies and Nomura 1972]. They found that a
molecule of the drug attaches to a matching site on a ribosome of the
bacterium and interferes with its making of protein, as shown in Fig. 5.3.
With the drug molecule attached, the ribosome is unable to put the right
amino acids together when it makes protein. It makes the wrong proteins. It
makes proteins that don't work. The bacterium then can't grow, can't
divide, and can't propagate.
The ribosomes of mammals don't have the site at which the mycin drugs can
attach, so the drugs can't harm them. Because the mycins can stop bacterial
growth without harming the host, they make useful antibiotics.
A point mutation makes the bacterium resistant to streptomycin by losing
information. If a mutation in the bacterium should happen to change the
ribosome site where the streptomycin attaches, the drug will no longer have
a place to which it can attach. Fig. 5.4 shows schematically how a change
in the matching site on the ribosome can prevent a streptomycin molecule
from fitting onto the ribosome and interfering with its operation. The drug
molecule cannot attach to the ribosome, so it cannot interfere with its
making of protein, and the bacterium becomes resistant.
You can see from Fig. 5.4 that the change could be in several different
places on the matching site and still grant resistance to the bacterium.
Any one of several changes in the attachment site on the ribosomal protein
is enough to spoil its match with the mycin. That means that a change in
any one of several DNA nucleotides in the corresponding gene can confer
resistance on the bacterium. Several different mutations in bacteria have
indeed been found to result in streptomycin resistance [Gartner & Orias
1966]. We see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the
ribosome protein, and that means losing genetic information. This loss of
information leads to a loss of sensitivity to the drug and hence to
resistance. Since the information loss is in the gene, the effect is
heritable, and a whole strain of resistant bacteria can arise from the
mutation.
Although such a mutation can have selective value, it decreases rather than
increases the genetic information. It therefore cannot be typical of
mutations that are supposed to help form small steps that make up
macroevolution. Those steps must, on the average, add information. Even
though resistance is gained, it's gained not by adding something, but by
losing it. Rather than say that the bacterium gained resistance to the
antibiotic, we would be more correct to say that it lost its sensitivity to
it. It lost information.
The NDT is supposed to explain how the information of life has been built
up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a
bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological
differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information
than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations
that lose it. A business can't make money by losing it a little at a time.
Scientists have found how a mutation can make an insect resistant to an
insecticide. A molecule of the insecticide DDT acts by binding itself to a
specific matching site on the membrane of the insect's nerve cells. In this
position it prevents the nerve from functioning properly. When enough of
the insect nerve cells have DDT molecules bound to them, the nervous system
breaks down and the insect dies [Beeman 1982].
How does an insect become resistant? It becomes resistant by losing its
sensitivity to the DDT. This loss is the result of a mutation that changes
the site on the nerve cell at which the DDT molecule binds, preventing the
DDT from binding [Tanaka et al. 1984]. Any mutation that spoils the match
between the DDT and the nerve cell will make the insect resistant. As with
bacteria, resistance can come by reducing the specificity of the protein of
the nerve cell.
Changing an amino acid in a protein very often affects the way the protein
functions. An organism is generally well adapted to its niche. Its proteins
are well suited to carrying out their functions. A change in one of its
proteins is then likely to degrade the organism in some way. In particular,
when an organism becomes resistant to a drug through a change in one of its
proteins, it is likely to become less fit in some other way. Of course, so
long as the drug is present, the organism has to be resistant to survive,
even at the price of being less fit in another way. But when the drug is
removed, the nonresistant type is again more adaptive.
A mutation in bacteria that makes it resistant to streptomycin reduces the
specificity of a protein in the ribosome. When the ribosome becomes less
specific, its performance is degraded. T. K. Gartner and E. Orias from the
University of California in Santa Barbara reported some time ago that the
mutations that make bacteria resistant to streptomycin degrade their
ribosomes [Gartner and Orias 1966]. The mutation makes the ribosome slower
than normal in translating some of the RNA codons into protein.
Degrading side effects have also been noted in insects that have become
resistant to insecticides. M. W. Rowland from the Rothamsted Experimental
Station in Hertfordshire, England has reported that mosquitoes that have
become resistant to dieldrin are less active and slower to respond to
stimuli than are other insects [Rowland 1987]. Their resistance to the
insecticide is thus bought at the price of a more sluggish nervous system.
The information loss on the molecular level then appears as a loss in the
performance of the insect.
==========================================================================
> Also take a look at the August 1st issue of _New_Scientist_, p.14,
>which talks about how bacteria can be coaxed into evolving the ability to
>incorporate highly unusual amino acids into their biological systems. The
>situation is quite artificial, but the process has definitely added new
>information of some kind to the biological system.
It added new information in this instance because it was "coaxed" on, and as
McCrae admits, the situation "is quite artificial". Scientists can also graft
on new information. But if that is the only way they can see it becoming part
of the genome, I wonder what or who they think was involved in the
coaxing/grafting mechanism when that first cell was waiting to evolve?
Articles by Dr. David N. Menton:
A Vast Number of Lucky Mutations Made Us
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mutation.htm
Evidences From Biology
http://www.gennet.org/BIOLOGY.htm
> Look, I haven't seen the video, all I have seen are explanations
>of it, but I don't see the point. Even if I assume your premise is
>entirely valid, and that Dawkin's really was stumped (something I doubt,
>but will grant for the sake of the argument), big deal. His supposed
>failure is irrelevant to the scientific issue. I know of examples "of an
>evolutionary process or mechanism which can be seen to create new
>functional information at the genetic level",
What McCrae needs to do is list some examples that aren't "coaxed" or in an
artificial situation.
>so I could care less what
>Dawkins did or did not present in reply.
McCrae is doing what is done by many Darwinists--when the first attack fails
(eg. the attack on Gillian Brown's film), then go to your second line of
defense, which is some variation of "It really doesn't matter anyway; that's a
stupid question to ask."
> It is like asking whether somebody knows why the sky is blue.
>Even if they do not know, and should know, it does not change the fact
>that an answer does exist. I think this attempt to inflate Dawkins'
>supposed pause into an indication of "nothing" being there would be
>hilarious if it were not so pathetic. It is a classic example of the
>logic employed by some Biblical-literalist creationists all the time to
>find "evidence" of "creation" in what is supposedly absent, often when it
>is not actually absent anyway (the standard misrepresentations of
>punctuated equilibrium and supposedly absent transitional fossils come to
>mind as an example -- transitions between species *are* known, even if
>punctuated equilibrium did claim there were none, which it doesn't
>anyway).
Ah, yes, good ol' punctuated equilibrium, which must be the only theory put
forth in the history of science which claims to be scientific, but then
explains why evidence for it cannot be found.
I thought a good theory was based on evidence, not a _lack_ of evidence.
In closing, can anyone reference _any_ study that has shown that duplicated
genes acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
experiments?
David Buckna
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4881/topten.html
Donald C. Lindsay
David Buckna wrote:
<junk snipped>
>Ah, yes, good ol' punctuated equilibrium, which must be the only theory put
>forth in the history of science which claims to be scientific, but then
>explains why evidence for it cannot be found.
This is false. They said the exact opposite, and you are putting
words into their mouths. Please do not do this again.
http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/punk_eek.html
The theory predicts that evidence will be in general difficult to
find. However, it predicts that the difficult-to-find evidence will
in fact be found sometimes, and will have certain specific
characteristics. Such evidence _has_ been found. Therefore the
theory was the correct explanation of those cases, and the theory is a
viable candidate explanation in many other cases.
>I thought a good theory was based on evidence, not a _lack_ of evidence.
Yes. That's why punctuated equilibrium is a good theory. Now tell us
a good theory of Creation. Be sure to explain things like a defunct
virus being found in the identical place in the DNA of sheep and
dolphins:
http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/dna_virus.html
--
Don
www.best.com/~dlindsay
Fuck ya, Buckna
Listmembers who are interested in creationism may find some
useful information in the report at
http://www.csulb.edu/~ttl/83combt.htm
Pete Dunkelberg
> Our new video From a Frog to a Prince
> (right) is having a beneficial effect. It
> illustrates the amazing design in living things,
> and the encyclopedic information stored in the DNA,
> required as a blueprint for all the designs. It
> also shows that mutations and natural selection
> merely remove information, not add information, as
> particles-to-people evolution requires.
>
information, but any other, changed DNA is not ?? But current DNA is
a mutated form of previous DNA...
> One of its highlights is the stumping of the
> ardently atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins1 by
> the simple question: ‘Professor Dawkins, can you
> give an example of a genetic mutation or an
> evolutionary process which can be seen to increase
> the information in the genome?’
How about gene duplication, followed by changes to give TWO
proteins that did not exist before?
Pete
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
(Australia)
---
In article <75ejjp$m2s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
sha...@bethelsprings.com wrote:
> How come I, a newcomer to this newsgroup and a real novice in most
> scientific
> areas, know very well that mutations can be beneficial and can add
> information
> and you don't?
>
Yes, you are a real novice as you say. Yes, mutations can be
beneficial, but this is not the same as adding information. A
beneficial mutation is simply one that benefits the organism. An
example is wingless beetles on a desert island. But the mutation,
although beneficial (the beetles are less likely to be blown into the
sea), it stil removes the information for flight. Another example is
creatures in caves with shrivelled eyes -- it's beneficial to lose the
information for fully-formed eyes because it means they are less likely
to be damaged, and the loss of sight doesn't matter where there is no
light. Maybe you should read posts like 'Beetle Bloopers' at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=241 which should
be simple enough even for a novice like you to understand.
> Why would you act like you are part of some group stumping
> evolutionists, which you call skeptics when in fact you are the
> skeptic, when
> you don't know something so basic as this, a foundation of the
> evolutionary
> theory?
>
Yes, a foundation lacking experimental support -- you have proven
nothing to the contrary.
> It makes me doubt your assertion that he was stumped. It is much more
> likely
> that he did not know how to give an answer that you and your skeptic
> friends
> would understand. In fact, your assertion that his answer was
> unrelated to
> the question proves this. He is an expert, by your own admission, and
> you
> know less about the subject than a novice like me.
>
In your dreams.
> You are in no position to assert that his answer was unrelated.
> Instead, you should say, "I was too
> ignorant of the subject to understand his answer."
>
No, you are a novice, and it shows in your confusion between
'beneficial' and 'adding information'.
> Actually, judging just from what you've written, the video is
> deceptive.
>
Because you are a self-confessed novice who lacks the most basic
understanding of information theory.
> And it is proper to smear special creationists in general, because
> your post is
> typical of them.
>
Since when is smearing the Christian thing to do?
> I am a creationist and a Christian
>
Theses words are so flexible these days. Even some people who deny the
Resurrection and virginal conception claim to be Christian and even wear
dog-collars.
> who is actually part of a kingdom from God
> that looks and behaves like the churches in Scripture, which is
> incredibly
> rare. I don't care to grant the terms creationist or Christian to the
> special creation pseudo-science, because they cause the name of Christ
> to be
> blasphemed by their ignorance and stubbornness.
>
The name of Christ is blasphemed by the likes of you who claim to be
'Christian' yet disbelieve what Christ has taught, e.g. 'the Scripture
cannot be broken' -- John 10:35, believe the words of Christ-haters like
Dawkins, and believe the worst about Bible-believers.
> > Since the Australian Skeptics clearly think the
> end
> > (combatting creationism) justifies the means
> > (deception), how can anyone be sure that
> anything
> > else they write is not deception for the good of
> > the 宑ause�
>
> I don't know the Australian Skeptics, but I do know that this is a
> case of the
> pot calling the kettle black, if indeed their is any deception in
> their
> practices.
>
Yes, there is, especially by their hero Ian Plimer, who brags about it.
> > Of course, biblical creationists are committed
> to
> > belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which
> > forbids bearing false witness;
>
> Their is no "of course" about it, except that biblical creationists,
> so
> called, claim to be bible followers. The evidence of their behavior,
> and
> yours, expressly denies that claim.
>
Not proven -- again you jump to conclusions based on ignorance, and have
refused to follow Prov. 18:17.
> Personally, I think they are a plant of
> the devil to discredit the Bible and the name of Christ to all
> thinking
> persons.
>
I'm surprised you believe in the Devil, since you don't believe Christ's
claim that man and woman were created 'at the beginning' (not by a
process of death and suffering over billions of years) -- Mark 10:6; and
deny His belief in the global Flood (Luke 17:26-27). And why are you
worried about discrediting the Bible since you clearly don't believe
Genesis?
Jonathan Sarfati
Pim van Meurs
"Donald C. Lindsay" wrote:
> David Buckna wrote:
>
> <junk snipped>
>
> >Ah, yes, good ol' punctuated equilibrium, which must be the only theory put
> >forth in the history of science which claims to be scientific, but then
> >explains why evidence for it cannot be found.
>
> This is false. They said the exact opposite, and you are putting
> words into their mouths. Please do not do this again.
>
> http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/punk_eek.html
>
> The theory predicts that evidence will be in general difficult to
> find. However, it predicts that the difficult-to-find evidence will
> in fact be found sometimes, and will have certain specific
> characteristics. Such evidence _has_ been found. Therefore the
> theory was the correct explanation of those cases, and the theory is a
> viable candidate explanation in many other cases.
>
David should be ashamed of himself.
>
> >I thought a good theory was based on evidence, not a _lack_ of evidence.
>
> Yes. That's why punctuated equilibrium is a good theory. Now tell us
> a good theory of Creation. Be sure to explain things like a defunct
> virus being found in the identical place in the DNA of sheep and
> dolphins:
>
> http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/dna_virus.html
>
Don't hold David to standards of science. He obviously is not equipped to deal
with that.
Pim van Meurs
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Yes, you are a real novice as you say. Yes, mutations can be
> beneficial, but this is not the same as adding information.
Perhaps true but that depends on you defining information and methods to quantify
information
> A beneficial mutation is simply one that benefits the organism. An
> example is wingless beetles on a desert island. But the mutation,
> although beneficial (the beetles are less likely to be blown into the
> sea), it stil removes the information for flight.
But adds information for winglessness
> Another example is creatures in caves with shrivelled eyes -- it's beneficial
> to lose the
> information for fully-formed eyes because it means they are less likely
> to be damaged, and the loss of sight doesn't matter where there is no
> light. Maybe you should read posts like 'Beetle Bloopers' at
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=241 which should
> be simple enough even for a novice like you to understand.
>
So as you show information is determined not merely by morphology but also by
circumstance.
Gaining wings in an environment not allowing flight could be counterproductive.
>
> Yes, a foundation lacking experimental support -- you have proven
> nothing to the contrary.
>
I am more interested in you proving to support.
> > You are in no position to assert that his answer was unrelated.
> > Instead, you should say, "I was too
> > ignorant of the subject to understand his answer."
> >
> No, you are a novice, and it shows in your confusion between
> 'beneficial' and 'adding information'.
>
Then define information and allow us to determine to quantify it.
>
> > Actually, judging just from what you've written, the video is
> > deceptive.
> >
> Because you are a self-confessed novice who lacks the most basic
> understanding of information theory.
>
That claim I have heard before from creationists. But they were unable to support
that idea.
>
> > I am a creationist and a Christian
> >
> Theses words are so flexible these days. Even some people who deny the
> Resurrection and virginal conception claim to be Christian and even wear
> dog-collars.
>
ROTFL. And perhaps they are Christians ?
>
> > who is actually part of a kingdom from God
> > that looks and behaves like the churches in Scripture, which is
> > incredibly
> > rare. I don't care to grant the terms creationist or Christian to the
> > special creation pseudo-science, because they cause the name of Christ
> > to be
> > blasphemed by their ignorance and stubbornness.
> >
> The name of Christ is blasphemed by the likes of you who claim to be
> 'Christian' yet disbelieve what Christ has taught, e.g. 'the Scripture
> cannot be broken' -- John 10:35, believe the words of Christ-haters like
> Dawkins, and believe the worst about Bible-believers.
>
ROTFL. Perhaps you should look at who is blashepying here.
It is interesting to see how some "Christians" are very willing to judge but do
not want to be judged.
I guess they need to read up on what Christ said on this matter. Nor is
namecalling a very convincing
argument.
I am sure Christ will forgive you for being the mouthpiece of the "devil" ?
Wesley R. Elsberry
<jaro...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <1998121818...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>,
> "Wesley R. Elsberry" <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote:
>> In article <75dt08$1of$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> <jaro...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
WRE> [...]
DB> "[...] can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an
DB>evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the
DB>information in the genome?"
WRE> [...]
WRE> Autopolyploid speciation via tetraploidy in orchids.
WRE> Information increase is indicated because such tetraploids
WRE> are typically more robust and grow to a larger size than
WRE> the parent species.
WRE> Next...
DB>The following response was sent to me by Jonathan Wells,
DB>who gave permision to post it to this forum:
Tell Dr. Wells "Hi!" for me.
DB>Jonathan Wells writes:
JW>"Polyploidy" is the spontaneous doubling (or tripling or
JW>quadrupling) of chromosomes. Autopolyploidy occurs in a
JW>single species; even more common is allopolyploidy, in which
JW>the spontaneous doubling of chromosomes occurs after the
JW>hybridization of two different species. Polyploidy is an
JW>important cause of reproductive isolation in plants, but is
JW>rare (if, indeed, it happens at all) in animals.
Nice summary, up to the final assertion, for which there is
Hyla versicolor as an example. Not only tetraploidy in an
animal species, but one in which there is evidence of there
having been at least two separate events of tetraploidy
contributing to the population. There are certain lizards
with 3N females which may reproduce parthenogenetically, or
sexually with 2N males of the parent species. The bottom-line
rule-of-thumb is that any genomic assemblage of more than
about 11 chromosomes is likely to have had one or more
polyploid events somewhere in its lineage.
JW>Two observations are in order: (1) Polyploidy is merely the
JW>duplication of existing chromosomes. No new genes are
JW>introduced.
It is a different thing to assert that "no new genes are
introduced" than it is to assert that "no new genes with
completely novel content are introduced". The example of the
different morphology of tetraploid orchids is most easily
explained as due to polygenic inheritance, in which case the
chromosome doubling also doubles the number of genes which
influence each trait. This ties in nicely with Shannon-style
information analyses (see below).
JW>To call this an increase in information is analogous to
JW>saying that we increase the information in a book by obtaining
JW>a second copy of the same book.
Bad analogy. Having two copies of the same book does not
change the information content of one of the copies, but
it does make a difference to the information content of
the assemblage. Information should not be confounded
with meaning.
Glenn Morton has written about these issues, referencing
various insights to work by Hubert Yockey. I won't quote, but
I'll try to give some flavor. Let's employ a Shannon-style
definition, where we have H = - sum_i p_i log p_i, where p_i
is the probability of a symbol appearing in the message in
question, and i is an iterator over each character in the
message. If we have a heterogenous message K composed of N
symbols, we obtain H_K. Now, we compose message L as a
concatenation of two instances of message K, thus having
length 2N. Guess what? H increases. H_L is 2*H_K. The
information content has doubled. The only case where this
would not hold is when the original message K is *homogenous*,
consisting solely of repeats of a single symbol (in which case
H_K and H_L are precisely 0). Polyploidy necessarily
represents an increase in information under Shannon-style
definitions. It is important to note that "information" and
"meaning" are separate concerns. I tried, with the tetraploid
orchid example, to provide a case that satisfied not only the
information-theoretic sense of the original question, but also
that such an increase would be tied to some meaning. In the
tetraploid orchid case, that was the difference in morphology
seen between parent species and daughter species.
If Dr. Wells wishes to state that information has not
increased, I will ask under *what* definition of information
he is making that claim.
JW>(2) Polyploidy does produce speciation in the neo-Darwinian
JW>sense of establishing reproductive isolation between sexually
JW>reproducing populations.
Well, the Biological Species Concept sense, rather than the
"Neo-Darwinian" sense. There are some weird cases, like those
3N lizards mentioned above. Tetraploidy is not a guaranteed
bar to crosses with the parent population, and some
circumstances with mixes of 2N, 3N, and 4N individuals are
known. Biology is such a messy topic.
JW>It has been reproduced in the laboratory, starting in the
JW>1920's with the artificial production of an extant species of
JW>mint by hybridization of two other closely related species.
JW>But the new species produced by polyploidy are never
JW>dramatically different from the original species. The
JW>polyploid orchid species referred to above is bigger than the
JW>parent species because it has extra copies of genes from which
JW>to make more gene products, not because any new features are
JW>added.
Because the morphology is *different* from the parent species,
we have established that the information content of the
daughter species is *different*. OK, a difference could be
either an increase or a decrease, but it will be one or the
other. This difference is, as Dr. Wells describes above, due
to the *extra* copies of genes, and thus the *increased* (not
*decreased*) information content of the genome. The
calculations based on the definition of information show that
polyploidy necessarily increases information. One might argue
that one has not increased *meaning* thereby, but that is a
different topic.
JW>According to a standard textbook in evolutionary biology:
JW>"Although polyploidy may confer new physiological and
JW>ecological capabilities, it does not, as far as we know,
JW>confer major new morphological characteristics such as
JW>differences in the structure of flowers or frtuis. Thus
JW>polyploidy does not cause the evolution of new genera or
JW>other higher taxa." (Douglas Futuyma, EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY,
JW>3rd edition. Sinauer, 1998)
It's a nice quote, but pretty much orthogonal to the question
at issue, which was: "[...] can you give an example of a
genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen
to increase the information in the genome?" *Information
increase*, not "dramatic information increase" or "novel
features" or "generation of higher taxa". So far, nothing
that Dr. Wells has provided puts the observed information
increase due to tetraploid speciation in orchids in doubt as a
completely sufficient answer to the actual question that was
posed.
And Futuyma is slightly in error in his statement, as the
genus Triticale is due to allopolyploid hybridization. See
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/chromnumber/number7.htm
Even Intelligent Design proponents answer the given question
in the affirmative. In his 1997 NTSE essay, William Dembski
attempted to show that natural selection was incapable of
producing "complex specified information" by means of deriving
an upper bound on per-generation information increase due to
the action of natural selection. What did Dembski say about
natural selection and information increases? "From these
observations it is clear that selection can accumulate a lot
of information over successive generations." Sounds like
genomic information increase is unexceptionable to Dembski.
Bob Schadewald has a nice illustration of the basic problem
with casual use of the term "information" by many
anti-evolutionists. Those anti-evolutionists would like to
assert that point mutations never increase information, but
they also assert that information can decrease thereby. Now,
consider an organism that has a point mutation that causes the
protein product to be non-functional. Some have made
arguments that this kind of situation clearly represents a
*decrease* in information. But in subsequent offspring, a
point mutation can restore function, and thus must be an
*increase* in information from the parent's state. If one
accepts that the first change represents a decrease, one is
obliged to recognize that the second change represents an
increase. The original anti-evolutionary assertion is false.
JW>Jonathan Wells
JW>Department of Molecular & Cell Biology
JW>University of California, Berkeley
JW>and
JW>Senior Fellow
JW>The Discovery Institute, Seattle
It's too bad the NTSE listserver never really got going. I
think Dr. Wells and I could have had some pretty good
discussions over the past couple of years.
Wesley R. Elsberry
Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences
Texas A&M University
Near-Perpetual Student and General Bioacoustics Dogsbody
References
Ptacek, M. B. , Gerhardt, H. C. and Sage, R. D. 1994. Speciation by
polyploidy in treefrogs: multiple origins of the tetraploid, Hyla
versicolor. Evolution 48:898-908.
Hyla versicolor is the basis of an least one lab assignment.
http://bio.fsu.edu/~james/compass.html
Ritke, M.E. and M.L. Beck. 1991. An interspecific satellite pair
association between Hyla chyroscelis and Hyla
versicolor. Herpetological Review 22:49-51.
http://www.biology.ucsc.edu/people/barrylab/public_html/classes/animal_behavior/SPECIATE.HTM#anchor830800
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/chromnumber/number7.htm
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"They all say\Someday soon\All my sins\Will be forgiven"-WZ
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
(Australia)
----
On 18 December <mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca> wrote:
> I don't get it. Since when is absence of evidence evidence of
> absence,
>
I'm glad that the lack of evidence that I am the mystery killer of the
little toddler here in Australia is taken as evidence that I should not
be charged me for the crime.
> let alone evidence for your favorite theory? Specifically, even
> assuming that Dawkins was actually stumped, so what? Since when does
> the
> issue stand or fall on the basis of what Dawkins does or does not say
> for
> whatever reason?
>
> An obvious example of this supposedly unanswerable question is
> the
> acquiring of resistance to antibiotics, and, also, additional genetic
>
> modifications to allow this resistance to occur in bacteria without
> great
> disadvantage in the absence of antibiotics.
>
Nevertheless, the mutations are not information adding. Sometimes the
resistance was already present, other times it was transferred via
plasmids from other bacteria, and yet others from an information loss,
like loss of control of a gene regulating production of penecillinase.
See http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=337
> Experiments have been performed on clonal bacteria which did not
> have genes for resistance to
> antibiotics, and then some subsequently acquired it through mutation,
> and
> those mutants became abundant to the exclusion of non-resistant ones
> due
> to selection. It is plain old evolution by mutation, inheritance, and
>
> natural selection. I only wish it were not so easy to find an example
>
> where organisms have evolved new genetic information to circumvent
> techniques humans have developed to control them.
>
This has not proven that new information has arisen. It only shows that
some bacteria are somehow resistant and are therefore selected. This is
natural selection, but not evolution.
> Also take a look at the August 1st issue of _New_Scientist_,
> p.14,
> which talks about how bacteria can be coaxed into evolving the ability
> to
> incorporate highly unusual amino acids into their biological systems.
> The
> situation is quite artificial, but the process has definitely added
> new
> information of some kind to the biological system.
>
I've seen that. Lee Spetner's book 'Not By Chance' gives other examples
like that. But Dr Spetner, a biophysicist and information theorist,
points out that no new information was added in any of his examples, and
there is no reason to think any differently here. Rather, a loss of
specificity of an enzyme can mean that it can work on a wider variety of
substrates, at the expense of less activity in the particular substrate
it was designed for.
> | If anyone should know any true scientific (i.e.
> | observable and testable) evidence that mutations
> | and natural selection can add information,
> Dawkins
> | should.
>
> Yes. Which makes one wonder if he had some other reason for not
>
> answering.
>
> Look, I haven't seen the video, all I have seen are explanations
>
> of it, but I don't see the point. Even if I assume your premise is
> entirely valid, and that Dawkin's really was stumped (something I
> doubt,
> but will grant for the sake of the argument), big deal. His supposed
>
> failure is irrelevant to the scientific issue. I know of examples "of
> an
> evolutionary process or mechanism which can be seen to create new
> functional information at the genetic level", so I could care less
> what
> Dawkins did or did not present in reply.
>
The point is, if a leading ardent atheistic propagandist for Darwinism
could not answer a question about direct experimental evidence for his
beloved theory, then the theory is in trouble.
....
> To use an analogy, if someone had asked Dawkins for an example
> of
> a specific transitional fossil specimen that they could go see in a
> museum
> that represented the transition between fish and tetrapods, and he
> could
> not think of one by name, the pregnant pause and answering the
> question by
> refering to, say, the _Archaeopteryx_ specimen in the BMNH, would, at
>
> most, be indicative of nothing more than a failure of memory and
> knowledge. It would not change the evidence that does exist. I can't
>
> think of where the type specimens of _Acanthostega_ are stored either,
> but
> I could find out in about 15 minutes.
>
Different analogy, since Dawkins is not a specialist in palaeontology.
Not that _Acanthostega_ proves the case either.
> ..
> |
> | Of course, biblical creationists are committed to
> | belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which
> | forbids bearing false witness; atheistic skeptics
> | like Plimer, Dawkins and Williams have no such
> | inhibitions. We are not saying that all atheists
> | lie, but that they certainly have no absolute
> moral
> | basis for refraining from lies.
>
> You know, it is disgusting distortions and accusations just like
>
> that which could make someone think twice about answering at all,
> David.
>
It happens to be true. And stop being so sensitive -- if the Skeptics
are so keen to resort to smears, they should expect some home truths to
be told about them.
> | Finally, despite all the bluff and bluster by
> | Dawkins and Williams, they still have not
> answered
> | the question!
>
> Which is more important, David? The answer to the question, or
>
> this ridiculous attempt to convince people there is no answer at all
> on
> the basis of Dawkins' apparent unwillingness to answer it under the
> conditions he was placed into, supposedly (according to him) under
> false
> pretenses? Which is more important -- the bluster or the answer? The
>
> above suggests the latter, and I say the latter, in which case the
> entire,
> lengthy show does not amount to a hill of beans, because an answer
> does
> exist. Sheesh, my field isn't even genetics and I know an answer
> exists.
>
The example you gave doesn't prove the point.
> It is like asking whether somebody knows why the sky is blue.
> Even if they do not know, and should know, it does not change the fact
>
> that an answer does exist.
>
Bad analogy. We *observe* that the sky is blue. We do not
observe one type of animal changing into another, with increase of
genetic information, over millions of years.
> I think this attempt to inflate Dawkins'
> supposed pause into an indication of "nothing" being there would be
> hilarious if it were not so pathetic. It is a classic example of the
>
> logic employed by some Biblical-literalist creationists all the time
> to
> find "evidence" of "creation" in what is supposedly absent,
>
No, the logic is the valid type of reasoning known as denying the
consequent.
> often when it is not actually absent anyway (the standard
> misrepresentations of
> punctuated equilibrium and supposedly absent transitional fossils come
> to
> mind as an example -- transitions between species *are* known, even if
>
> punctuated equilibrium did claim there were none, which it doesn't
> anyway).
>
Darwin predicted innumerable transitional forms. However, there are
only a handful of disputable examples.
may...@andrews.edu
That's interesting; but are you really arguing that no mutation, either in
bacteria or elsewhere, can ever increase specificity? Why would mutations be
unable to increase specificity, if natural selection is involved? Take
Darwin's finches, for example. They started out with normal bird beaks, and
then became specialized for different niches; this seems to me like the beaks
were becoming more specific.
> Articles by Dr. David N. Menton:
>
> A Vast Number of Lucky Mutations Made Us
> http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mutation.htm
>
> Evidences From Biology
> http://www.gennet.org/BIOLOGY.htm
>
> > Look, I haven't seen the video, all I have seen are explanations
> >of it, but I don't see the point. Even if I assume your premise is
> >entirely valid, and that Dawkin's really was stumped (something I doubt,
> >but will grant for the sake of the argument), big deal. His supposed
> >failure is irrelevant to the scientific issue. I know of examples "of an
> >evolutionary process or mechanism which can be seen to create new
> >functional information at the genetic level",
>
> What McCrae needs to do is list some examples that aren't "coaxed" or in an
> artificial situation.
Well, what about Darwin's finches? Or any other well-known example of
specialization? You seem to be thinking very superficially about this issue.
> >so I could care less what
> >Dawkins did or did not present in reply.
>
> McCrae is doing what is done by many Darwinists--when the first attack fails
> (eg. the attack on Gillian Brown's film), then go to your second line of
> defense, which is some variation of "It really doesn't matter anyway; that's a
> stupid question to ask."
Sorry if it seemed like a second line of defense; it should have been
presented at the same time. I.e., "Is Gillian Brown's story accurate? And
another thing, the question she asked was really superficial, i.e., showed
lack of comprehension of the concept of natural selection."
> > It is like asking whether somebody knows why the sky is blue.
> >Even if they do not know, and should know, it does not change the fact
> >that an answer does exist. I think this attempt to inflate Dawkins'
> >supposed pause into an indication of "nothing" being there would be
> >hilarious if it were not so pathetic. It is a classic example of the
> >logic employed by some Biblical-literalist creationists all the time to
> >find "evidence" of "creation" in what is supposedly absent, often when it
> >is not actually absent anyway (the standard misrepresentations of
> >punctuated equilibrium and supposedly absent transitional fossils come to
> >mind as an example -- transitions between species *are* known, even if
> >punctuated equilibrium did claim there were none, which it doesn't
> >anyway).
>
> Ah, yes, good ol' punctuated equilibrium, which must be the only theory put
> forth in the history of science which claims to be scientific, but then
> explains why evidence for it cannot be found.
That's obviously a bit of a distortion, but I have my doubts about the
validity of punctuated equilibrium. Right now, it seems like a fairly stupid
idea, all things considered. I really need to research the topic more before
I can be sure of this, though. But you should be aware that punctuated
equilibrium has utterly no relevance to the creation/evolution controversy.
Most of the really well-educated young earth creationists have had no
difficulty accepting it and adapting it to creationist thought. And the flip
side, of course, is that the fossil record clearly demonstrates evolutionary
change, regardless of whether or not punctuated equilibrium is true.
> I thought a good theory was based on evidence, not a _lack_ of evidence.
I doubt that that's true, in general. Didn't Sherlock Holmes once say
something about knowing when to look for the absence of things, like a dog
not barking, or something like that? The same principle would apply in
science.
> In closing, can anyone reference _any_ study that has shown that duplicated
> genes acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
> experiments?
I would recommend that you work on grasping the concept of natural selection;
if it doesn't become obvious to you after five or ten minutes of thought why
mutation and selection can easily increase specificity, just post again, with
something like "I still don't get it! How can mutation and selection increase
specificty?" and I'll be glad to explain it in more detail for you.
--vince
wf...@enter.netxx
>The following is posted on behalf of Jonathan Sarfati of _Answers in Genesis_
>(Australia)
>
>---
>In article <75ejjp$m2s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> sha...@bethelsprings.com wrote:
>
>> How come I, a newcomer to this newsgroup and a real novice in most
>> scientific
>> areas, know very well that mutations can be beneficial and can add
>> information
>> and you don't?
>>
>Yes, you are a real novice as you say. Yes, mutations can be
>beneficial, but this is not the same as adding information.
meaningless. if a nucleotide sequence changes in a gene, how do you
determine that information has 'not been added'?
A
>beneficial mutation is simply one that benefits the organism. An
>example is wingless beetles on a desert island. But the mutation,
>although beneficial (the beetles are less likely to be blown into the
>sea), it stil removes the information for flight.
of course when additions are seen...such as in the evolution of
whales, when the sinus cavities gained the ability to be filled with
blood to equalize pressure for deep sea diving, this guy will say they
lost something else...
nonsense. more creationist nonsense.
Another example is
>creatures in caves with shrivelled eyes -- it's beneficial to lose the
>information for fully-formed eyes because it means they are less likely
>to be damaged, and the loss of sight doesn't matter where there is no
>light. Maybe you should read posts like 'Beetle Bloopers' at
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=241 which should
>be simple enough even for a novice like you to understand.
yes ive read answers in genesis. a cartoon parody of evolution by
religious fundamentalists. ever wonder why creationism is limited to
fundamentalists? think it might be a religious bias, perhaps?
as humans evolved from ancestors, and gained intelligence, how was
that a 'loss' of information?
>
>>
>The name of Christ is blasphemed by the likes of you who claim to be
>'Christian' yet disbelieve what Christ has taught, e.g. 'the Scripture
>cannot be broken' -- John 10:35, believe the words of Christ-haters like
>Dawkins, and believe the worst about Bible-believers.
of course nowhere in the bible does it say the bible is literally
true...but creationists want all xtians to believe their nonsense, as
well as making up stuff about 'loss of information' to try to get
scientists to do so. that creationism is an american fundamentalist
cult belief seems to escape their notice.
>
>>
>I'm surprised you believe in the Devil, since you don't believe Christ's
>claim that man and woman were created 'at the beginning' (not by a
>process of death and suffering over billions of years) -- Mark 10:6; and
>deny His belief in the global Flood (Luke 17:26-27). And why are you
>worried about discrediting the Bible since you clearly don't believe
>Genesis?
since there is no evidence of a worldwide flood, kinda means your view
of the bible is wrong, doesnt it?
>
Wesley R. Elsberry
>In article <75jsej$o4q$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> In article <75e05a$iuh$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
>> mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca wrote:
[...]
VM>That's obviously a bit of a distortion, but I have my
VM>doubts about the validity of punctuated equilibrium. Right
VM>now, it seems like a fairly stupid idea, all things
VM>considered. I really need to research the topic more before
VM>I can be sure of this, though.
[...]
OK, what is it that Vince doesn't like about allopatric
speciation via peripheral isolates?
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"In a hotel room above Times Square\It's like a closet"-O97s
Pim van Meurs
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Nevertheless, the mutations are not information adding. Sometimes the
> resistance was already present, other times it was transferred via
> plasmids from other bacteria, and yet others from an information loss,
> like loss of control of a gene regulating production of penecillinase.
> See http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=337
Please define information and give us tools to measure and quantify it.
> This has not proven that new information has arisen. It only shows that
> some bacteria are somehow resistant and are therefore selected. This is
> natural selection, but not evolution.
>
Please show that evolution requires new information to arise.
> The point is, if a leading ardent atheistic propagandist for Darwinism
> could not answer a question about direct experimental evidence for his
> beloved theory, then the theory is in trouble.
>
ROTFL. Is it ? You are desperate for some signs of trouble for a theory which
is as strong as ever.
> Bad analogy. We *observe* that the sky is blue. We do not
> observe one type of animal changing into another, with increase of
> genetic information, over millions of years.
>
But we do.
> Darwin predicted innumerable transitional forms. However, there are
> only a handful of disputable examples.
>
Given the number of fossils, the number of transitionals are within the limits of
expectation.
daveg...@my-dejanews.com
> DB> "[...] can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an
> DB>evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the
> DB>information in the genome?"
>
> Autopolyploid speciation via tetraploidy in orchids.
>
> Information increase is indicated because such tetraploids
> are typically more robust and grow to a larger size than
> the parent species.
Please explain why more robustness and larger size idicate a
genetic information increase.
Dave Greene
Mark Isaak
I've seen you claim that gene duplication is not adding information, and
that point mutations are not adding information. And yet gene duplication
combined with point mutations clearly is an addition of information, since
it can result in a new, completely different gene. So which half of the
process does the information addition? I'd say both halves, and can back
that up with standard defintions of information. What do you say?
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"That which you know, you ignore because it is inconvenient. That
which you do not know, you invent." - J. Michael Straczynski
dic...@drizzle.com
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> The following is posted on behalf of Jonathan Sarfati of _Answers in Genesis_
> (Australia)
>
> ---
> In article <75ejjp$m2s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> sha...@bethelsprings.com wrote:
>
> > How come I, a newcomer to this newsgroup and a real novice in most
> > scientific
> > areas, know very well that mutations can be beneficial and can add
> > information
> > and you don't?
> >
> Yes, you are a real novice as you say. Yes, mutations can be
> beneficial, but this is not the same as adding information. A
> beneficial mutation is simply one that benefits the organism.
Now, you posted a huge response, but missed the most important point of his
post. I will repeat if for you: a mutation can be beneficial and can add
information. Get that? Can add. Not always add, but can add.
As in sometimes it does add information. Now, when you get done beating around
the point he made, will you answer it?
An
> example is wingless beetles on a desert island. But the mutation,
> although beneficial (the beetles are less likely to be blown into the
> sea), it stil removes the information for flight. Another example is
> creatures in caves with shrivelled eyes -- it's beneficial to lose the
> information for fully-formed eyes because it means they are less likely
> to be damaged, and the loss of sight doesn't matter where there is no
> light.
Now, are those mutations truly removing information, or are they adding
information? By this I mean, is the information there to form the wing or
eye, but some information added to turn it off? Not being a geneticist, I
can't say for sure, but it certainly seems like that would be the case,
rather than the information being removed. Oh, and I can certainly think of a
few beneficial mutations that have happened over many millenium. Such as
horses hooves. Originally the horses walked on their feet like many animals
do. But given environment that they are in, they changed from walking on
their feet, to walking on their toenails, and since they only needed one or 2
toes to do this with, the other toes disappeared. But the genetic code for
them is still there, only turned off, as occaisionally the toes are
expressed. Now that seems to me that something was added to turn it off.
--
Dick, Atheist #1349
Number 1 boob for 1st 1/2 December 98 awarded by Ed Conrad
email: dic...@drizzle.com
bigd...@my-dejanews.com
Pim van Meurs <ent...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>
> jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, you are a real novice as you say. Yes, mutations can be
> > beneficial, but this is not the same as adding information.
>
quantify
> information
>
> > example is wingless beetles on a desert island. But the mutation,
> > although beneficial (the beetles are less likely to be blown into the
> > sea), it stil removes the information for flight.
>
Its perhaps worth considering that the genetic coding for wings still exists
in the genome of the wingless beetles. While the "functionality of wings" is
no longer present in the phenotype, this does not mean that the coding for
wings disappeared; it may simply no longer be expressed. And avoid using the
term "information" when talking about function. This is what creationists do.
>
Stuart
may...@andrews.edu
> > jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> In article <75e05a$iuh$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
> >> mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca wrote:
>
>
> VM>That's obviously a bit of a distortion, but I have my
> VM>doubts about the validity of punctuated equilibrium. Right
> VM>now, it seems like a fairly stupid idea, all things
> VM>considered. I really need to research the topic more before
> VM>I can be sure of this, though.
>
> [...]
>
> OK, what is it that Vince doesn't like about allopatric
> speciation via peripheral isolates?
That's true, I've heard that punctuated equilibrium is really just an
exaggerated version of allopatric speciation; but it's precisely this
extremism that bothers me. Or more accurately, it's Gould that bothers me,
since allopatric speciation probably really is the main mode of speciation in
nature. His specific claims about PE seem bizarre, mainly because he seems to
have been drawing on his self-perception as an original thinker, rather than
on new data. For example, there's the claim that speciation doesn't happen in
the absence of significant morphological change: where did he get that? The
evidence (e.g., sibling species) disproves it.
And the reverse claim (that significant morphological change doesn't happen
in the absence of speciation) is disproved by the existence of subspecies
(e.g., clines). Paleontologically, I can't help but wonder if he wasn't
influenced by the creationists, or at least by the same people that the
creationists were quoting from in the early days. I don't know if he ever
thought PE was supposed to provide the solution to these supposed gaps, but
if he didn't there's good reason to suspect he had other quackish ideas which
were supposed to provide such a solution (e.g., his flirtations with
Goldschmidt's hopeful monster theory); in any case, he seems to lack a good
sense of the overall patterns found in the fossil record, so it's not
surprising that studies done in the mid 1980s on Tertiary mammals (for
example) in an attempt to test punctuated equilibrium, according to Caroll's
_Pattern's and Processes_, at the very least, failed to dramatically confirm
Gould's theories about stasis. I think Gould just assumed that because all
the specimens belonging to a fossil species were classified as the same
species, it followed that they were identical; but this doesn't seem to be
the case.
theo...@my-dejanews.com
daveg...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[snip post by Mr. Elsberry]
> Please explain why more robustness and larger size idicate a
> genetic information increase.
>
> Dave Greene
He already did in this post:
<1998122106...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>
entitled:
"Anti-evolutionists choke on information (was Re: Skeptics choke on frog)"
For the explanation, he used Shannon's definition of information.
--
Daniel "Theophage" Clark
Director, EAC Snack Foods Division
http://www.azsunset.com/~drdan/eac.html
- Got Reason?
mc...@ctiseattle.com
<YAWN>
> David Buckna
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4881/topten.html
One of the really weird things about the claims by creationists who are using
the "there is no increase in information when a gene is duplicated" argument
is that they seem to be blithely unaware that the duplication is often
inaccurate. That is, sometimes genes are excised with crucial regulatory
elements missing, as is the case with oncogenes, or the gene is not otherwise
faithfully duplicated.
I don't want to argue here about the definition of information. People like
Wesker3, David Buckna and Anthony Pagano are, simply, wrong with respect to
their definition of information. Indeed they have defined it in such narrow
terms, and without regards to the evidence, that their arguments fail
utterly. Others here on T.O. have done a good job of showing why they are
wrong.
David Buckna asked in this thread; "In closing, can anyone reference _any_
study that has shown that duplicated genes acquired different functions
during an experiment or series of experiments?"
What I want to submit here is a (very) brief demonstration that biologists do
have experimental evidence, and a really great deal of it, that gene
duplication can increase the amount of information contained within the
genome of an organism. Note that the ACT of gene duplication is
"information-content neutral". What I mean by that is that gene duplication
can result in no change, an increase or decrease in the information content
of a cell. It all depends on the context.
Before I go on here, I want to pre-empt the nit-pickers by saying that I am
well aware that some of the experimental evidence for gene duplication is the
result of somatic mutations and as such do not contribute to the genetic
variability of a population of organisms. Most scientists will appreciate the
fact that it is NOT necessary to demonstrate that each and every case of gene
duplication must also be shown to occur in gametes for these examples to have
validity. The only thing I need to do here is to show that these creationists
are wrong wrong wrong. Gene duplication can, and does, result in an increase
in information.
Sometimes the gene is duplicated in such a way that the gene is mutated and
expression of the gene is dis-regulated, as is the case when the proteins
encoded by these genes interact in a form of negative autoregulation. Please
note that dis-regulation means regulation that is changed in some way. It
DOES NOT mean that the genes are not regulated. A tandem gene duplication
called eDp24, which controls the sexual phenotype in the nematode C. elegans,
and consists of incomplete copies of tra-1, an autosomal sex-determining
gene, dis-regulates tra-1. These kinds of mutations result in
loss-of-function (in C. elegans, masculinizing) and gain-of-function
(dominant feminizing) alleles (see, for example, Molecular cloning and
duplication of the nematode sex-determining gene tra-1.Hodgkin J Genetics
1993 Mar;133(3):543-60).
Sometimes the genes are duplicated in such a way that 3253 E9& 34O4 of the
duplication is a mutant. The anti-apoptitic (apoptosis is programmed cell
death) gene family bcl-2, contains the neutrophil-specific A1 genes. In mice,
four A1 genes, A1-a, -b, -c and -d have been cloned and sequenced. They were
found to be generated by gene duplication, with one gene, A1-c, containing a
1 bp insertion that results in an aberrant, truncated protein (Multiple gene
duplication and expression of mouse bcl-2-related genes, A1. Hatakeyama S,
Hamasaki A, Negishi I, Loh DY, Sendo F, Nakayama K, Nakayama K Int Immunol
1998 May;10(5):631-7 ).
Sometimes even when a duplicated gene is mutated the mutation itself does not
change the phenotype; the mutant gene must be duplicated in order for a
different function to arise. Mutations in MET tyrosine kinase genes are found
in sporadic and hereditary papillary renal cell carcinomas. The necessity for
duplicated mutant MET alleles to generate the disease state was shown in
tumors isolated from members of two families with hereditary papillary renal
tumors and from one patient with multiple, bilateral renal cell tumors but
with no family history (see; Duplication and overexpression of the mutant
allele of the MET proto-oncogene in multiple hereditary papillary renal cell
tumours. Fischer J, Palmedo G, von Knobloch R, Bugert P, Prayer-Galetti T,
Pagano F, Kovacs G. Oncogene 1998 Aug 13;17(6):733-9).
Sometimes this kind of dis-regulation has a devastating and tragic effect on
the individual who carries the gene(s). For example, a germline duplication
of chromosome 2p, 46, XY, der(13)t(2;13(p23;q34) had fatal consequences for a
child (Germline duplication of chromosome 2p and neuroblastoma. Patel JS,
Pearson J, Willatt L, Andrews T, Beach R, Green A J Med Genet 1997
Nov;34(11):949-51). Duplication in the human flt3 receptor gene (FLT3) can be
found in some 17% of patients presenting acute myelogenous leukemia and in 8%
of patients presenting myelodysplastic syndrome and AML with trilineage
myelodysplasia (see Tandem duplications of the FLT3 receptor gene are
associated with leukemic transformation of myelodysplasia. Horiike S, Yokota
S, Nakao M, Iwai T, Sasai Y, Kaneko H, Taniwaki M, Kashima K, Fujii H, Abe T,
Misawa S. Leukemia 1997 Sep;11(9):1442-6)
In the lab, biologists can cause an increase in information content of a
genome by gene duplication by the use of dominant-negative mutants. With the
use of dominant-negative mutants one can inhibit the function of the
wild-type gene with a mutant version of the same gene is either overproduced
or otherwise dis-regulated (for an overview see; Functional inativation of
genes by dominant negative mutations. Herskowitz, I Nature 1987 Sept.
17;329:219-222.) In one example of this technique Smith and colleagues
demostrated the effects of mutant gene dosage on the activity of the family
of transcription factors called GATA that are involved in the differentiation
of erythrocytes and T lymphocytes (GATA-3 dominant negative mutant.
Functional redundancy of the T cell receptor alpha and beta enhancers. Smith
VM, Lee PP, Szychowski S, Winoto A J Biol Chem 1995 Jan 27;270(4):1515-20).
In this work they used transient overexpression of a mutant copy of the gene
to not only suppress wild-type GATA-3 transactivaction, it also suppressed
the activity of GATA-1 and GATA-2. Dominant -negative mutant can also be
used as probes to help in our understanding of the genetic components of
development. In Drosophila, the development of photoreceptors and nonneuronal
pigment cells is partly controlled by epidermal growth factor receptor (DER)
tyrosine kinase. In a paper by Matthew Freeman at the MRC in Cambridge
(Reiterative use of the EGF receptor triggers differentiation of all cell
types in the Drosophila eye. Freeman M Cell 1996 Nov 15;87(4):651-60), it was
shown that carefully controlling the timing of expression of a dominant
negative mutant form of DER elucidated the trigger function of the EGF
receptor in the differentitation of eye cells.
There are a great many more examples of gene duplication and increase in
information. It is, in fact, patently obvious. Unless, of course, you define
information in a way that no scientist does.
MEC
Mark O'Leary
writes:
>
> "Polyploidy" is the spontaneous doubling (or tripling or quadrupling)
of
> chromosomes. Autopolyploidy occurs in a single species; even more
common
> is allopolyploidy, in which the spontaneous doubling of chromosomes
occurs
> after the hybridization of two different species. Polyploidy is
an
plants
[snip]
> Two observations are in order: (1) Polyploidy is merely the duplication
of
> existing chromosomes. No new genes are introduced. To call this
an
> increase in information is analogous to saying that we increase
the
> information in a book by obtaining a second copy of the same
book.
I would simply remind people that these "books" are continually
being
recopied by hand, by absent-minded monks. With one copy, any
changes
accidentally introduced by Brother Albert could destroy the sense of
the
text. With two copies, the mangled sentence that brother Albert copied
can
be made sense of by reference to Brother Brian's copy - it's unlikely
they'd
both make mistakes at the same point. If Albert keeps making mistakes
in
copying the same sentence, it may eventually come to make sense again,
but
saying something completely new: so then we'll have the new sentence and
the
old one in Brian's
copies.
Not only that, but twice as many people can be reading these books at
once!
Or rather, being
translated:
Duplication of vital genes means that one copy is "free" to mutate, since
a
valid copy is still available to keep the organism viable. In this way,
new
variants of these "vital" genes can arise by the *accumulation* of
mutational
steps that in themselves would not be viable. Also, polyploidy creates
gene
dosage effects - proteins that do not have a selectable effect at low
dosage
may have an influence on the plant at higher dosage (for example,
minor
enzymes involved in secondary metabolism might turn out to poison
insects
that attack the plant, at higher
dosage).
[snip]
> The polyploid orchid species referred to above is bigger than
the
> parent species because it has extra copies of genes from which to make
> gene products, not because any new features are
I find this trite. Size is in itself a genetically-regulated thing. Are
you
suggesting that multiple sex-chromosome duplication as observed in
humans
results in bigger sexual
structures!?
> According to a standard textbook in evolutionary biology:
> polyploidy may confer new physiological and ecological capabilities,
it
> does not, as far as we know, confer major new morphological
characteristics
> such as differences in the structure of flowers or frtuis. Thus
polyploidy
> does not cause the evolution of new genera or other higher taxa."
(Douglas
> Futuyma, EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, 3rd edition. Sinauer,
1998)
The above is perfectly true - BUT once a polyploidy event has occurred,
the
spectrum of mutations that can be undergone and survived by the
target
species is vastly increased. Firstly, there is more DNA per cell that
may
mutate, enhancing the odds that a mutation may occur in a coding region
of a
gene, and secondly there are more duplicates of functional genes, such
that
one copy may mutate into a new role *whilst the old function is still
being
fulfilled by the duplicate copy of the
gene*.
Polyploidy *on its own* does not represent the instant increase in
the
information content of the genome, but it *does* represent the adding of
a
large number of "blank pages" to the "book", on which the
organism's
environment can write new information through the usual
mutational
processes at reduced risk of inducing a fatal/deleterious
mutation.
And, as you note, polyploidy does induce reproductive isolation. So,
a
population that is reproductively isolated, and subject to increased
chance
of mutational events with reduced risk of deleterious mutation might be
said
to be on a "fast track" to
speciation.
M.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mark O'Leary, | Voice: +44 (0161)
2756110
Network Support Officer, | Email:
Mark.O'Le...@mcc.ac.uk
Manchester Computing, UK | or:
ma...@mcc.ac.uk
Tim Ikeda
w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com says...
[some interesting sections removed...]
> with casual use of the term "information" by many
> anti-evolutionists. Those anti-evolutionists would like to
> assert that point mutations never increase information, but
> they also assert that information can decrease thereby. Now,
> consider an organism that has a point mutation that causes the
> protein product to be non-functional. Some have made
> arguments that this kind of situation clearly represents a
> *decrease* in information. But in subsequent offspring, a
> point mutation can restore function, and thus must be an
> *increase* in information from the parent's state. If one
> accepts that the first change represents a decrease, one is
> obliged to recognize that the second change represents an
> increase. The original anti-evolutionary assertion is false.
There have been some truely excellent rebuttals to Buckna's
claims (to be fair, we can't credit David as the originator of
these claims -- the most recent source of these confused ideas
is Lee Spetner: Yes, Lee "archaeopteryx is a fake" Spetner).
Someone posted a series of articles about information and
Lee Spetner's book on the ASA evolution server last September.
I posted a ser of replies questioning how Spetner used various
and changeable definitions of "information" in his claims. As
others have noted in this thread it appears that different
metrics are being used and compared without regard to the
appropriate contexts. That's a big no-no.
For example, in the case of mutations resulting in antibiotic
resistance, it is claimed that the mutations cause a loss of
information because they reduce the ability of the ribosome
(or a ribosomal factor) to bind an inhibitor. This seems odd
because it assumes that susceptibility to such antibiotics is
the "preferred" state of a cell. Secondly it sounds odd because
one could turn the claim around and state that the ribosome
has actually acquired increased specificity because it can now
discriminate against the antibiotic -- Note that the ability to
differentiate between molecules is one metric of specificity that
Spetner uses (Conveniently forgot in this case, however).
Interestingly enough, increasing the binding specificity of an
target enzyme is one well defined mode of acquiring antibiotic
resistance.
Ok, some maybe Spetner's supporters are willing to drop the
binding specificity metric of "information"; perhaps other
measures work better... Oh, but these options don't always
work either. Both the Shannon-style and "compressibility" or
algorithmic coding measures of "information" would score
gene duplications and point mutations in diploids as having
higher information content. Perhaps not double the content, but
still an increase of some degree. [Aside: Wesker3 claims to be
using Shannon-style measures of information, but as others have
noted, that can't possibly jibe with what he's claimed. Buckna
apparently can spell "Shannon", but so far has not volunteered
to take up Wesker3's mathematical slack.]
Hmm... Any other measures of information that can't increase by
mutation? How about relative genomic content? Nope. Number of
genes per cell? Nope. Changes in regulatory networks? Nope. The
acquisition of new functions or other functional measures? Nope.
Well gosh, each of these metrics, when used separately, don't
seem to work all that well in demonstrating that mutations cannot
increase "information". Maybe if we mix 'n match them in different
contexts indiscriminantly... Ah, now that works. Now we can present
a moving target -- If we swap metrics, we can never be pinned down!
Anyway, here are some previous comments I've had about "Spetnerian
measures of information" back in September and October.
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199809/0063.html
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199810/0139.html
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199809/0465.html
Regards,
Tim "I've got a shiny Ph.D. too!" Ikeda
Rich Daniel
[...]
> Lee Spetner discusses antibiotic resistance in his book, "Not By Chance!", as
> All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out
> to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it...
I'd just like to point out that Lee Spetner is a physicist (PhD from MIT in
1950), not a microbiologist. How could he possibly be familiar enough with
the literature to be certain that all point mutations that have been
studied reduce information?
His credentials in information theory appear to be a lot better. He has
taught computer science and communication theory, and has published at
least the following articles:
Information Transmission in Evolution. IEEE Transactions in Information
Theory, vol IT-14 (1968):3-6
Natural Selection versus Gene Uniqueness. Nature, vol 226 (1970): 948-949.
(My source for the above is _Science in the Light of the Torah_.)
I don't have easy access to either Nature or IEEE Transactions that far
back. Would someone care to look them up and type in an abstract? I'd
also be interested in the rebuttals that would presumably follow articles
critical of evolution in those venues.
Rich Daniel rwda...@dnaco.net http://www.dnaco.net/~rwdaniel/
Thomas Paine
>(Australia)
>
>----
>
>On 18 December <mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca> wrote:
>
>> I don't get it. Since when is absence of evidence evidence of
>> absence,
>>
>I'm glad that the lack of evidence that I am the mystery killer of the
>little toddler here in Australia is taken as evidence that I should not
>be charged me for the crime.
A little mixed up, there...
The analogy would be lack of evidence would mean the child was not murdered.
>
>> let alone evidence for your favorite theory? Specifically, even
>> assuming that Dawkins was actually stumped, so what? Since when does
>> the
>> issue stand or fall on the basis of what Dawkins does or does not say
>> for
>> whatever reason?
>>
>> An obvious example of this supposedly unanswerable question is
>> the
>> acquiring of resistance to antibiotics, and, also, additional genetic
>>
>> modifications to allow this resistance to occur in bacteria without
>> great
>> disadvantage in the absence of antibiotics.
>>
>Nevertheless, the mutations are not information adding. Sometimes the
>resistance was already present, other times it was transferred via
>plasmids from other bacteria, and yet others from an information loss,
>like loss of control of a gene regulating production of penecillinase.
>See http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=337
Oh... Ok. ... back to the old mixed up fundy page. Been there, ... bunch of
fools who don't know their butts from a hole in the ground.
>
>> Experiments have been performed on clonal bacteria which did not
>> have genes for resistance to
>> antibiotics, and then some subsequently acquired it through mutation,
>> and
>> those mutants became abundant to the exclusion of non-resistant ones
>> due
>> to selection. It is plain old evolution by mutation, inheritance, and
>>
>> natural selection. I only wish it were not so easy to find an example
>>
>> where organisms have evolved new genetic information to circumvent
>> techniques humans have developed to control them.
>>
>This has not proven that new information has arisen. It only shows that
>some bacteria are somehow resistant and are therefore selected. This is
>natural selection, but not evolution.
Duh .... guess you don't understand evolution then.
>
>> Also take a look at the August 1st issue of _New_Scientist_,
>> p.14,
>> which talks about how bacteria can be coaxed into evolving the ability
>> to
>> incorporate highly unusual amino acids into their biological systems.
>> The
>> situation is quite artificial, but the process has definitely added
>> new
>> information of some kind to the biological system.
>>
>I've seen that. Lee Spetner's book 'Not By Chance' gives other examples
>like that. But Dr Spetner, a biophysicist and information theorist,
What are they? Never heard of either profession. Where did he get his degree
in those fields?
No. The point is that the interview was edited to make it look like Dawkiins
was stumped. i.e. another creationist lie.
Which is a good enough reason to snip the rest of this crap.
Stephen Watson
Publications by Lee Spetner:
>Information Transmission in Evolution. IEEE Transactions in Information
>Theory, vol IT-14 (1968):3-6
>
>Natural Selection versus Gene Uniqueness. Nature, vol 226 (1970): 948-949.
>
>(My source for the above is _Science in the Light of the Torah_.)
>
>I don't have easy access to either Nature or IEEE Transactions that far
>back. Would someone care to look them up and type in an abstract? I'd
>also be interested in the rebuttals that would presumably follow articles
>critical of evolution in those venues.
In Nature, maybe. But IEEE Transactions is aimed at....engineers ;-).
--
## Steve Watson # swa...@nortel.ca # Nortel Networks ## Ottawa, Ont. Canada ##
## The above is the output of a 7th-order Markovian analysis of all posts on ##
## this group for the past month. Not only is it not Nortel's opinion, it's ##
## not even *my* opinion: it's really just a mish-mash of all YOUR opinions! ##
Stephen Bracker
Mark Isaak wrote in message <75mamn$g8t$1...@shell6.ba.best.com>...
>
>that point mutations are not adding information. And yet gene duplication
>combined with point mutations clearly is an addition of information, since
>it can result in a new, completely different gene. So which half of the
>process does the information addition? I'd say both halves, and can back
>that up with standard defintions of information. What do you say?
Seems to me that we need not fuss unduly over "information" in the genome.
If creationists will admit that gene duplication occurs in nature and that
point mutations occur in nature, hence that natural processes can readily
produce a genome with a new gene, hence a cell line with a new protein,
hence (in some cases) an organism with a body that functions in a new way,
hence a population of organisms that interact with the environment in a new
and potentially more reproductively successful manner, then they have given
us everything we need. We can agree not to claim that evolution creates
information (even though it's probably a claim that is relatively
straightforward to define and defend) and in return they can agree to stop
claiming that evolution requires "information adding", in whatever sense
they define information.
Information theory, like the second law of thermodynamics, is a pretty blunt
hammer to use against evolution; it's very hard to use either to deny the
history one wants to deny without also denying the possibility of processes
that we can see going on all around us every day. There may exist some
general argument that poses a real threat to evolutionary theory, but
information theory and the second law (as used to attack evolution) are two
wells that have long since run dry -- one can keep pumping and pumping, but
there will still be no water. May as well try something else.
I've spent the last few decades helping to put together experiments intended
(among other goals) to "break" the Standard Model in particle physics, so I
know all about how much fun it is to challenge orthodoxy. It would be ever
so jolly to see someone mount an attack on evolution that would (at least)
make its advocates scratch their heads a good long while. I held out a
little hope for Michael Behe, at least until I read a couple of chapters
into his book. Even though his central idea was fatally flawed -- I think
head scratching among serious evolutionary biologists lasted only seconds to
minutes -- at least I give him credit for trying an approach that was a
little bit different. Anyone who wants to mount a serious attack on
evolution will have to do the hard work of digging a new well, not just
soldier on and on, relentlessly pumping on a dry hole.
Steve Bracker
daveg...@my-dejanews.com
> daveg...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> [snip post by Mr. Elsberry]
>
> > Please explain why more robustness and larger size idicate a
> > genetic information increase.
>
> <1998122106...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> entitled:
> "Anti-evolutionists choke on information (was Re: Skeptics choke on frog)"
> For the explanation, he used Shannon's definition of information.
No, I checked that post. What he explained was why polyploid genomes have
more information. He did not explain why more robustness and larger size
indicate a genetic information increase. It is my understanding that there
exist organisms smaller than us but with more genetic information.
Back to the drawing board, boys!
Dave Greene
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
By Richard Dawkins
http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/dawkinschallenge.htm
---
Are you satisfied with the Dawkins explanation, or do you see that
something crucial is missing?
David Buckna
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
"In closing, can anyone reference _any_ study that has shown that duplicated
genes acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
experiments?"
Not a single one of his examples (as written) provides evidence of "duplicated
genes [which] acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
experiments.
If mcoon's definition of information allows him to claim that a cancer-causing
or other deleterious mutation "adds" information, then it's a very strange
definition indeed.
David Buckna
Boikat
>
> It's very clear that <mc...@ctiseattle.com> did not answer my question:
>
> genes acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
> experiments?"
>
> genes [which] acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
> experiments.
>
> If mcoon's definition of information allows him to claim that a cancer-causing
> or other deleterious mutation "adds" information, then it's a very strange
> definition indeed.
The added "instruction" to "divide like crazy"
isn't a new instruction? It would appear to be an
addition to the information that's already there,
even if the "information" is in the form of
genetic instructions to 'turn off" whatever
inhibits wild growth to begin with. If not, then
the whole "increased/decreased" information must
be a red herring argument, since it all appears to
depend on what anyone wants to pick and choose as
an example of "increased information", along with
the definition of "information".
(Which is why I'd rather term it as a "change" in
information, rather than an "increase" or a
"decrease" of "information".)
Boikat
Wesley R. Elsberry
<daveg...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>theo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> daveg...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
DG> [snip post by Mr. Elsberry]
DG> Please explain why more robustness and larger size idicate a
DG> genetic information increase.
DC> He already did in this post:
DC> <1998122106...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>
DC>entitled: "Anti-evolutionists choke on information (was Re:
DC>Skeptics choke on frog)" For the explanation, he used
DC>Shannon's definition of information.
DG>No, I checked that post. What he explained was why
DG>polyploid genomes have more information. He did not
DG>explain why more robustness and larger size indicate a
DG>genetic information increase. It is my understanding that
DG>there exist organisms smaller than us but with more genetic
DG>information.
DG>Back to the drawing board, boys!
I wonder how Dave missed the following:
[Quote]
Because the morphology is *different* from the parent species,
we have established that the information content of the
daughter species is *different*. This difference is, as
Dr. Wells describes above, due to the *extra* copies of genes,
and thus *increased* (not *decreased*) information content of
the genome.
[End Quote - WR Elsberry]
It is the combination of the fact of a difference and the fact
of the genetic difference being due to polyploidy that leads
to a conclusion of increased genetic information in the
common-sense understanding of the term, not the particular
*properties* of the difference. That contrasts with
Shannon-style definitions, where it is unnecessary to show any
difference in phenotype to show increase in genetic
information due to polyploidy. (The cited post showed that
the example meets that criterion, too.) The example I
selected meets both the Shannon-style requirements and the
casual use of "information".
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"What's so great about the barrier reef\What's so fine about art"-O97s
theo...@my-dejanews.com
daveg...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> theo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > daveg...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > [snip post by Mr. Elsberry]
> >
> >
> > He already did in this post:
> > "Anti-evolutionists choke on information (was Re: Skeptics choke on frog)"
> > For the explanation, he used Shannon's definition of information.
>
> No, I checked that post. What he explained was why polyploid genomes have
> more information. He did not explain why more robustness and larger size
> indicate a genetic information increase.
Oh, I see; apparently I misunderstood what you were asking for. But I don't
think it was Wesley's point that merely robustness and larger size meant
information increase. The actual information increase comes from the
polyploidy. David Buckna's objection to this was that merely recopying
existant information (as polyploidy does) does not increase information.
I think it was Mr. Elsberry's point that there was more going on than just
having a few extra copes of each gene; that there was and actula physical,
selectable difference in the plant. In this sense, at the very least
information has changed, if not increased. I doubt that larger size in and
of itself indicates a necessary genetic information increase.
To be sure of what he meant, I hope Mr. Elsberry responds to this thread...
--
Daniel "Theophage" Clark
Director, EAC Snack Foods Division
http://www.azsunset.com/~drdan/eac.html
- Got Reason?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> The "Information Challenge"
> By Richard Dawkins
> http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/dawkinschallenge.htm
>
> ---
>
> Are you satisfied with the Dawkins explanation, or do you see that
> something crucial is missing?
>
> David Buckna
Yes, I'm satisfied. The arguments I've seen in your posts run as follows, as I
understand them:
1.If you are stumped by a question, then there will be a pause before your
answer - which will not be directly responsive.
There was a pause before Dawkins' answer and his answer was not directly
responsive.
Therefore, Dawkins was stumped by the question.
2.If actually the information in the genome cannot be increased, then Dawkins
will not be able to answer and will be stumped by the question.
Dawkins was stumped by the question.
Therefore, information in the genome cannot be increased.
Non-sequitur heaped upon non-sequitur ....
HRG.
Shooty
It's very clear that <mc...@ctiseattle.com> did not answer my question:
"In closing, can anyone reference _any_ study that has shown that duplicated
genes acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
experiments?"
Not a single one of his examples (as written) provides evidence of "duplicated
genes [which] acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
experiments.
If mcoon's definition of information allows him to claim that a cancer-causing
or other deleterious mutation "adds" information, then it's a very strange
definition indeed.
Well, information has changed, a new function has been added to the gene.
This is added information.
because we may see it as deleterious doesn't mean it hasn't been added.
Information is information.
Shooty
mc...@ctiseattle.com
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> It's very clear that <mc...@ctiseattle.com> did not answer my question:
>
> genes acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
> experiments?"
>
> genes [which] acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
> experiments.
>
> If mcoon's definition of information allows him to claim that a cancer-causing
> or other deleterious mutation "adds" information, then it's a very strange
> definition indeed.
>
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
It seems that Mr. Buckna does not have a clear idea of what oncogenesis
entails. Nor does he seem to have gotten the point of the examples I gave. In
each case the gene or genes were DUPLICATED, but one or more copy was a
mutant. In such a case the wild type gene is also expressed. In an organism
that possesses the wild type gene they have a....well....wild type phenotype.
With the addition of the mutant copy in each of these cases not only did they
have the wild type phenotype they also had the mutant phenotype.
No matter how you slice it, that is an increase in the information content of
the genome. It DOES NOT matter that the increase in information was
deleterious (except, of course, it matters ALOT to the people who suffered
from the consequences).
For example, in the paper I cited that discussed the effects of a mutant form
of MET tyrosine kinase receptor (Duplication and overexpression of the mutant
allele of the MET proto-oncogene in multiple hereditary papillary renal cell
tumours. Fischer J, Palmedo G, von Knobloch R, Bugert P, Prayer-Galetti T,
Pagano F, Kovacs G. Oncogene 1998 Aug 13;17(6):733-9) the patients suffering
from these kinds of sporadic and hereditary papillary renal cell carcinomas
had normal hepatocyte growth and development and liver architecture
indicating that the normal function of MET tyrosine kinase receptor in a
process of differentiation called 'branching morphogenesis' from scatter
factor responses was intact. That is they ALSO retain the wild type
phenotype. These people have two (or more) copies of the MET tyrosine kinase
receptor gene. They have the wild type function; normal hepatic architecture
(and other functions of this kind of receptor) AND they have an uncontrolled
harmful feature of neoplastic progression in which cancer cells invade
surrounding tissues, penetrate across the vascular walls, and eventually
disseminate throughout the body, giving rise to systemic metastases (for
those interested in the molecular mechanism behind the oncogensis induced by
mutant forms of MET see Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 24 Nov 1998
95;14379-14383.)
Further, I'm quite sure that Buckna has heard of Down's syndrome. These
people suffer from trisomy or an extra copy of one of the pair of DNA
molecules that makes up chromosome 21. That is they have EXTRA copies of
genes carried on chromosome 21. Is Mr. Buckna claiming that people with
Down's syndrome have no more information (or LESS ?!?!?) in their genomes
than siblings who don't have Down's? Now THAT would be "a very strange
definition (of information) indeed."
I'd like to say here that I'm a perfectly willing to accept alternative
definitions of what is meant by information. I do not presume to have a
complete understanding the term. I lurk on T.O. sometimes and for the most
part I see creationists use absurd and rather stupid arguments. This one
seems to be me to be just about the silliest argument they could make. Having
said that, however I will most definitely concede that it may be ME who is
not looking at this issue correctly and maybe it isn't as obvious as I think.
That is NOT to say that I buy Buckna's or Wesker3's arguments. Only that it
is such an elementary and conceptually simple thing that I may be missing
some more subtle nuances.
In the immortal words of Buffy the Vampire Killer; "Does the word 'duh' mean
anything to you?" ;-)
David C. Fritzinger
Example: Lamprey's only have a C3 gene (that looks a bit like the C4 gene in
other species)
Trout and other bony fish have both a C3 and a C4 gene (and have both the
classical and alternative complement pathways)
Most snakes have just a C3 gene in the alternative pathway
Cobras have a very nearly identical gene, Cobra Venom Factor, that is expressed
in the venom glands.
2 instances where gene duplication plus mutation yield increased complexity or
more information.
Case Closed!
Dave Fritzinger
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> The following is posted on behalf of Jonathan Sarfati of _Answers in Genesis_
> (Australia)
>
> ---
> In article <75ejjp$m2s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> sha...@bethelsprings.com wrote:
>
> > How come I, a newcomer to this newsgroup and a real novice in most
> > scientific
> > areas, know very well that mutations can be beneficial and can add
> > information
> > and you don't?
> >
> Yes, you are a real novice as you say. Yes, mutations can be
> beneficial, but this is not the same as adding information. A
> beneficial mutation is simply one that benefits the organism. An
> example is wingless beetles on a desert island. But the mutation,
> although beneficial (the beetles are less likely to be blown into the
> sea), it stil removes the information for flight. Another example is
> creatures in caves with shrivelled eyes -- it's beneficial to lose the
> information for fully-formed eyes because it means they are less likely
> to be damaged, and the loss of sight doesn't matter where there is no
> light. Maybe you should read posts like 'Beetle Bloopers' at
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=241 which should
> be simple enough even for a novice like you to understand.
>
> > Why would you act like you are part of some group stumping
> > evolutionists, which you call skeptics when in fact you are the
> > skeptic, when
> > you don't know something so basic as this, a foundation of the
> > evolutionary
> > theory?
> >
> Yes, a foundation lacking experimental support -- you have proven
> nothing to the contrary.
>
> > It makes me doubt your assertion that he was stumped. It is much more
> > likely
> > that he did not know how to give an answer that you and your skeptic
> > friends
> > would understand. In fact, your assertion that his answer was
> > unrelated to
> > the question proves this. He is an expert, by your own admission, and
> > you
> > know less about the subject than a novice like me.
> >
> In your dreams.
>
> > You are in no position to assert that his answer was unrelated.
> > Instead, you should say, "I was too
> > ignorant of the subject to understand his answer."
> >
> No, you are a novice, and it shows in your confusion between
> 'beneficial' and 'adding information'.
>
> > Actually, judging just from what you've written, the video is
> > deceptive.
> >
> Because you are a self-confessed novice who lacks the most basic
> understanding of information theory.
>
> > And it is proper to smear special creationists in general, because
> > your post is
> > typical of them.
> >
> Since when is smearing the Christian thing to do?
>
> > I am a creationist and a Christian
> >
> Theses words are so flexible these days. Even some people who deny the
> Resurrection and virginal conception claim to be Christian and even wear
> dog-collars.
>
> > who is actually part of a kingdom from God
> > that looks and behaves like the churches in Scripture, which is
> > incredibly
> > rare. I don't care to grant the terms creationist or Christian to the
> > special creation pseudo-science, because they cause the name of Christ
> > to be
> > blasphemed by their ignorance and stubbornness.
> >
> The name of Christ is blasphemed by the likes of you who claim to be
> 'Christian' yet disbelieve what Christ has taught, e.g. 'the Scripture
> cannot be broken' -- John 10:35, believe the words of Christ-haters like
> Dawkins, and believe the worst about Bible-believers.
>
> > > Since the Australian Skeptics clearly think the
> > end
> > > (combatting creationism) justifies the means
> > > (deception), how can anyone be sure that
> > anything
> > > else they write is not deception for the good of
> > > the 宑ause�
> >
> > I don't know the Australian Skeptics, but I do know that this is a
> > case of the
> > pot calling the kettle black, if indeed their is any deception in
> > their
> > practices.
> >
> Yes, there is, especially by their hero Ian Plimer, who brags about it.
>
> > > Of course, biblical creationists are committed
> > to
> > > belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which
> > > forbids bearing false witness;
> >
> > Their is no "of course" about it, except that biblical creationists,
> > so
> > called, claim to be bible followers. The evidence of their behavior,
> > and
> > yours, expressly denies that claim.
> >
> Not proven -- again you jump to conclusions based on ignorance, and have
> refused to follow Prov. 18:17.
>
> > Personally, I think they are a plant of
> > the devil to discredit the Bible and the name of Christ to all
> > thinking
> > persons.
> >
> I'm surprised you believe in the Devil, since you don't believe Christ's
> claim that man and woman were created 'at the beginning' (not by a
> process of death and suffering over billions of years) -- Mark 10:6; and
> deny His belief in the global Flood (Luke 17:26-27). And why are you
> worried about discrediting the Bible since you clearly don't believe
> Genesis?
>
> Jonathan Sarfati
Garrison Hilliard
Now, for all of you who think Buckna's of absolutely no use, here's proof
of his utility... in turning people away from creationism!
-------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to commend everyone for their valor under fire and generally
excellent work in rebuffing the recent Buckna-Fryman creationist assault
and want you to know that our arguments on the list have not been for
naught, as the following message from my friend (a creationist to
whom I've forwarded some of the stronger arguments) Dr. Ronald Martin
shows:
Garrison--
Thanks for forwarding the data on evolution with
information about the internet location for more. I read many of the 15
screens of information (I hope it doesn't fill up too much of my allotted
disk space; I may copy and delete it.), and got a bit more insight into
what scientists know and what they're speculating about. I may be ready to
concede an old earth and even common descent, pending more careful
examination of what scientists say they've seen, but I hang on to the idea
that biochemical pathways are too complicated to have evolved, although
they may shift a bit in their capabilities through mutation and selection,
thus God needed to direct each major development of biochemical reaction
chains, thus creating what species or genus spawned. Science offers us the
model of an adaptive landscape, with hills and valleys, with adaptation
able to roll downhill to nonadaptive forms (which are selected against),
but highly unlikely to climb out of that valley of extinction on the way
up the aptive hill to the stable-form high point. (I realize that this is
is a quickie explanation of a model that needs more thorough set-up, but
the model is in the ecology text used at CSUF in explaining problems with
adaptation.)
I need to log off and go to the library to research my
paper on the evolution of biochemical pathways. There is some literature
in the academic indexes, and I'm going to see what science can say.
--Ron
------------------------------------------------------------------
...and, of course, Ron then discovered that science had a lot of logical
answers to some supposedly "unanswerable" questions and went on to disavow
creationism entirely, all thanks to David Buckna and his letting the folks
from SKEPTIX know what cards the creationist cretins held. By the way,
Buckna... why are you complaining about people not answering your
questions when you haven't answered a single question that was posed to
you on the SKEPTIX list? And where are those "23 Questions Evolutionists
Can't Answer" that you touted so much, then ran away from the list when we
offered to answer them? And why aren't you telling folks that a complete
list of your stupidity, Bible-twisting (I'm still ROFL about your
statement that everything in the Bible is literally true except for those
places that aren't!), and outright lying can be found both in the SKEPTIX
archives and in Dejanews?
You are an asshole, aren't you, Davey?
KCdgw
>> DB>evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the
>> DB>information in the genome?"
>>
Insertion of genes by viruses.
Cheers,
KC
Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it - Confucius.
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
ske...@efn.org (Barry Williams) wrote:
>
> For those who would like to see just how well Richard Dawkins CAN answer
> questions about information and evolution, his article "The Information
> Challenge" is now on http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/index.htm. My
> response to Gillian Brown's claims of misrepresentation will be on the
> same
> site within the next day or two.
>
> Expect to see Sarfati's rambling attempts to discredit these in the not
> too
> distant future. In case anyone has wondered, Sarfati's PhD is in
> chemistry
> and his published research seems to involve high temperature
> semiconductors. An ideal background from which to critique complex
> biological theories I would say. In his own writings in the creationist
> press he is a dab hand with biblical quotations (apposite and otherwise)
> but doesn't add much of value to the store of human knowledge.
>
> Barry Williams
> the Skeptic of Oz
The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
Genesis (Australia):
---
> Expect to see Sarfati's rambling attempts to discredit these in the not
> too distant future. In case anyone has wondered, Sarfati's PhD is in
> chemistry and his published research seems to involve high temperature
> semiconductors.
Also, a lot of vibrational spectroscopy, which was my major specialist field.
Note, to those who claim that creationists can't do science, an article in
the La Trobe Bulletin Sept. 1998 praised the exceptional scientific abilities
of a scientist, partly because she had a paper published in Nature at the
young age of 25. I was joint author of a paper on superconductors published
in Nature when I was 22.
> An ideal background from which to critique complex
> biological theories I would say.
Now Barry, what are *your* scientific qualifications? How are *you* qualified
to discuss matters of any field of science?
> In his own writings in the creationist
> press he is a dab hand with biblical quotations
When one is writing for people who believe the Bible is authoritative, e.g.
AiG supporters, it is reasonable to use biblical quotations. And a
professing 'evangelical' group like ISCAST should also accept the authority
of Scripture if 'evangelical' is not to be stripped of all meaning.
Note that in my scientific articles, I document my claims with the scientific
literature. Many of them are in my general field of chemistry, and a recent
Technical Journal article 'Olfactory Design: Smell and Spectroscopy' (on the
website at http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/article.asp?ID=3839) was in
my specialist field.
> (apposite and otherwise)
What would you know?
> but doesn't add much of value to the store of human knowledge.
And you do? I hope Barry sees the truth of creation one day. There might
even be a place for him on AiG staff -- even though he would raise the
average age and weight while lowering the average IQ and qualifications.
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
Genesis (Australia):
---
In article <36812...@news.victoria.tc.ca>,
ske...@efn.org (Mark O'Leary) wrote:
> the mutations are not information adding. Sometimes the
> > resistance was already present, other times it was transferred via
> > plasmids from other bacteria, and yet others from an information loss,
> > like loss of control of a gene regulating production of penecillinase.
>
> Still others represent a gain of information, such as the ability to
> metabolise plastics (obviously not previously present in the natural
> world).
You would need to document this. I am aware of nylon metabolism. But this is
easily explained by loss of specificity in an
enzyme designed to hydrolyse amide bonds. Lee Spetner's book 'Not By Chance'
discusses several information losing mutations,
including loss of specificity, which enable bacteria to digest new substances.
> > This has not proven that new information has arisen. It only shows that
> > some bacteria are somehow resistant and are therefore selected. This is
> > natural selection, but not evolution.
>
> Have you ever done any bacterial experiments?
Have you? From your signature, you are a computer programmer, not a
scientist.
> You start with a minuscule sample, just tens of bacterial cells, and then grow them up into billions
> before testing for resistance. If the resistance were already present, it
> would be present in one of the 20 or so 'parent' cells, and an equal
> proportion of the progeny would share it at the time the biocide were
> added, meaning that a few hundred million cells would survive, and any plate you
> grew from the growth medium would carry a complete "lawn" of viable
> bacteria.
Not necessarily. The resistance gene could be recessive, so only shows up
when homozygous.
> I'd be impressed if you can cite a study of the appearance of
> resistance phenotype where it appeared at a rate even approaching one in a
> million, single colonies per plate rather than thousands...
We know from bacteria thawed from corpses frozen before antibiotics were
manufactured by man, and some were already resistant.
> I am also amused that you think "this is natural selection, not
> evolution". Evolution is *defined* as change of gene frequency in a population with
> time.
Well, I must be an evolutionist then! So must all of us at Answers in
Genesis.
> Since even by your demonstrably false claim, you started with a population
> in which resistance was present at low frequency and ended with a
> population in which resistance was present in all viable individuals, you have - by
> definition - described an evolutionary process.
By your definition. I agree that the gene frequency has changed with time,
but big whoop -- no-one disputes this. But you apply the Pernicious Principle
of Extravagant Extrapolation when you claim that this has anything to do with
particles-to-people evolution.
> > The point is, if a leading ardent atheistic propagandist for Darwinism
>
> If he werent leading or ardent, he wouldn't be being interviewed on the
> subject, would he?
>
> He is indeed an atheist, I beleive, but that has precisely *nothing* to do
> with his practise of science.
Have you *read* him? See below.
> Science is methodologically naturalistic
Sez U. I would agree with you about operation science but not origin science.
> but not inherently anti-religous;
Sez U -- coming from one who thinks that denial of the Resurrection is not
anti- christian, this assurance isnt worth much.
> Dawkins is apparently inclined to be
> philosophically naturalistic *as well*, but then so what? My dentist is an
> atheist - does that prove that the art of dentistry is inherently
> atheistic?
Operational science.
> My computing manager is an atheist - does that mean that the screen you
> are reading this on now must by definition be trying to undermine your faith?
> If you answer no to either of those, you ought to be ashamed of trying to
> tar the subject by citing irrelevances about one of its practitioners.
Again, perational science. To illustrate, a your computer's operation can be
completely explained by physico-chemical laws, but
those laws didn't make your computer in the first place.
> > could not answer a question about direct experimental evidence for his
> > beloved theory, then the theory is in trouble.
>
> Surely you cannot really beleive this? ROFL
I do.
> ... and if the pope stumbles over a piece of liturgy (as he has in the
> past), does that mean that the entire edifice of christianity totters?
I am a Protestant, so who cares what the Pope stumbles over.
> ...and if a professor of mathematics uses the wrong digit in the 9th
> decimal place of pi in one of her calculations, do all circles universe-wide start
> to waver and fade as the whole "theory of geometry" falters and dies?
There would be a problem if this was an essential part of geometry, and this
prof is a leading expert, and if she could not
subsequently answer the question ...
> As Dawkins himself has said, a whole chapter of his latest book (which was
> already with the publishers at the time of the interview, I understand) is devoted to answering the question
We shall see ...
> you seem to think is important.
It is. If you can't explain the origin of information without intelligence,
evolution (from goo to you via the zoo) is dead.
> The point being, whether by mishearing the question or even dying on the
> spot of a massive coronary, the failure to answer any question on a
> subject by one individual during one "general media" interview doesnt tell us
> *anything* about whether the subject itself encompasses an answer to that
> question. Of course, if the question were posed in the scientific
> literature and all the workers in that field in toto given weeks in which to research
> their answer *still* couldn't address it, *then* a "theory is in trouble".
Well, go ahead and address it, and don't give me trite irrelevant examples of
things changing over time.
> Be careful about "casting the first stone". You think creationists are
> innocent of smear campaigns?
Yep.
> When a few paragraphs above *you* emphasise
> Dawkin's atheism as if it might have some bearing on the theory he is one
> among many proponents of?
Yes, because he flaunts his theories precisely to explain the design in living
things without God. He is very open about his
atheistic apologetics.
> > Bad analogy. We *observe* that the sky is blue. We do not
> > observe one type of animal changing into another, with increase of
> > genetic information, over millions of years.
>
> Show me the person who (I'll be generous, how about surviving written
> record) that is millions of years old and has the *opportunity* therefore
> to demonstrate the constancy or variability of species. You arent even
> supposed to beleive in a *universe* that old, so how can you challenge for proof on
> that timescale?
You are the ones asserting that one type of organism changes to another, and
you are the ones that whinge that we can't observe them because the timescale
is too large.
> On the timescale we have available to us, we see patterns that are
> consistent with and predicted by the theory that proposes precisely the
> larger changes over larger timescales that you find so objectionable.
Nonsense. The observed changes are information losing or sorting, not
gaining.
> On the records we *do* have that address the larger timescale, the fossil record
> and gene sequence information, we also see exactly what the theory
> predicts, worldwide, no exceptions yet found.
Pure assertion. Exceptions are explained away readily. When proteins from
camels and sharks match, for example, it is explained by 'convergence'. When
fossils are out of order, it is 'reworking of strata' or 'intrusions' for
example.
> > > I think this attempt to inflate Dawkins'
> > > supposed pause into an indication of "nothing" being there would be
> > > hilarious if it were not so pathetic.
>
> > No, the logic is the valid type of reasoning known as denying the
> > consequent.
>
> Ha!
>
> Denying the Consequent may be represented by the following:
>
> If P, then Q. Not Q. So not P.
I know perfectly well what it means, as well as the fallacy. See
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/JonosLogic1/JonosLOGIC1.html
> This is valid logic, but doesnt actually map onto the sequence of events
> in question in any meaningful way.
>
> What you have actually committed is the Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent:
> ^^^^^^^
> If P, then Q. Not P. So not Q.
>
> Where P is "Dawkins can answer 'off the cuff'" and Q is "The theory
> contains an answer", for example.
No, the sequence was 'If there is an answer to such an obvious question, then
the world's leading evolutionary propagandist
should know. The world's leading evolutionary propagandist doesn't know ...
> > Darwin predicted innumerable transitional forms. However, there are
> > only a handful of disputable examples.
Falsified prediction is definitely an example of denying the consequent.
> Even were this ridiculous claim true (there are vast swathes of
> transitional forms accepted by a massive consensus of biologists),
Pure assertion.
> the flip side of the coin is that creationism ought to predict that there shouldn't be *any*
> transitional forms *at all*, right?
Exactly. There should be no series demonstratingstructures that are 90%
scale:10% feather, then 80% scale:20% feather .... 10% scale:90 feather. All
we find are series which are nothing more than reproducible variation within
a kind, or 'curious mosaics' like Archaeopteryx and Ornithorhyncus (playtpus)
which have a mixture of traits, none of which are transitional.
> Please state a falsifiable theory of creationism, that can - among other
> things - incorporate a "handful of examples" of transitional forms.
The biblical creationist model teaches that God created distinct kinds of
organisms with immense genetic variability so they could adapt to a wide
range of environments. Some so-called transitional forms, e.g. many of the
vairieties of horses in the fossil record, or the herring/lesser black-backed
gull, are merely variants within a kind.
maff91
>In article <36814...@news.victoria.tc.ca>,
> ske...@efn.org (Barry Williams) wrote:
>>
>> For those who would like to see just how well Richard Dawkins CAN answer
>> questions about information and evolution, his article "The Information
>> Challenge" is now on http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/index.htm. My
>> response to Gillian Brown's claims of misrepresentation will be on the
>> same
>> site within the next day or two.
>>
>> Expect to see Sarfati's rambling attempts to discredit these in the not
>> too
>> distant future. In case anyone has wondered, Sarfati's PhD is in
>> chemistry
>> and his published research seems to involve high temperature
>> semiconductors. An ideal background from which to critique complex
>> biological theories I would say. In his own writings in the creationist
>> press he is a dab hand with biblical quotations (apposite and otherwise)
>> but doesn't add much of value to the store of human knowledge.
>>
>> Barry Williams
>> the Skeptic of Oz
>
>The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
>Genesis (Australia):
>
>---
>
So why don't you tell us which businesses are exploiting creationist
scientific discoveries?
http://x6.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=426163336
wf...@enter.netxx
>Also, a lot of vibrational spectroscopy, which was my major specialist field.
>Note, to those who claim that creationists can't do science, an article in
>the La Trobe Bulletin Sept. 1998 praised the exceptional scientific abilities
>of a scientist, partly because she had a paper published in Nature at the
>young age of 25. I was joint author of a paper on superconductors published
>in Nature when I was 22.
meaningless. no one ever said creationists dont do science. they dont
do CREATION science. not ONE SINGLE SCIENTIST has EVER published a
paper in ANY peer reviewed journal in the WORLD stating that
1. evolution didnt happen
2 the earth is only 6000 yrs old
3. all species were created distinct from each other
the real proof that 'creation science' doesnt exist is the silence of
'creation' scientists.
James G. Acker
>The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
>Genesis (Australia):
In response to:
> > Darwin predicted innumerable transitional forms. However, there are
> > only a handful of disputable examples.
Sarfati: Falsified prediction is definitely an example of denying
the consequent.
> Even were this ridiculous claim true (there are vast swathes of
> transitional forms accepted by a massive consensus of biologists),
Sarfati: Pure assertion.
> the flip side of the coin is that creationism ought to predict that there shouldn't be *any*
> transitional forms *at all*, right?
Sarfati: Exactly. There should be no series demonstratingstructures that
are 90% scale:10% feather, then 80% scale:20% feather .... 10% scale:90
feather. All we find are series which are nothing more than reproducible
variation within a kind, or 'curious mosaics' like Archaeopteryx and
Ornithorhyncus (playtpus) which have a mixture of traits, none of which are
transitional.
*** No discussion of the archaeocetes, or of the more recent
feathered dinosaurs (Caudipteryx et al.) from China. As these are the
most prominent evidence, Sarfati and his ilk will obviously not want to
discuss them.
In response to:
> Please state a falsifiable theory of creationism, that can - among other
> things - incorporate a "handful of examples" of transitional forms.
Sarfati:
The biblical creationist model teaches that God created distinct kinds of
organisms with immense genetic variability so they could adapt to a wide
range of environments. Some so-called transitional forms, e.g. many of the
vairieties of horses in the fossil record, or the herring/lesser black-backed
gull, are merely variants within a kind.
*** And what of Ambulocetus? Rodhocetus kasrani? Georgiacetus
vogtlensis? Basilosaurus isis? Merely variants within a kind, a kind
that has both legs and fins? Which kind are they in, the "walking
mammal" kind or the "whale" kind?
Jim Acker
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
Tim Ikeda
says...
> The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
> Genesis (Australia):
>
> ---
> In article <36812...@news.victoria.tc.ca>,
> ske...@efn.org (Mark O'Leary) wrote:
>
>>> the mutations are not information adding. Sometimes the
>>> resistance was already present, other times it was transferred
>>> via plasmids from other bacteria, and yet others from an
>>> information loss, like loss of control of a gene regulating
>>> production of penecillinase.
ske...@efn.org (Mark O'Leary) replies:
>> Still others represent a gain of information, such as the ability to
>> metabolise plastics (obviously not previously present in the natural
>> world).
Sarfati comments:
> You would need to document this. I am aware of nylon metabolism. But
> this is easily explained by loss of specificity in anenzyme designed to
> hydrolyse amide bonds. Lee Spetner's book 'Not By Chance' discusses
> several information losing mutations, including loss of specificity,
> which enable bacteria to digest new substances.
Does the loss of substrate specificity for one reactant necessary
respresent a loss of biological information? Couldn't one also argue
that ability to catalyze a reaction with a new substrate respresents
an increase in specificity for the new substrate? For certainly that
ability didn't exist before or at a rate sufficient to allow the
bacterium to compete in the new environment. It sounds as though the
quantification of "information" this way is extremely context-specific
and subject to much confusion. I've asked others who've read Spetner's
book to discuss Lee's various metrics of biological information but
nobody has yet responded.
>>> This has not proven that new information has arisen. It only shows
>>> that some bacteria are somehow resistant and are therefore selected.
>>> This is natural selection, but not evolution.
>>
>> Have you ever done any bacterial experiments?
Sarfati responds
> Have you? From your signature, you are a computer programmer, not a
> scientist.
You don't have to be a bacteriologist to know that antibiotic
resistance can arise spontaneously by mutations. All you have
to do is pick up a good book or tune into talk.origins every
so often.
>> You start with a minuscule sample, just tens of bacterial cells, and
>> then grow them up into billions before testing for resistance. If the
>> resistance were already present, it would be present in one of the 20
>> or so 'parent' cells, and an equal proportion of the progeny would
>> share it at the time the biocide were added, meaning that a few
>> hundred million cells would survive, and any plate you grew from the
>> growth medium would carry a complete "lawn" of viable bacteria.
>
> Not necessarily. The resistance gene could be recessive, so only show
> up when homozygous.
[...]
Bacterial genes are typically "homozygous". That's what happens when
you've only got one chromosome and one copy of a gene. "Haploid"
is a good work to use.
As for the question of whether drug resistant mutants can arise
spontaneously; that was nailed down decades ago. See the work by
the Joshua & Esther M. Lederberg (J. Bacteriol. [1952] 63:399-406)
or Salvadore Luria & Max Delbruck (Genetics [1943] 28:491). You
could also read an old post of mine where I provide a quick overview
of the work: http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=180274123
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tik...@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)
Honus
> The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
> Genesis (Australia):
> And you do? I hope Barry sees the truth of creation one day. There might
> even be a place for him on AiG staff -- even though he would raise the
> average age and weight while lowering the average IQ and qualifications.
>
> Jonathan Sarfati
Buckna, you and Sarfati are both a couple of pricks. If I had been
taught in church that I could act like you guys and still enter the
kingdom of heaven, I never would have left. I hope every Christian
parent strives to raise their children to behave as the two of you do,
thus guaranteeing the eventual death of your cult. Go on, guys...have
more kids! I just *love* natural selection.
--
"Science rules." "Death to spammers."
-Bill Nye the Science Guy- -Honus-
Replace the spam-defeater 'STRANGEFLESH' with 'net' to respond via
email.
Wesley R. Elsberry
DB>The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
DB>Genesis (Australia):
[...]
JS> Darwin predicted innumerable transitional forms. However,
JS>there are only a handful of disputable examples.
[...]
This is somewhat misleading. Darwin did not predict that we
would or should be able to *find* innumerable transitional
forms. There is also the question of what number "handful"
covers (most people don't think of things that number in the
hundreds or thousands in terms of "handful"), and just how
"disputable" such examples are. Some people have an
enormously flexible sense of disputation, but others may not
care to take their measure from such a yardstick.
[Quote]
These difficulties and objections may be classed under the
following heads: -Firstly, why, if species have descended from other
species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see
innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion
instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
[End Quote - CR Darwin, Origin of Species, ~p.205]
In his further discussion, Darwin gives *reasons* that we
should not expect to find innumerable transitional fossil
forms. Stating that according to Darwin we *should* find such
large numbers of transitional forms in the fossil record is
pretty much a complete inversion of what Darwin actually tells
us.
See http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
for an analysis of what Darwin actually said implies
concerning an expectation of the ratio of transitional forms
versus non-transitional forms found.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"Hey baby, there ain't no easy way out"-TP
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
"James G. Acker" <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> *** And what of Ambulocetus? Rodhocetus kasrani? Georgiacetus
> vogtlensis? Basilosaurus isis? Merely variants within a kind, a kind
> that has both legs and fins? Which kind are they in, the "walking
> mammal" kind or the "whale" kind?
>
> Jim Acker
For starters, check out:
The Overselling of Whale Evolution
by Ashby L. Camp
http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/whales.htm
Scientific Roadblocks to Whale Evolution
by Frank Sherwin
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-304.htm
---
David Buckna
"My theory of evolution is that Darwin was adopted."--Stephen Wright
maff91
>In article <1998122916...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
> "James G. Acker" <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> *** And what of Ambulocetus? Rodhocetus kasrani? Georgiacetus
>> vogtlensis? Basilosaurus isis? Merely variants within a kind, a kind
>> that has both legs and fins? Which kind are they in, the "walking
>> mammal" kind or the "whale" kind?
>>
>> Jim Acker
>
>
>For starters, check out:
>
>
>The Overselling of Whale Evolution
>by Ashby L. Camp
>http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/whales.htm
>
>
>Scientific Roadblocks to Whale Evolution
>by Frank Sherwin
>http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-304.htm
>
>
>---
>
>David Buckna
>
>"My theory of evolution is that Darwin was adopted."--Stephen Wright
>
So what fundie cult do you belong, Buckna?
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of
the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge
he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus
offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk
nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based
in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an
embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in
the Christian and laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
wf...@enter.netxx
>In article <1998122916...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
> "James G. Acker" <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> *** And what of Ambulocetus? Rodhocetus kasrani? Georgiacetus
>> vogtlensis? Basilosaurus isis? Merely variants within a kind, a kind
>> that has both legs and fins? Which kind are they in, the "walking
>> mammal" kind or the "whale" kind?
>>
>> Jim Acker
>
>
>For starters, check out:
>
>
>The Overselling of Whale Evolution
>by Ashby L. Camp
>http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/whales.htm
>
>
>Scientific Roadblocks to Whale Evolution
>by Frank Sherwin
>http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-304.htm
>
>
please refer us to a site that deals with science, not those dealing
with christian ministries. the ICR to which you refer has a bias; it
REQUIRES its members to be fundamentalist xtians. thus its NOT an
objective source.
>
>David Buckna
>
>"My theory of evolution is that Darwin was adopted."--Stephen Wright
>
>
James G. Acker
"James G. Acker" <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> *** And what of Ambulocetus? Rodhocetus kasrani? Georgiacetus
> vogtlensis? Basilosaurus isis? Merely variants within a kind, a kind
> that has both legs and fins? Which kind are they in, the "walking
> mammal" kind or the "whale" kind?
>
> Jim Acker
Response to Ashby Camp and Frank Sherwin Web articles
In response to the above comment regarding transitional fossils,
David Buckna suggested reading two different Web pieces by the
above authors regarding archaeocete evolution. A quick reading shows
that the two authors have significant difficulty actually addressing the
evidence. Though time does not permit a thorough review, and
because I'm only a layman, I will only briefly illustrate the problems.
Readers are invited to evaluate each of the texts themselves:
The Overselling of Whale Evolution
by Ashby L. Camp
http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/whales.htm
Scientific Roadblocks to Whale Evolution
by Frank Sherwin
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-304.htm
First, Ashby Camp:
1. Camp makes a great deal out of supposed dating uncertainties,
while at the same time noting that the given fossils cannot be constructed
to form a "lineage". These are standard creationist ploys. What he does
not acknowledge is that definitive dates are only for the fossil found --
single specimens do not provide the full temporal range of existence of the
species. I.e., Camp is invoking the fallacy that descendant species must
replace ancestral species, and ignoring the more likely possibility that
the existence periods for these species probably overlapped significantly.
Thus, his discussion of dating uncertainties is founded on fallacious
grounds. Furthermore, the closeness of the temporal range of existence
of these fossils is a strong argument FOR their relatedness -- a point Camp
obviously does not want to stress. I.e., the period of transition between
terrestrial predecessors and aquatic descendants was only a few million years.
Speaking geologically, the existence of broad shallow seas during this period
made it an optimum time for the required "back to the sea" evolution.
As do most creationists, Camp notes that there is a lack of "clear
ancestor to descendant relationships" in the archaeocetes. While that may
be, given that there are only a small number of fossils, he does not want to
talk about the progression of modifications exhibited by the fossils. To
whit, development of swimming capability in the spine and fins and the
diminishment of limbs. Most notably, even though the piece was written in
1998, Camp does not mention Georgiacetus vogtlensis, which exhibits a spinal
modification critical to the change from terrestrial to aquatic. The only
thing that Camp attempts to do is cast doubt on the relationship between the
early archaeocetes and Basilosaurus, and on the relationship between
Basilosaurus specifically and later archaeocetes (explained well in
Andrew MacRae's response regarding the Dorudontinae).
What does Camp leave out? Plenty!
-- the shape of the lumbar vertebra of Ambulocetus natans;
-- the entire litany of skull structures that connects Ambulocetus
with cetaceans, despite the fact that Ambulocetus had complete forelimbs and
hindlimbs;
-- the spinal modifications in Rodhocetus kasrani;
-- the type of sediments in which Rodhocetus kasrani was found
(deep-sea pelagic);
-- the reduction of the femur in Rodhocetus compared to earlier
archaoecetes;
-- the spinal structure of Georgiacetus vogtlensis;
-- the nasal conformation of Georgiacetus vogtlensis;
-- the fully-formed legs of Basilosaurus, which Camp calls a
"gigantic marine archaeocete" (emphasis on the word MARINE); and
-- the conformation and location of the nostrils on the snout
of Basilosaurus.
Thus, when discussing the existence of transitional whale fossils,
it's clear that Camp doesn't want to discuss evidence of transition!
(Just as an interesting sidenote, Camp also fails to mention
Aetiocetus, the transitional link between the toothed whales and the
baleen whales. MacRae also notes this omission.)
For all readers, there is an extensive online presentation
regarding Georgiacetus vogtlensis at this URL:
http://www2.gasou.edu/facstaff/rhulbert/georgiacetus.htm
Next, Frank Sherwin:
Sherwin's entire argument strives to cast doubt on the possibility
of physiological changes that could allow terrestrial mammals to become
marine mammals. For example, he questions the transition from "freshwater"
Ambulocetus to "saltwater" Indocetus in 3 million years, crucially ignoring
that the primary range of many of these forms was considered to be epigenetic
(shallow) seas which likely exhibited a range of salinities similarly to
estuaries today. He also conveniently ignores the modern existence of
freshwater dolphins in the Amazon and Ganges, and the ability of manatees
and dugongs to move freely between freshwater and saltwater habitats.
Over and over again Sherwin attempts to cast doubt on the
macroevolutionary "modifications" that couldn't happen, whereas the fossils
demonstrate that macroevolutionary modifications were taking place, the
modification of forelimbs to fins and the reduction of the hindlimbs being
the most obvious of these changes.
Sherwin's section on spinal modifications is laughable:
"The land ancestor of the whale would have to gradually eliminate
its pelvis, replacing it with a very different skeletal structure and
associated musculature that would support a massive, flat tail (with flukes).
Pure undirected chance would have to simultaneously produce these horizontal
tail flukes independently, diminish the pelvis, and allow the deformed
land creature to continue to live and even flourish in the sea."
Sorry, Mr. Sherwin. This sequence of spinal modifications is exactly
what has been observed from Ambulocetus to Georgiacetus to Rodhocetus to
Basilosaurus. The authors speculate that Ambulocetus did not have tail
flukes but that Rodhocetus could very well have.
Furthermore, it may come as a surprise to Mr. Sherwin that
modern whales still have pelvic bones, to which the gonads attach!
(I suppose that Rodhocetus kasrani, which may or may not have had
tail flukes, but which had four limbs and which was found in deep-sea
sediments, was a "deformed land creature". How sad.)
I have difficult figuring out what Sherwin is trying to do with
John Gatesy's DNA analyses. Since it is suggested that whales are descended
from artiodactyls, a link between hippopotamuses (also artiodactyls) and
whales is not surprising. It might be more clear if it was possible to
read Gatesy's article, but I don't have access to the journal from which the
quote was taken.
In essence, Camp and Sherwin exemplify the creationist tradition of
attempting to blur the legitimate work of scientists with obfuscation, a
trait that Christians should be wary of in light of the Biblical commandment
not to bear false witness.
James G. Acker
In article <1998122916...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
"James G. Acker" <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
CORRECTION:
The sequential order of pelvic/spinal modifications given in
this paragraph is incorrect:
"Sorry, Mr. Sherwin. This sequence of spinal modifications is exactly
what has been observed from Ambulocetus to Georgiacetus to Rodhocetus to
Basilosaurus. The authors speculate that Ambulocetus did not have tail
flukes but that Rodhocetus could very well have."
The proper order should be
Ambulocetus --> Rodhocetus --> Georgiacetus --> Basilosaurus
(note that there are other species known; this presentation
concentrates on the major steps of spinal modification from a primarily
amphibious organism to a fully aquatic organism)
Specifically, Rodhocetus may still have been able to use its
legs on land, but Georgiacetus probably was unable to do so.
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
---
In article <368ab...@news.victoria.tc.ca>,
ske...@efn.org (Mark O'Leary) wrote:
> jaro...@my-dejanews.com (David Buckna) posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan
> Sarfati, of Answers in Genesis (Australia):
>
> [mutations]
> > You would need to document this. I am aware of nylon metabolism. But
> > this is easily explained by loss of specificity in an enzyme designed to
> > hydrolyse amide bonds. Lee Spetner's book 'Not By Chance' discusses
> > several information losing mutations, including loss of specificity,
> > which enable bacteria to digest new substances.
>
> I'll reply with the refs in question when I'm back from the holiday with
> my resources.
No hurry -- I have a similar problem.
> Fortunately, you provide an exactly equivalent example which presumably
> you do not question.
Indeed, I'm not afraid of the evidence, even if my opponent uses it to
support his case.
> The biological world had never seen nylon before its recent invention.
But it is still a condensation polymer with amide links, which is not
exactly unknown in the biological world.
> Yet you accept that nylon is now a substrate for an enzyme-mediated
> biochemical reaction. So, "life" has *gained* the ability to metabolise a
manmade
> chemical previously non-existant in nature. Yet you want to characterise
this as a
> loss of information! Please provide the definition of "information" that
> makes this assertion other than foolish.
As I told you, Spetner covers the example of organisms metabolizing zylose.
Two of the mutations are definitely deactivating, while the one we are
disputing is claimed to be a loss of info for specificity.
> > Have you? From your signature, you are a computer programmer, not a
> > scientist.
> My degree was in molecular biology and biochemistry, and my masters in
> agricultural biotechnology. Following its completion, I did a few years of
> post-grad research in immunogenetics before switching to computing. You
> will find my name in the peer-review literature of bacterial genetics if
you
> look hard enough,
I believe you.
> > Not necessarily. The resistance gene could be recessive, so only shows
> > up when homozygous.
> Before your next round of lecturing on bacterial genetics, *please*
> reconsider this statement!
Fair point -- forgot about that -- apologies for carelessness (not that I
had never learnt some of the differences between procaryote and eucaryote
genetics). Would apply to insecticide resistance, but clearly not to
bacterial resistance as you say.
> > We know from bacteria thawed from corpses frozen before antibiotics were
> > manufactured by man, and some were already resistant.
>
> Please present the citation. By asking above for my reference, you
> demonstrate awareness of the importance of support for such statements, so
> I am surprised that you neglected to provide the citation for such an
> assertion.
I thought it was widely known and not disputed by evolutionists.
> [definition of evolution]
>
> > > I am also amused that you think "this is natural selection, not
> > > evolution". Evolution is *defined* as change of gene frequency in a
> > > population with time.
> >
> > Well, I must be an evolutionist then! So must all of us at Answers in
> > Genesis.
>
> >>From your surprise,
I'm not surprised. I've written elsewhere about the deceitful equivocation
by evolutionary propagandists. They provide examples of minor changes,
then claim that this makes the case for goo-to-you evolution and against
creation!
> I assume that you've never read an undergrad level
> textbook in biology, since this is a standard definition.
I have read them, but see no point in arguing something which no-one
disputes. My dispute was with the 'General Theory of Evolution', defined
by Prof. G.A. Kerkut of Southampton Uni as the theory that all living
things came from a single cell which came from an inorganic source -- in
his book Implications of Evolution. So I'm not using a made-up creationist
definition but a reasonable one from an evolutionist who distinguishes the
General Theory from the what you have defined, which ha calls the 'special
theory'.
> > I agree that the gene frequency has changed with time, but big whoop --
> > no-one disputes this. But you apply the Pernicious Principle of
> > Extravagant Extrapolation when you claim that this has anything to do
> >with particles-to-people evolution.
> How so?
Pretty obvious, I would have thought. It's like the difference between 'a
cow can jump' and 'a cow can jump over the moon'. The first doesn't
entail the second, and minor changes in beak size, moth coloration etc
don't show that they came from a single cell.
> Firstly "particles-to-people evolution" is a contradiction. Evolutionary
> theory addresses the ways in which reproducing systems change in time
> through interaction with their environment. Particles don't reproduce in
> this sense.
You are too narrow. You are thinking only of 'organic evolution'.
> You are trying to slip through the classic creationist ploy of
> lumping abiogenesis and biological evolution into the same subject heading
> (doubtless you'd include cosmology and the Big Bang in there as well).
Creationist ploy?! You should tell that to Kerkut. Abiogensis is
commonly called 'chemical evolution' or 'prebiotic evolution', and is
discussed in Dawkins' works and many other evolutionist texts. And it's
the evolutionists who lump them together when the resort to natural
selection to explain the origin of life -- of course, until there are
self-reproducing entities, natural selection (differential reproduction) is
impossible.
'Cosmic evolution' and 'stellar evolution' are common terms as well.
> Secondly, if you accept changes of gene frequency in a population you
> therefore have to either accept the whole package of Darwinian evolution,
> or you have to describe the discontinuity of the system and provide a
reason
> for such changes not to accumulate into speciation...
Who said I doubted speciation? I've made it clear that speciation is an
important part of the creation model. No, it's you who must prove that
jumping cows are moon-jumping cows.
> ["evolution must be anti-bible because Dawkins is an atheist"]
>
> > > He is indeed an atheist, I beleive, but that has precisely *nothing*
> >> to do with his practise of science.
> >
> > Have you *read* him? See below.
>
> I've read him and indeed spoken with him.
> The fact remains that no matter his personal opinions, when he does
> science he has to follow the rules of science, which are designed to
divorce the
> personal preferences of the scientist from their work.
Doesn't stop him from using his evolutionary theories to pontificate in
favour of atheism. The self-serving atheistic 'rules' of scientism help
him so much.
> > Sez U -- coming from one who thinks that denial of the Resurrection is
> > not anti- christian, this assurance isnt worth much.
>
> I didnt give my opinion on it, merely stated that someone who is acepted
> by the Church of England as a senior religious leader thought it wasn't.
But with evident approval. So it's impossible to take your statements
about Christianity seriously.
> And why don't you address the point. If the religious views of a dentist
> don't invalidate dentistry, why should the religious views of a biologist
> invalidate evolution?
Since evolution, according to Dawkins, directly makes it possible to be an
intellectually fulfilled atheist, and because Gould pointed out that Darwin
was specifically trying to counter the theory of divine creation.
> You still havent addressed the point.
I made it clear. The operations of something do not explain its origin,
which may be the resault of intelligent design.
> That is mildly amusing and deeply disturbing by turns. That such cracked
> reasoning should be influencing the activities of an organisation that
> seeks to sway childrens education and aspects of politics... scary.
Huh -- coming from a fan of Dawkins who overtly promotes atheism in his
capacity as a science educator, that's rich.
> > > ... and if the pope stumbles over a piece of liturgy (as he has in the
> > > past), does that mean that the entire edifice of christianity totters?
> >
> > I am a Protestant, so who cares what the Pope stumbles over.
>
> Dawkins is just one among tens of thousands of evolutionary biologists, so
> who cares what *he* stumbles over?
The difference is that he is widely regarded as an authority by
atheistic/agnostic skeptics, while the Pope is not an authority for
protestants.
> You can't have it both ways: either the failure of one is the dismissal of
> the entire field, or it is simply a human failing.
>
> > If you can't explain the origin of information without intelligence,
> > evolution (from goo to you via the zoo) is dead.
>
> The published research of the field can. *Dawkins* can. In one
> off-the-cuff answer to a supposedly off-camera question, he didn't answer.
And he still hasn't given any experimental evidence!
> > > Be careful about "casting the first stone". You think creationists are
> > > innocent of smear campaigns?
> >
> > Yep.
>
> Amazing.
You are easily amazed.
> > > When a few paragraphs above *you* emphasise
> > > Dawkin's atheism as if it might have some bearing on the theory he is
> > > one> among many proponents of?
> >
> > Yes, because he flaunts his theories precisely to explain the design in
> > living things without God. He is very open about his atheistic
> > apologetics.
What are you, an expert on biblical archaeology now? The Bible is a
historical record!
> > > On the timescale we have available to us, we see patterns that are
> > > consistent with and predicted by the theory that proposes precisely
> the
> > > larger changes over larger timescales that you find so objectionable.
> >
> > Nonsense. The observed changes are information losing or sorting, not
> > gaining.
>
> Not nonsense. Observed fact. What is natural selection if it isnt
> "information sorting"?
Yes, sorting out what is already there, but removing some information.
> > > On the records we *do* have that address the larger timescale, the
> fossil record
> > > and gene sequence information, we also see exactly what the theory
> > > predicts, worldwide, no exceptions yet found.
> >
> > Pure assertion.
>
> In support of my "assertion", I refer the reader to *the entire body of
> modern biology*. I would provide full citations, but I think I might die
before I
> could type them all in, since I'm in my late 20's already.
Yes, another smokescreen. Most branches of modern biology were founded by
creationists like Ray, Linnaeus and Pasteur.
> Perhaps you could save time by citing just one exception that is widely
> accepted as being inexplicable by any variant of evolutionary theory.
>
> > Exceptions are explained away readily. When proteins from camels and
> > sharks match, for example, it is explained by 'convergence'. When
> fossils
> > are out of order, it is 'reworking of strata' or 'intrusions' for
> example.
>
> Am I to understand that you deny convergance is possible? That strata
> undergo subsequent deformations?
I meant, contrary evidence is readily explained away.
> > No, the sequence was 'If there is an answer to such an obvious question,
> then the world's leading evolutionary propagandist
> > should know. The world's leading evolutionary propagandist doesn't know
Anyway, we will let viewers judge for themselves. Most of them would have
seen Dawkins' rationalizations.
> Let's try this one:
>
> "AIG is a leading creationist organisation. If one of its representatives
> makes a trivial mistake about bacterial genetics, the organisations
> commentaries on biology should be ignored".
Of course, when a chemist not acting in official capacity
makes a slip in bacteriology in an informal
setting, it hardly proves much -- not nearly as much as the world's
leading atheistic apologist for evolution failing to answer a key question
about his theory. The staff scientists who have Ph.D.s in molecular
biology and plant physiology respectively would have picked that up the
bacteriological slip during editing of any formal publications (even I with
my nonexpert knowledge of the subject might have picked it up on a second
reading).
> c) that expertise in a field guarantees perfect memory, immunity from
> anger at being tricked into a creationist propaganda film etc.
Talk about accepting Dawkins' rationalizations after the event.
> > > > Darwin predicted innumerable transitional forms. However, there are
> > > > only a handful of disputable examples.
> > Falsified prediction is definitely an example of denying the consequent.
> Hurrah. But its not the statement you *said* was an example,
I rephrased it more formally, and it was fine.
> > > Even were this ridiculous claim true (there are vast swathes of
> > > transitional forms accepted by a massive consensus of biologists),
> >
> > Pure assertion.
>
> See the T.O. FAQ for long lists of examples.
Why should I trust them? The True Origins archive is much better.
>
> > > the flip side of the coin is that creationism ought to predict that
> there shouldn't be *any*
> > > transitional forms *at all*, right?
> > Exactly.
> > All we find are series which are nothing more than reproducible
variation
> > within a kind, or 'curious mosaics' like Archaeopteryx and
Ornithorhyncus
> > (playtpus) which have a mixture of traits, none of which are
> > transitional.
>
> My turn to say "pure assertion". The consensus of those studying the field
> is that these *are* transitional forms.
I doubt that anyone says that the Platypus is a link between reptiles,
birds and mammals! The fact remains, Archaeopteryx was a perching bird
with assymmetric flight feathers. We have yet to find a form with
structures that are half-scale/half feather, and others with
20%scale/80%feather etc.
> > > Please state a falsifiable theory of creationism, that can - among
> other> things - incorporate a "handful of examples" of transitional forms.
> >
> > The biblical creationist model teaches that God created distinct kinds
> of organisms with immense genetic variability so they could adapt to a
wide
> > range of environments.
>
> No don't tell me what the model "teaches", tell me what the model actually
> *is*. The english language is a wonderfully versatile tool. I feel sure
> you can express it accurately and succinctly in a falsifiable form.
I've just told you what the model is. I also pointed out that genuinely
transitional structures would probably falsify it. Why the Popperianism
anyway?
> > Some so-called transitional forms, e.g. many of the
> > vairieties of horses in the fossil record, or the herring/lesser
> black-backed gull, are merely variants within a kind.
>
> Your description of the model will need to explain how variations are kept
> within a kind
The genetic system is wonderful at conserving variation to limits.
Experiments by breeders support a limits to variation. No,you need to show
one kind changing into another, not just producing more and more mutant
Drosophila,
> and what defines a kind: what criteria would you use to
> assign a newly discovered organism into one kind or another?
If an organism can hybridise with another, then it is likely part of the
same kind. Certainly if they can interbreed they are the same kind, even
the same 'biological species' even if they are classified as different
genera. Marsh had a criterion of ability to produce a zygote as evidence
that thery were part of the same kind. Also, if the differences between
the organisms can be achieved by selectively breeding either them or a
third organism, they are likely part of a kind. E.g. breeding from
suitable dog would eventually produce the size ranges of a Chihuahua and
Great Dane, and these two can interbreed (articficially!).
The kind would have been a biological species when created, but now the
descendants in most cases would be several species within a genus or even a
family. Dr Siegfried Scherer of Munich University has probably done the
most work on 'basic types'.
With fossil species it is clearly more subjective.
Jonathan Sarfati
wf...@enter.netxx
>
>I'm not surprised. I've written elsewhere about the deceitful equivocation
>by evolutionary propagandists. They provide examples of minor changes,
>then claim that this makes the case for goo-to-you evolution and against
>creation!
<chuckle> dont read much do you? since creationism is a cultural
belief of the american right wing, most evolutionists dont
'propagandize' evolution since there is no need to do so.
>
>Who said I doubted speciation? I've made it clear that speciation is an
>important part of the creation model. No, it's you who must prove that
>jumping cows are moon-jumping cows.
ah, so evolution happens, except when it doesnt.
interesting.
of course you've never told us where we can see creation. you just
admitted evolution is a fact.
where may we see creation?
>>
>> Dawkins is just one among tens of thousands of evolutionary biologists, so
>> who cares what *he* stumbles over?
>
>The difference is that he is widely regarded as an authority by
>atheistic/agnostic skeptics, while the Pope is not an authority for
>protestants.
meaningless. he is an evolutionary biologist, not a theologian. while
his work on biology is respected, his work on philosophy depends on
the eye of the beholder, so to speak
thats one major difference between scientists and creationists.
scientists dont have a central scripture or authority like a pope or a
bible. creationists cant 'think outside the box' so conceptualize
science in religious terms like 'he is regarded as an authority by
atheist/agnostic'....etc.
>
>
>Yes, another smokescreen. Most branches of modern biology were founded by
>creationists like Ray, Linnaeus and Pasteur.
gee so science hasnt made any progress in the 300 yrs or so these
folks lived?
yeah, that ties in with the above view of creationists about how
religion is science. religion, to creationists, doesnt change. once
you've got an answer, thats it. science changes depending on the
evidence.
thats why creationists are confused
>
>I doubt that anyone says that the Platypus is a link between reptiles,
>birds and mammals! The fact remains, Archaeopteryx was a perching bird
>with assymmetric flight feathers. We have yet to find a form with
>structures that are half-scale/half feather, and others with
>20%scale/80%feather etc.
we do, however, find dinosaurs with feathers, and with NO other avian
features...caudipteryx is one such animal as is protoarcheopteryx.
thus transitionals exist
>
>The genetic system is wonderful at conserving variation to limits.
>Experiments by breeders support a limits to variation. No,you need to show
>one kind changing into another, not just producing more and more mutant
>Drosophila,
meaningless. according to this definition, humans and chimps are the
same 'kind'.
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
The Overselling of Whale Evolution
http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/whales.htm
This is the only response Camp will be providing concerning the matter.
---
In article <19981230023754...@ng109.aol.com>,
bigd...@aol.comnospam (Bigdakine) wrote:
>I looked this over.... briefly. Clearly a graduate of the Duane Gish
>school of transitional forms. If you don't have all the gaps filled,
>then you can't claim common descent.
In my opinion, this contemptuous dismissal is not a fair characterization
of the article, but others can judge that for themselves. The purpose of
the article was to suggest that the fossil evidence for the alleged
mesonychid-to-whale transition could not bear the weight being placed on it
in the popular literature (e.g., the claim that "the evolutionary case is
now closed"). To that end, I first corrected the misimpression that
mesonychids were considered to be actual ancestors of archaeocetes.
Though acknowledging that the creatures popularly portrayed as a lineage
"almost assuredly" are not, my critic considers this a trivial matter
because he believes the case for common descent can still be made
from non-lineal fossils. If the case can be made from non-lineal fossils,
then let it be made on that basis. Do not string together cartoons of
creatures designed to give the impression that they are in fact lineal
descendants. It is, of course, more difficult to make the case for
evolutionary descent from fossils that are too derived to qualify as actual
ancestors, as one can only point to a hypothetical ancestor and plead the
vagaries of fossilization, and I believe this is precisely why the matter
was glossed over.
The speculative nature of the claim of mesonychid ancestry was shown by
pointing out the very general nature of the similarities on which it was
based. Indeed, this word of caution has recently been proven sound.
Current thinking is that archaeocetes arose from artiodactyls, not
mesonychids. (There are, however, admitted morphological problems with
that theory, not to mention the fact Artiodactyla dates only from the Lower
Eocene.) What more proof does one need that prior claims about mesonychids
had been oversold?
Regarding archaeocetes, I argued that the portrayal of certain recently
discovered (relatively) archaeocetes as forming a series of stratomorphic
intermediates was questionable. This is noteworthy because it is this
arrangement that provides the impression of directional transformation
through time. (I focused on those particular creatures that were being
cited at the time as proof of the mesonychid-to-whale scenario. The
article does not purport to be an exhaustive survey of cetacean evolution.)
Again, recent finds indicate that the oldest archaeocetes were already
marine, a fact that further complicates the neat story put out for public
consumption.
The point about the allegation that archaeocetes gave rise to modern
cetaceans is simply that this is more a matter of assertion than evidence.
My critic mocks my use of Simpson's quote, suggesting it has been rendered
irrelevant by subsequent discoveries, but that is not the case.
Archaeocetes as a group were known long before 1945, so Simpson was
familiar with their features. It is with that knowledge that he opined
that they did not give rise to modern forms. He didn't say the data was
insufficient to permit a conclusion; he said, essentially, that you cannot
get to modern cetaceans from archaeocete features. And as I point out,
that was the consensus opinion until relatively recently (and there is
continuing doubt about the matter). I submit that opinions changed
regarding the acceptability of archaeocetes as ancestors for modern
cetaceans when people started to believe that no better candidate would be
found. Only then did archaeocetes start to look better as potential
ancestral stock.
So, in my view, the article raised legitimate questions about the
overselling of whale evolution in the popular press. This is not a "straw
man" because those articles did argue for mesonychid ancestry, did give the
impression of a lineage, did argue that archaeocetes are stratomorphic
intermediates, and did brush over the difficulties in getting from
archaeocetes to modern cetaceans. Clarifying these matters may strike some
as trivial, but I don't share that view.
I certainly do not claim to have rendered belief in whale evolution
irrational. The article was simply my attempt to raise some facts that
were being overlooked in the storm of publicity, facts that I thought would
help people to understand the actual state of the question.
As for the concept of "transitional forms" in general, the term originally
meant a creature that was part of the evolutionary transition from species
A to species D, so it was necessarily tied to lineage. When evolutionists
came up empty on that score, they changed the definition. (This shift was
still in process in 1984 when Cracraft wrote, "Part of the confusion
apparent *in the scientific literature* . . . I suggest, stems from the
definition of 'transitional form.') They now claim as a "transitional
form" any creature that is stratigraphically and morphologically between
any two taxa, without any regard for whether the particular species
represent a lineage. (And they sometimes take creatures that are NOT
stratigraphically intermediate and simply assume they must have been.)
This is a useful PR strategy for evolutionists because whenever John Q.
Public hears "transitional form," he still thinks "lineage."
Ashby Camp
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
> >I'm not surprised. I've written elsewhere about the deceitful equivocation
> >by evolutionary propagandists. They provide examples of minor changes,
> >then claim that this makes the case for goo-to-you evolution and against
> >creation!
>
> belief of the american right wing, most evolutionists dont
> 'propagandize' evolution since there is no need to do so.
>
> >Who said I doubted speciation? I've made it clear that speciation is an
> >important part of the creation model. No, it's you who must prove that
> >jumping cows are moon-jumping cows.
>
>
> interesting.
One must be careful to distinguish macroevolution from microevolution.
Macroevolution has never been observed. In 1980, a meeting of several of the
world's leading Darwinists discussed "whether the mechanisms underlying
microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of
macroevolution." The answer was "a clear No".[Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary
Theory Under Fire," Science, vol. 210, no. 4472, Nov. 21, 1980, p. 883]
Creationists contend that microevolution is just variation within the created
kind or "baramin".
Has evolution really been observed?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=508&Count=true
---
David Buckna
wf...@enter.netxx
>In article <368bdd86...@news3.enter.net>,
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>> On 31 Dec 1998 14:23:58 -0500, jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> (Jonathan Sarfati)
>> >I'm not surprised. I've written elsewhere about the deceitful equivocation
>> >by evolutionary propagandists. They provide examples of minor changes,
>> >then claim that this makes the case for goo-to-you evolution and against
>> >creation!
>>
>> <chuckle> dont read much do you? since creationism is a cultural
>> belief of the american right wing, most evolutionists dont
>> 'propagandize' evolution since there is no need to do so.
>>
>> > (Jonathan Sarfati)
>> >Who said I doubted speciation? I've made it clear that speciation is an
>> >important part of the creation model. No, it's you who must prove that
>> >jumping cows are moon-jumping cows.
>>
>> ah, so evolution happens, except when it doesnt.
>>
>> interesting.
>
>One must be careful to distinguish macroevolution from microevolution.
there is no difference
>
>Macroevolution has never been observed. In 1980, a meeting of several of the
>world's leading Darwinists discussed "whether the mechanisms underlying
>microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of
>macroevolution." The answer was "a clear No".[Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary
>Theory Under Fire," Science, vol. 210, no. 4472, Nov. 21, 1980, p. 883]
wrong. speciation has been observed (j.r. weinberg 'evolution' 1992)
sorry your reference is 2 decades out of date.
>Creationists contend that microevolution is just variation within the created
>kind or "baramin".
>
>Has evolution really been observed?
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=508&Count=true
answers in genesis is not a science webpage, but a page devoted to
christian ministries. not an objective source.
but, thanks to your post we see how creationists distort evidence to
support their religious beliefs.
maff91
>The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
>Genesis (Australia):
>
[creationist crap deleted]
Why don't you tell us why the scientific and business world should
accept the creationist model?
Why should the majority of the Christians and other religionists
accept a fundamentalist cult belief?
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.
Creacionismo scientÃfico: un dogma religioso que combina masiva
ignorancia con increible arrogancia.
Creacionista: (1) Una persona adepta al creacionismo. (2) Una
perosona con el mÃnimo nivel de inteligencia que aún le permite
hacer labores simples (3) Una persona que ni la grama sabe cortar.
(4) Un mentiroso o repartidor de mentiras (5) Una pesona que cree
fácilmente que lo que le cuentan es verdad.
maff91
>In article <368bdd86...@news3.enter.net>,
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>> On 31 Dec 1998 14:23:58 -0500, jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> (Jonathan Sarfati)
>> >I'm not surprised. I've written elsewhere about the deceitful equivocation
>> >by evolutionary propagandists. They provide examples of minor changes,
>> >then claim that this makes the case for goo-to-you evolution and against
>> >creation!
>>
>> <chuckle> dont read much do you? since creationism is a cultural
>> belief of the american right wing, most evolutionists dont
>> 'propagandize' evolution since there is no need to do so.
>>
>> > (Jonathan Sarfati)
>> >Who said I doubted speciation? I've made it clear that speciation is an
>> >important part of the creation model. No, it's you who must prove that
>> >jumping cows are moon-jumping cows.
>>
>> ah, so evolution happens, except when it doesnt.
>>
>> interesting.
>
>One must be careful to distinguish macroevolution from microevolution.
>
>Macroevolution has never been observed. In 1980, a meeting of several of the
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a
population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological
evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from
shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic,
fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also
considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms
that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a
theory. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the Five Major
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof
Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation
occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time,
transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record.
Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. See the
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, the Fossil
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Hominids FAQ and the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fossil-hominids.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. It is true.
See the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe
Speciation has been observed, both in the laboratory and in nature.
See the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ and another FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
listing some more observed speciation events.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Macroevolution FAQ
In evolutionary biology today macroevolution is used to refer to any
evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the
splitting of a species into two or the change of a species over time
into another.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey
This set of articles surveys some of the scientific literature
presenting interesting or unique lines of evidence for evolution.
Cichlid fish, sexual selection, sperm competition, and endosymbiosis
are but a few of the topics discussed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
>world's leading Darwinists discussed "whether the mechanisms underlying
>microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of
>macroevolution." The answer was "a clear No".[Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary
>Theory Under Fire," Science, vol. 210, no. 4472, Nov. 21, 1980, p. 883]
Do you mean that there has been no breakthroughs in evolutionary
biology / paleoanthropology since 1980?
"Principles of Human Evolution" by Roger Lewin - Paperback - 420 pages
(January 1998) Blackwell Science Inc; ISBN: 0865425426
"The Origin of Modern Humans (Scientific American Library)" by Roger
Lewin - Paperback - 204 pages (March 1998) Scientific American
Library; ISBN: 0716760231
"Bones of Contention : Controversies in the Search for Human Origins"
by Roger Lewin - Paperback - 360 pages 2nd edition (June 1997)
University of Chicago Press; ISBN: 0226476510
"In the Age of Mankind : A Smithsonian Book of Human Evolution" by
Roger Lewin - Paperback (October 1989) Smithsonian Institution Press;
ISBN: 0895990253
"Origins Reconsidered : In Search of What Makes Us Human" by Roger
Lewin, Richard E. Leakey - Paperback Rep edition (October 1993)
Anchor; ISBN: 0385467923
"Patterns in Evolution : The New Molecular View" by Roger Lewin -
Hardcover - 246 pages (September 1996) W H Freeman & Co; ISBN:
0716750694
"The Sixth Extinction : Patterns of Life and the Future of Humankind"
by Roger Lewin (Contributor), Richard E. Leakey - Paperback 1 Anchor
edition (November 1996) Anchor Books; ISBN: 0385468091
"Origins : What New Discoveries Reveal About the Emergence of Our
Species and Its Possible Future" by Richard Leakey, Roger Lewin -
Paperback Rep edition (October 1982) E P Dutton; ISBN: 0140153365
"Complexity : Life at the Edge of Chaos" by Roger Lewin - ASIN:
0020147953
>
>Creationists contend that microevolution is just variation within the created
>kind or "baramin".
>
>Has evolution really been observed?
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=508&Count=true
>
>---
>
>David Buckna
So Buckna, you still haven't told us why the scientific and business
world should accept the creationist model?
Why should the majority of the Christian and other religionists accept
a fundamentalist sect belief?
What do you hope to achieve by declaring war on 99% of the world's
population?
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> On 31 Dec 1998 18:31:36 -0500, jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <368bdd86...@news3.enter.net>,
> > wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >> On 31 Dec 1998 14:23:58 -0500, jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >>
> >> (Jonathan Sarfati)
> >> >by evolutionary propagandists. They provide examples of minor changes,
> >> >then claim that this makes the case for goo-to-you evolution and against
> >> >creation!
> >>
> >> belief of the american right wing, most evolutionists dont
> >> 'propagandize' evolution since there is no need to do so.
> >>
> >> > (Jonathan Sarfati)
> >> >important part of the creation model. No, it's you who must prove that
> >> >jumping cows are moon-jumping cows.
> >>
> >>
> >> interesting.
> >
> >One must be careful to distinguish macroevolution from microevolution.
>
>
> >
> >Macroevolution has never been observed. In 1980, a meeting of several of the
> >microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of
> >macroevolution." The answer was "a clear No".[Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary
> >Theory Under Fire," Science, vol. 210, no. 4472, Nov. 21, 1980, p. 883]
>
Hel-lo...Speciation is _not_ an example of macroevolution. As was stated by
Jonathan Sarfati in an earlier post, speciation is an important part of the
creation model.
You say there is no difference between macroevolution and microevolution?
Really. What must the other evolutionists reading this thread think of your
statement?
>sorry your reference is 2 decades out of date.
>
>>Creationists contend that microevolution is just variation within the created
>>kind or "baramin".
>>
>>Has evolution really been observed?
>>http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=508&Count=true
>
>answers in genesis is not a science webpage, but a page devoted to
>christian ministries. not an objective source.
>
>but, thanks to your post we see how creationists distort evidence to
>support their religious beliefs.
Baloney. Thanks to your post we can see how you lack even a basic
understanding of the terms macroevolution and microevolution.
David Buckna
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
Genesis (Australia):
---
In article <368bdd86...@news3.enter.net>,
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >I'm not surprised. I've written elsewhere about the deceitful
equivocation
> >by evolutionary propagandists. They provide examples of minor changes,
> >then claim that this makes the case for goo-to-you evolution and against
> >creation!
>
> <chuckle> dont read much do you? since creationism is a cultural
> belief of the american right wing, most evolutionists dont
> 'propagandize' evolution since there is no need to do so.
I'm neither American nor particularly right wing. And propagandize is
precisely what evolutionists do.
>
> >Who said I doubted speciation? I've made it clear that speciation is an
> >important part of the creation model. No, it's you who must prove that
> >jumping cows are moon-jumping cows.
>
> ah, so evolution happens, except when it doesnt.
More of this deceitful equivocation. At least Kerkut was honest enough to
differentiate the general and special theories of evolution (which I
usually call 'evolution' and 'variation' respectively). He also pointed
out that evidence for the special theory doesn't prove the general theory
-- he said that the evidence for it was not strong enough to consider it as
any more than a 'working hypothesis'.
> of course you've never told us where we can see creation. you just
> admitted evolution is a fact.
>
> where may we see creation?
In the complex design all around us. Haldane said that evolution would be
falsified by finding wheels or magnets in living organisms, as these could
not be built up gradualistically by Darwinian mechanisms. But we now know
that there are wheels (e.g. rotary motors) and magnets in living things!
> thats one major difference between scientists and creationists.
My scientific qualifications are at least as good as yours, buddy, so give
up this ridiculous caricature.
> scientists dont have a central scripture or authority like a pope or a
> bible. creationists cant 'think outside the box' so conceptualize
> science in religious terms like 'he is regarded as an authority by
> atheist/agnostic'....etc.
All scientists have biases --- the question is which bias is the best bias
with which to be biased. Dawkins can't think outside his materialistic box.
> >Yes, another smokescreen. Most branches of modern biology were founded
by
> >creationists like Ray, Linnaeus and Pasteur.
>
> gee so science hasnt made any progress in the 300 yrs or so these
> folks lived?
Umm -- your turn to make a slip -- Pasteur was a contemporary of Darwin.
The point is, the creationist world view was extremely fruitful for
scientific discoveriies. Most of the branches of modern science were
founded by creationists.
> yeah, that ties in with the above view of creationists about how
> religion is science. religion, to creationists, doesnt change. once
> you've got an answer, thats it. science changes depending on the
> evidence.
Rubbish. First, the creation model is different now to what it was 20
years ago. Second, you have repeatedly admitted that you will consider
only materialistic explanations.
> >I doubt that anyone says that the Platypus is a link between reptiles,
> >birds and mammals! The fact remains, Archaeopteryx was a perching bird
> >with assymmetric flight feathers. We have yet to find a form with
> >structures that are half-scale/half feather, and others with
> >20%scale/80%feather etc.
>
> we do, however, find dinosaurs with feathers, and with NO other avian
> features...caudipteryx is one such animal as is protoarcheopteryx.
> thus transitionals exist
Feduccia and Martin believe these were flightless birds, not feathered
dinosaurs. They even had gizzard stones, something theropods lacked.
> >The genetic system is wonderful at conserving variation to limits.
> >Experiments by breeders support a limits to variation. No,you need to
show
> >one kind changing into another, not just producing more and more mutant
> >Drosophila,
>
> meaningless. according to this definition, humans and chimps are the
> same 'kind'.
Ever seen a chimp evolve into a human?
Is there any more point continuing this (and I won't be able to respond
till the 15th anyway?). The bottom line is, you insist on materialistic
explanations for origins, and I don't. And you consider any 'change' as
evidence that all living things came from a single cell.
Dave Horn
<76hte9$78p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <368c102b...@news3.enter.net>,
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>> On 31 Dec 1998 18:31:36 -0500, jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >the deceitful equivocation by evolutionary propagandists.
>> >> >They provide examples of minor changes, then claim
>> >> >that this makes the case for goo-to-you evolution and
>> >> >against creation!
This reads like an ignorant, whining rant to me.
>> >> <chuckle> dont read much do you? since creationism
>> >> is a cultural belief of the american right wing, most
>> >> evolutionists dont 'propagandize' evolution since there is
>> >> no need to do so.
>> >>
>> >> > (Jonathan Sarfati)
>> >> >Who said I doubted speciation? I've made it clear
>> >> >that speciation is an important part of the creation model.
I'd like to see *this* explained...
>> >> >No, it's you who must prove that
>> >> >jumping cows are moon-jumping cows.
Since no one is claiming this, no one is obligated to "prove" it.
>> >> ah, so evolution happens, except when it doesnt.
>> >>
>> >> interesting.
>> >
>> >One must be careful to distinguish macroevolution
>> >from microevolution.
>>
>> there is no difference
>>
>> >
>> >Macroevolution has never been observed. In 1980, a
>> >meeting of several of the world's leading Darwinists
>> >discussed "whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution
>> >can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of
>> >macroevolution." The answer was "a clear No".[Roger
>> >Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," Science, vol. 210,
>> >no. 4472, Nov. 21, 1980, p. 883]
Are you normally in the habit of reading 18 year old issues of _Science_ or
did you derive this "reference" from a creationist book or tract you have
chosen not to cite for some reason?
>> wrong. speciation has been observed (j.r. weinberg
>>'evolution' 1992)
>
>
>Hel-lo...Speciation is _not_ an example of macroevolution.
"Is NOT" does not qualify as a reasonable explanation. The fact is that
you're wrong. Macroevolution is generally defined as evolution at or above
the species level. Check the definition in any first-year college biology
text. Then consider that speciation is (simply put) a news species arising
from a previous species. That's macroevolution. Get over it.
>As was stated by Jonathan Sarfati in an earlier post,
>speciation is an important part of the creation model.
I don't know who "Jonathan Sarfati" is and I don't much care; but if he
accepts macroevolution as properly viewed by science, then he accepts
evolution.
>You say there is no difference between macroevolution
>and microevolution? Really. What must the other evolutionists
>reading this thread think of your statement?
I believe the statement was meant for rhetorical effect, having read
previous and more expository statements of this type from the author. What
*I* am curious about is how you could miss the point -- complete with the
abbreviated reference. Did you bother to look it up?
>>sorry your reference is 2 decades out of date.
>>
>>>Creationists contend that microevolution is just
>>>variation within the created kind or "baramin".
>>>
>>>Has evolution really been observed?
>>>http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=508&Count=true
>>
>>answers in genesis is not a science webpage, but a
>>page devoted to christian ministries. not an objective
>>source.
>>
>>but, thanks to your post we see how creationists distort
>>evidence to support their religious beliefs.
>
>Baloney.
No. He's right.
>Thanks to your post we can see how you lack
>even a basic understanding of the terms macroevolution
>and microevolution.
Feel free to define the terms for us. Go ahead...
wf...@enter.netxx
>In article <368c102b...@news3.enter.net>,
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>> ]
>>
>> wrong. speciation has been observed (j.r. weinberg 'evolution' 1992)
>
>
>Hel-lo...Speciation is _not_ an example of macroevolution. As was stated by
>Jonathan Sarfati in an earlier post, speciation is an important part of the
>creation model.
incorrect. macroevolution is defined as evolution at or above the
level of species. i realize moving the goalposts is part of
creationism...i.e. when evolution is observed creationists say 'yeah,
but'...but 'yeah but' isnt an argument
>
>>answers in genesis is not a science webpage, but a page devoted to
>>christian ministries. not an objective source.
>>
>>but, thanks to your post we see how creationists distort evidence to
>>support their religious beliefs.
>
>
>Baloney. Thanks to your post we can see how you lack even a basic
>understanding of the terms macroevolution and microevolution.
>
>
macroevolution: 'evolution involving whole species or large groups of
organisms'
the american heritage dictionary, 2nd edition.
Wesley R. Elsberry
<jaro...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <368c102b...@news3.enter.net>,
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>> >In article <368bdd86...@news3.enter.net>,
>> > wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>> >> On 31 Dec 1998 14:23:58 -0500, jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[...]
DB>Hel-lo...Speciation is _not_ an example of
DB>macroevolution.
According to the definition actually used by biologists, it
is.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
DB>As was stated by Jonathan Sarfati in an
DB>earlier post, speciation is an important part of the
DB>creation model.
What do the "models" of creationists have to do with whether
or not speciation events are macroevolutionary events? This
is entirely and solely dependent upon how biologists have
defined the term. And that definition shows that speciation
events are macroevolutionary events. Whether some certain
creationists recognize speciation as occurring and incorporate
that into their musings is a complete non sequitur.
DB>You say there is no difference between macroevolution and
DB>microevolution? Really. What must the other evolutionists
DB>reading this thread think of your statement?
There is a difference between macroevolution and
microevolution, but it must be noted that the terms represent
a classification of phenomena. Thus, the difference is in the
criteria by which we recognize whether a phenomenon is in one
category or the other, and not in how a phenomenon came to
have features matching one criterion or the other. The debate
over whether the processes which yield microevolutionary events
are the same processes which yield macroevolutionary events is
orthogonal to this difference.
We can go back to discussing autopolyploidy and what it means
as a process in terms of microevolution or macroevolution if
David would like.
[...]
RJP>but, thanks to your post we see how creationists distort
RJP>evidence to support their religious beliefs.
DB>Baloney. Thanks to your post we can see how you lack even a
DB>basic understanding of the terms macroevolution and
DB>microevolution.
A bit ironic, since David's post shows the same goes for him.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"i am going to start a revolution" - archy
wf...@enter.netxx
>The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
>Genesis (Australia):
>
>---
>
>In article <368bdd86...@news3.enter.net>,
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
>> >I'm not surprised. I've written elsewhere about the deceitful
>equivocation
>> >by evolutionary propagandists. They provide examples of minor changes,
>> >then claim that this makes the case for goo-to-you evolution and against
>> >creation!
>>
>> <chuckle> dont read much do you? since creationism is a cultural
>> belief of the american right wing, most evolutionists dont
>> 'propagandize' evolution since there is no need to do so.
>
>I'm neither American nor particularly right wing. And propagandize is
>precisely what evolutionists do.
really? jewish and moslem evolutionary biologists joining together as
a conspiracy against fundamentalist xtianity...hmmm...perhaps you've
discovered a method to resolve differences in the middle east!!
>>
>> >Who said I doubted speciation? I've made it clear that speciation is an
>> >important part of the creation model. No, it's you who must prove that
>> >jumping cows are moon-jumping cows.
>>
>> ah, so evolution happens, except when it doesnt.
>
>More of this deceitful equivocation. At least Kerkut was honest enough to
>differentiate the general and special theories of evolution (which I
>usually call 'evolution' and 'variation' respectively).
this is called 'moving the goalposts'. creationists admit to evolution
when they cant get out of it. observed macroevolution...like
speciation...is admitted by creationists because they cant toss out
the evidence.
unfortunately for creationists we SEE evolution. we have NEVER ONCE
seen a creation event.
..
>
>> of course you've never told us where we can see creation. you just
>> admitted evolution is a fact.
>>
>> where may we see creation?
>
>In the complex design all around us.
meaningless. thats not a mechanism. its not science. if creation
causes something to happen we should be able to see it happening, just
as you admit we do with evolution.
Haldane said that evolution would be
>falsified by finding wheels or magnets in living organisms, as these could
>not be built up gradualistically by Darwinian mechanisms. But we now know
>that there are wheels (e.g. rotary motors) and magnets in living things!
incorrect. if you can prove they werent formed by evolution you'd have
an argument. the first step would be to answer the question:
where do we see creation happening today? we SEE evolution happening.
we have NEVER seen a creation event.
answer the question.
>
>> thats one major difference between scientists and creationists.
>
>My scientific qualifications are at least as good as yours, buddy, so give
>up this ridiculous caricature.
except, of course you have no objectivity.
>
>> scientists dont have a central scripture or authority like a pope or a
>> bible. creationists cant 'think outside the box' so conceptualize
>> science in religious terms like 'he is regarded as an authority by
>> atheist/agnostic'....etc.
>
>All scientists have biases
thats true. we think scientifically. thats a bias. thats why
astrology, creationism, and other superstitions are not science.
--- the question is which bias is the best bias
>with which to be biased. Dawkins can't think outside his materialistic box.
gee tell us WHICH science 'thinks outside the materialistic box'.
physics? can you cite an example in physics where magic is permitted?
creationists think their religious beliefs are scientific, so they
conceptualize science in religious terms. science is the study of
matter. that creationists think 'non-material' magical events should
be scientific just means they have a biased ideological view of
science.
>
>> >Yes, another smokescreen. Most branches of modern biology were founded
>by
>> >creationists like Ray, Linnaeus and Pasteur.
>>
>> gee so science hasnt made any progress in the 300 yrs or so these
>> folks lived?
>
>Umm -- your turn to make a slip -- Pasteur was a contemporary of Darwin.
<chuckle> contemporaries rarely accept radical new theories.
>
>The point is, the creationist world view was extremely fruitful for
>scientific discoveriies. Most of the branches of modern science were
>founded by creationists.
then why are there no creation scientists in existence today? if there
ARE can you name ONE SINGLE scientific paper published in a peer
reviewed journal which says the earth was 'created' or that evolution
didnt happen?
>
>> yeah, that ties in with the above view of creationists about how
>> religion is science. religion, to creationists, doesnt change. once
>> you've got an answer, thats it. science changes depending on the
>> evidence.
>
>Rubbish. First, the creation model is different now to what it was 20
>years ago. Second, you have repeatedly admitted that you will consider
>only materialistic explanations.
and tell me WHAT SCIENCE...ANY SCIENCE admits to 'non-materialistic'
explanations
what science allows magic?
>
>>
>> we do, however, find dinosaurs with feathers, and with NO other avian
>> features...caudipteryx is one such animal as is protoarcheopteryx.
>> thus transitionals exist
>
>Feduccia and Martin believe these were flightless birds, not feathered
>dinosaurs. They even had gizzard stones, something theropods lacked.
funny that
1. feduccia is not a creationist...he's an evolutionist
2. feduccia has never said caudipteryx is a flightless bird. if he HAS
please point out the reference.
>>
>> meaningless. according to this definition, humans and chimps are the
>> same 'kind'.
>
>Ever seen a chimp evolve into a human?
we have seen speciation...which you admit happens. thus evolution is a
fact
>
>Is there any more point continuing this (and I won't be able to respond
>till the 15th anyway?). The bottom line is, you insist on materialistic
>explanations for origins, and I don't.
and THAT is absolutely correct. EVERY SCIENCE is materialistic, and NO
science is NON-MATERIALISTIC. thus y ou are correct. thats why your
explanations are NOT science as you just admitted
And you consider any 'change' as
>evidence that all living things came from a single cell.
fine. tell us where we can see creation happening today like you admit
evolution does
Ric Carter
>> scientists dont have a central scripture or authority like a pope or
>> a bible. creationists cant 'think outside the box' so conceptualize
>> science in religious terms like 'he is regarded as an authority by
>> atheist/agnostic'....etc.
>
>All scientists have biases --- the question is which bias is the
>best bias with which to be biased. Dawkins can't think outside his
>materialistic box.
No, the question is: which model works best? Does an explanation that
invokes one or more infinitely-complex deities provide more useful
insights than a model comprised of finite material processes? Unless
one can *show* the utility of a deistic model, only a biased and/or
irrational person will *accept* desitic models. Since deities are by
definition unknowable to humans, doesn't acceptance of deistic models
mean that one has given up attempting to explore and understand life,
the universe, reality? Isn't anti-materialism the REAL box?
* r...@sonic.net * http://www.sonic.net/~ric * ICQ# 19633976 *
*
*** SkeptiChat: the official mailing list of the new millennium *
now featuring SkeptiNews: All The News That's Fit To Question
email INFO or SUBSCRIBE SKEPTICHAT to: majo...@lists.sonic.net
Pim van Meurs
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> The point is, the creationist world view was extremely fruitful for
> scientific discoveriies. Most of the branches of modern science were
> founded by creationists.
That was because they managed to separate their beliefs from their science.
Presently we see some misguided souls ignoring science in favour of creation
"science" just because their interpretation of the Word of God tells them so.
> Ever seen a chimp evolve into a human?
Yawn. Ever seen a chimp created ?
>
>
> Is there any more point continuing this (and I won't be able to respond
> till the 15th anyway?). The bottom line is, you insist on materialistic
> explanations for origins, and I don't. And you consider any 'change' as
> evidence that all living things came from a single cell.
>
And you have to deny all evidence.
Pim van Meurs
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> The following is posted on behalf of Ashby Camp, author of
>
> The Overselling of Whale Evolution
> http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/whales.htm
>
> This is the only response Camp will be providing concerning the matter.
>
Of course. Ignorance of science can only hid in obscurity of non-confront.
Pim van Meurs
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <368c102b...@news3.enter.net>,
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> > wrong. speciation has been observed (j.r. weinberg 'evolution' 1992)
>
> Hel-lo...Speciation is _not_ an example of macroevolution. As was stated by
> Jonathan Sarfati in an earlier post, speciation is an important part of the
> creation model.
>
Ignorance of fact is not an excuse.
> You say there is no difference between macroevolution and microevolution?
> Really. What must the other evolutionists reading this thread think of your
> statement?
That he is likely to be correct.
> Baloney. Thanks to your post we can see how you lack even a basic
> understanding of the terms macroevolution and microevolution.
>
ROTFL. Don't project ... The irony is killingme
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
Genesis (Australia):
---
In article <19981228155108...@ng110.aol.com>,
bigd...@aol.comnospam (Bigdakine) wrote:
> >Exactly. There should be no series demonstratingstructures that are 90%
> >scale:10% feather, then 80% scale:20% feather .... 10% scale:90 feather.
All
> >we find are series which are nothing more than reproducible variation
within
> >a kind, or 'curious mosaics' like Archaeopteryx and Ornithorhyncus
(playtpus)
> >which have a mixture of traits, none of which are transitional.
> >
> >> Please state a falsifiable theory of creationism, that can - among
other
> >> things - incorporate a "handful of examples" of transitional forms.
> >
> >The biblical creationist model teaches that God created distinct kinds of
> >organisms with immense genetic variability so they could adapt to a wide
> >range of environments. Some so-called transitional forms, e.g. many of
> the
> >vairieties of horses in the fossil record
> > or the herring/lesser black-backed
> >gull, are merely variants within a kind.
>
> First define "kind". This what I mean by definition, Species - A
population of
> organisms which can breed with each other but are reproductively isolated
from
> other populations (aka BSC).
You do realise that there are other definitions of the term 'species'?
Also, do you realise that many organisms which are classified as different
'species' and even different 'genera' are actually the same species by that
definition.
> Give a similar definition of kind. Don't give
> examples..., a definition. Thanx..
A biblical 'kind' is a set of all organisms descended from a common
ancestor which was created during Creation Week, and are reproductively
isolated from organisms of all other 'kinds'.
> Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
> Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
> "To err is human, but to realy foul things up
> requires a creationist"
To foul things up good and proper really requires evolutionists to apply
their own philosophy of trying to make things by time and random processes.
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
Genesis (Australia):
---
In article <768gn8$hud$2...@garfield.vcn.bc.ca>,
ske...@efn.org (Mark O'Leary) wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Lee Spetner discusses antibiotic resistance in his book, "Not By
> Chance!",
> > as well as some other examples of mutations.
>
> I havent a copy of this book, but I'd like to comment on the quoted
> passage.
>
> > All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
> > out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.
>
> Patently untrue. For a start, since the genetic code is redundant, a
> significant proportion of point mutations have absolutely *no* effect on
> the amino acid constitution of the encoded protein. How can this be said
to be
> a "reduction" in genetic information?
I actually discuss neutral mutations in my critique of Dawkins' 'Climbing
Mt. Improbable' -- see the True Origins archive. For brevity, as Dawkins
does himself in 'The Blind Watchmaker', I was concentrating on mutations
that make a difference.
> Secondly, genetic change is simply that, change. Any assignment of loss or
> gain of information is a subjective judgement, and is context dependant.
> For example, if an enzyme becomes more specific to a single substrate, one
> researcher might say it has *lost* its "generalist" capabilities, whilst
> another might say it has *gained* in specificity: it often boils down to a
> matter of perspective (and, sadly, bias in some cases...)
This is word magic. Enzymes are catalysts, i.e. they speed up a reaction
in the direction is would go anyway. The advantage of enzymes, as well as
their efficiency, is their specificity. Spetner justifiably says that loss
of specificity is loss of information.
Are we going to return to such nonsensical ideas that an organism gains
information for wingless or blindness?
>
> A general note on the text, a lot of which is snipped for brevity. The
> most recent reference quoted was 1981, but the vast majority of those
quoted
> were in the early 70s. Molecular biology is an incredibly fast-moving
subject,
> and the "state of the art" in the 70's is primitive compared to the
> knowledge and techniques available today.
Indeed it is. We know that the design is even more fantastic than we
thought 20-30 years ago.
> Twenty years on from this paper, drug companies today are producing
> antibiotics by massive screening programmes of artificially manufactured
> chemicals never before seen in nature, and by molecular design techniques.
> And yet, we still see resistance against these entirely novel biocides.
> How can these forms of resistance have arisen, if not via mutational
events?
By creation. Oh, I keep forgetting -- materialistic/atheistic bigotry
won't let you consider such an explanation, so there's no point trying to
confuse you with the facts.
>
> One might also ask in passing how the resistance against the naturally
> occuring antibiotics cited came about in the first place.
>
> > Bacteria that are not resistant can become resistant through infection
> by a
> > virus that carries the gene for resistance. The virus may have picked up
> > the gene from a naturally resistant bacterium. Also, bacteria can be
> > deliberately made resistant by artificially introducing into their DNA
> the
> > gene encoding the enzyme. Scientists today can transfer sections of DNA
> > from one organism to another.
>
> All true.
>
> > The gaining of antibiotic resistance in this
> > way is not an example of how evolution might add information. The genome
> >of the bacterium that acquired the resistance does indeed gain
information.
> > But there is no gain for life as a whole. The resistant gene already
> > existed in some other bacterium or virus.
>
> Since when has evolution been considered as a change of "life as a
> whole"?!
>
> If an antibiotic gene enters a bacterial population, then that populations
> has evolved, as per the definition of evolution as used by scientists (as
> opposed to creationists).
Again, more blatantly dishonest word magic (and again, given the lack of
moral foundation in an evolutionary world view, why should we be
surprised?). There are plenty of creationists who have advanced science
degrees and perform scientific research, so are scientists by any
reasonable definition free from atheistic bigotry.
Of course, no-one disputes that organisms change over time. But
creationists reasonably dispute whether observed changes can be
exrtapolated to goo-to-you evolution. Acquiring the information for
resistance from another organism obviously doesn't prove that the
information arose by mutations and selection.
> The lost performance is compensated for by the fact that the host *isn't
> dead*. When a driver slows down on icy roads, are they showing a lack of
> information by not travelling flat out, or are they displaying *more*
> information through their caution?
No-one disputes that some mutations are *beneficial*. Creationists deny
that such beneficial mutations have anything to do with particles-to-people
evolution.
wf...@enter.netxx
>
>This is word magic. Enzymes are catalysts, i.e. they speed up a reaction
>in the direction is would go anyway. The advantage of enzymes, as well as
>their efficiency, is their specificity. Spetner justifiably says that loss
>of specificity is loss of information.
and CHANGE of specificity is?
>
>
>Indeed it is. We know that the design is even more fantastic than we
>thought 20-30 years ago.
>
except, of course, designers are no closer to any remotely scientific
approach to design than they were 20 yrs ago...or 200 yrs ago when it
was first proposed
>
>By creation. Oh, I keep forgetting -- materialistic/atheistic bigotry
>won't let you consider such an explanation, so there's no point trying to
>confuse you with the facts.
so all the world's scientists are atheists because we all accept
evolution?
interesting.
>>
>>
>> If an antibiotic gene enters a bacterial population, then that populations
>> has evolved, as per the definition of evolution as used by scientists (as
>> opposed to creationists).
>
>Again, more blatantly dishonest word magic (and again, given the lack of
>moral foundation in an evolutionary world view, why should we be
>surprised?). There are plenty of creationists who have advanced science
>degrees and perform scientific research, so are scientists by any
>reasonable definition free from atheistic bigotry.
really? please name us, please ONE reference from ANY peer reviewed
journal ANYWHERE in the world that says creation is science or that
evolution DIDNT happen
the only problem with 'creation science' is creation scientists. they
are totally silent about any science connected with it.
>
>Of course, no-one disputes that organisms change over time. But
>creationists reasonably dispute whether observed changes can be
>exrtapolated to goo-to-you evolution.
and their mechanism is? oh....i forgot...magic
yes, i can see how 'abracadabra' is science to fundamentalists
>
>No-one disputes that some mutations are *beneficial*. Creationists deny
>that such beneficial mutations have anything to do with particles-to-people
>evolution.
>
yes i know. creationists deny science ALTOGETHER because they have NO
science to speak of so think science doesnt exist.
Matt Silberstein
>The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
>Genesis (Australia):
>
>---
[snip]
>A biblical 'kind' is a set of all organisms descended from a common
>ancestor which was created during Creation Week, and are reproductively
>isolated from organisms of all other 'kinds'.
>
How would we determine which creation week ancestor a particular
organism descends from? If go by reproductive isolation, then (almost)
all modern biologically identified species are distinct kinds. But we
know that there are cases where multiple modern species have an
ancestor population in common. This suggests that your definition of
kind does represent any real-world category.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information,
which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to
keep a man in everlasting ignorance, that principle is contempt
prior to investigation."
Herbert Spencer
Pim van Meurs
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Secondly, genetic change is simply that, change. Any assignment of loss or
> > gain of information is a subjective judgement, and is context dependant.
> > For example, if an enzyme becomes more specific to a single substrate, one
> > researcher might say it has *lost* its "generalist" capabilities, whilst
> > another might say it has *gained* in specificity: it often boils down to a
> > matter of perspective (and, sadly, bias in some cases...)
>
> This is word magic. Enzymes are catalysts, i.e. they speed up a reaction
> in the direction is would go anyway. The advantage of enzymes, as well as
> their efficiency, is their specificity. Spetner justifiably says that loss
> of specificity is loss of information.
>
Other than that he does not justify it.
> Are we going to return to such nonsensical ideas that an organism gains
> information for wingless or blindness?
Are we going to continue with the nonsensical idea of loss of information when
such has not been quantified ?
>
> Indeed it is. We know that the design is even more fantastic than we
> thought 20-30 years ago.
>
Fantasy is the right word to describe design
>
> By creation. Oh, I keep forgetting -- materialistic/atheistic bigotry
> won't let you consider such an explanation, so there's no point trying to
> confuse you with the facts.
What facts...
> Again, more blatantly dishonest word magic (and again, given the lack of
> moral foundation in an evolutionary world view, why should we be
> surprised?). There are plenty of creationists who have advanced science
Ad hominem....
> degrees and perform scientific research, so are scientists by any
> reasonable definition free from atheistic bigotry.
TOo bad that few do creation "science".
>
mel turner
>> >> ah, so evolution happens, except when it doesnt.
>> >One must be careful to distinguish macroevolution from microevolution.
Can you do so at all "carefully"? Seems unlikely.
>> there is no difference
>> >Macroevolution has never been observed.
Falsehood. Sure it has. You must be using a creationists' "definition" of
macroevolution, something like: "evolution of bigger changes than I will
admit occurs".
>> >In 1980, a meeting of several of the
>> >world's leading Darwinists discussed "whether the mechanisms underlying
>> >microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of
>> >macroevolution." The answer was "a clear No".[Roger Lewin,
"Evolutionary
>> >Theory Under Fire," Science, vol. 210, no. 4472, Nov. 21, 1980, p. 883]
Typical misleading quote-mining. So they evidently feel that
speciation-level-and-above evolutionary mechanisms don't reduce entirely to
within-single-population ones. Big deal. I'd agree. That doesn't imply that
they think macroevolutionary processes are unobservable or inexplicable,
nor does it support your false claim that "macroevolution has never been
observed".
>> wrong. speciation has been observed (j.r. weinberg 'evolution' 1992)
>
>Hel-lo...Speciation is _not_ an example of macroevolution.
Hello, yourself. Yes, speciation is macroevolution. By the definition of
macroevolution. <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html>
>As was stated by
>Jonathan Sarfati in an earlier post, speciation is an important part of
>the creation model.
Well then it seems _macroevolution_ is an important part of those
particular creationist "models".
There are indeed creationists who've tried to deny speciation occurs.
>You say there is no difference between macroevolution and microevolution?
>Really. What must the other evolutionists reading this thread think of
>your statement?
A slight oversimplification [shrug]. Microevolution simply means
evolutionary change within one species; macroevolution is any evolutionary
changes above that within-species level. Speciation is indeed
macroevolution, but macroevolution is also commonly used to refer to the
long-term evolutionary trends within a group [seen as the result of
continued speciations and extinctions over time]. This big-picture view of
macroevolution is to "accumulated microevolution, plus speciation"
precisely as "history" is to "the news".
>>sorry your reference is 2 decades out of date.
>>
>>>Creationists contend that microevolution is just variation within the
>>>createdkind or "baramin".
That's not the biological definition of microevolution. You don't get to
make up new defintions for established scientific terms [well, I guess you
can if you want to, but you'd be deservedly ignored...]
Can creationists tell us what objective criteria to use to scientifically
identify "kinds" and provide evidence for their existence and discrete
boundaries? Didn't think so.
[snip]
>Baloney. Thanks to your post we can see how you lack even a basic
>understanding of the terms macroevolution and microevolution.
Ironic. Pot-kettle-black.
cheers
mel turner
wrote...
>The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
>Genesis (Australia):
[snip]
>I'm not surprised. I've written elsewhere about the deceitful equivocation
>by evolutionary propagandists. They provide examples of minor changes,
>then claim that this makes the case for goo-to-you evolution and against
>creation!
The "goo" part is abiogenesis, not part of biological evolution which deals
with changes in existing life. Yes, there would be a major "prebiotic
evolution" component to abiogenesis after the first self replicating
molecules appeared, but it's still a separate scientific issue from the
evolutionary common descent of extant life. However the first life got
here, there's abundant evidence it's evolved ever since. All the steps
along the way would be "minor changes", but the cumulative results are
major ones..
[snip]
>> > All we find are series which are nothing more than reproducible
>> > variation within a kind,
Ah, the old "variation within a kind" business. What are objective
criteria for recognizing "kinds" and their limits?
>> > or 'curious mosaics' like Archaeopteryx andOrnithorhyncus
>> > (playtpus) which have a mixture of traits, none of which are
>> > transitional.
Nonsense. Evolutionary intermediates are expected to show mixtures of
traits. And these do show important primitive and intermediate character
states, not just a "mixture" of advanced ones.
>> My turn to say "pure assertion". The consensus of those studying the
field
>> is that these *are* transitional forms.
>
>I doubt that anyone says that the Platypus is a link between reptiles,
>birds and mammals!
Platypuses, although specialized in their own ways, are indeed on a basal
branch of the mammals that retains several important primitive traits for
the group, so in those specific characteristics they are indeed
"transitional intermediates" between the other mammals and early amniotes
["reptiles"]. There are no genuine similarities shared uniquely with
birds. That rubbery "bill" is nothing like a bird's beak.
>The fact remains, Archaeopteryx was a perching bird
>with assymmetric flight feathers.
Wrong. Archy is at least as much "a small reptile with feathers" as it is a
"bird with a reptile's skeleton". It is clearly an intermediate between
later birds and other archosaurian reptiles. No, it isn't a "perching bird"
[Passeriformes], although perhaps it may have been able to perch. Why is
that issue and the asymmety of the feathers at all significant to you?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.htm
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/jdp.htm
http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~tkeese1/dinosaur/taxa/avialae.htm
http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~tkeese1/dinosaur/genera/archaeop.htm
Chen, P., Z. Dong, & S. Zhen. 1998. An exceptionally well-preserved
theropod dinosaur from the Yixian Formation of China. Nature 391 [8
Jan. 1998]:147-152.
Chatterjee, Sankar. 1997. The rise of birds: 225 million years of
evolution. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Padian, K. & L. M. Chiappe. 1998. The origin of birds and their
flight. Scientific American 278[2]: 38-47 [Feb. 1998].
Padian, K. & L. M. Chiappe. 1998. The origin and early evolution of
birds. Biological Reviews 73: 1-42.
Shipman, Pat, Taking wing: Archaeopteryx and the evolution of bird
flight. New York: Simon & Schuster, c1998.
International Archaeopteryx Conference (1984: Eichstatt, Germany). The
beginnings of birds: proceedings of the International Archaeopteryx
Conference, Eichstatt, 1984. Eichstatt: Freunde des Jura-Museums Eichstatt,
1985.
Feduccia, Alan 1996. The origin and evolution of birds. New Haven : Yale
University Press.
>We have yet to find a form with
>structures that are half-scale/half feather, and others with
>20%scale/80%feather etc.
Look at a living bird's legs for some intermediates.
As though we don't now have other dinos with odd feather/scales.
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/feathers.html
[snip]
>> and what defines a kind: what criteria would you use to
>> assign a newly discovered organism into one kind or another?
>
>If an organism can hybridise with another, then it is likely part of the
>same kind. Certainly if they can interbreed they are the same kind, even
>the same 'biological species' even if they are classified as different
>genera.
Interesting. Even if they only hybridize in captivity, or require
artificial insemination? What about if the hybrids are sterile?
What about the various cases where very closely similar species _can't_
form hybrids-- are there any other criteria for "same-kindhood"?
>Marsh had a criterion of ability to produce a zygote as evidence
>that thery were part of the same kind.
I see. So then even if the zygote fails to develop, they are the same
"kind"?
>Also, if the differences between
>the organisms can be achieved by selectively breeding either them or a
>third organism, they are likely part of a kind. E.g. breeding from
>suitable dog would eventually produce the size ranges of a Chihuahua and
>Great Dane, and these two can interbreed (articficially!).
So, if Jabriol were to sneak into a zoo and successfully produce those
human/chimpanzee [or human/bonobo and human gorilla] crosses he keeps going
on about, that would prove to you that humans and apes are of the same
"kind" after all, right?
[snip]
cheers
maff91
>The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
>Genesis (Australia):
>
>---
>In article <19981228155108...@ng110.aol.com>,
> bigd...@aol.comnospam (Bigdakine) wrote:
>
>> >Exactly. There should be no series demonstratingstructures that are 90%
>> >scale:10% feather, then 80% scale:20% feather .... 10% scale:90 feather.
> All
>> >we find are series which are nothing more than reproducible variation
>within
>> >a kind, or 'curious mosaics' like Archaeopteryx and Ornithorhyncus
>(playtpus)
>> >which have a mixture of traits, none of which are transitional.
>> >
>> >> Please state a falsifiable theory of creationism, that can - among
>other
>> >> things - incorporate a "handful of examples" of transitional forms.
>> >
>> >The biblical creationist model teaches that God created distinct kinds of
>> >organisms with immense genetic variability so they could adapt to a wide
>> >range of environments. Some so-called transitional forms, e.g. many of
>> the
>> >vairieties of horses in the fossil record
>> > or the herring/lesser black-backed
>> >gull, are merely variants within a kind.
>>
>> First define "kind". This what I mean by definition, Species - A
>population of
>> organisms which can breed with each other but are reproductively isolated
>from
>> other populations (aka BSC).
>
>You do realise that there are other definitions of the term 'species'?
Do you mean what your fundamentalist cult concocts?
>Also, do you realise that many organisms which are classified as different
>'species' and even different 'genera' are actually the same species by that
>definition.
>
>> Give a similar definition of kind. Don't give
>> examples..., a definition. Thanx..
>
>A biblical 'kind' is a set of all organisms descended from a common
>ancestor which was created during Creation Week, and are reproductively
>isolated from organisms of all other 'kinds'.
Are you a moron?
>
>> Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
>> Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
>> "To err is human, but to realy foul things up
>> requires a creationist"
>
>To foul things up good and proper really requires evolutionists to apply
>their own philosophy of trying to make things by time and random processes.
So why are you unable to convince the Supreme Court, scientific and
business world that creationist fundie cult is doing any science?
Edwards v. Aguillard: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html
Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with creationism in
public school science classrooms. The majority opinions and the
dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia are provided along with the
amicus curiae brief filed by 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html
>
>Jonathan Sarfati
Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and other high tech companies who are
investing billions in developing new technologies, medicines and other
products and services based on the theory of evolution don't seem to
buy your argument.
What is Darwinian Medicine?
http://157.242.64.83/hbes/medicine.htm
Evolution and Origins of disease
http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198nesse.html
Gene Therapy
http://www.natx.com/
Hopeful Monsters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
Genetic Engineering in the Agriculture industry
http://www.pcug.org.au/~jallen/coggene.htm
http://www.pavich.com/links.htm
I quote from _The Origins of Order_ by Stuart Kauffmam
(Page xv) "Thus it is possible to explore sequence spaces for the
first time. I believe this exploration will lead in the coming decades
to what might be called "Applied Molecular Evolution" with very great
medical and industrial implications, such as rapid evolution of new
drugs, vaccines, biosensors, and catalysts".
Creationism is only used by fundamentalist religion business.
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of
the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge
he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus
offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk
nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based
in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an
embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in
the Christian and laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
maff91
>The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
>Genesis (Australia):
>
>---
>In article <768gn8$hud$2...@garfield.vcn.bc.ca>,
> ske...@efn.org (Mark O'Leary) wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > Lee Spetner discusses antibiotic resistance in his book, "Not By
>> Chance!",
>> > as well as some other examples of mutations.
>>
>> I havent a copy of this book, but I'd like to comment on the quoted
>> passage.
>>
>> > All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
>> > out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.
>>
>> Patently untrue. For a start, since the genetic code is redundant, a
>> significant proportion of point mutations have absolutely *no* effect on
>> the amino acid constitution of the encoded protein. How can this be said
>to be
>> a "reduction" in genetic information?
>
>I actually discuss neutral mutations in my critique of Dawkins' 'Climbing
>Mt. Improbable' -- see the True Origins archive. For brevity, as Dawkins
>does himself in 'The Blind Watchmaker', I was concentrating on mutations
>that make a difference.
Try http://www.spacelab.net/~catalj/books.htm
>
>> Secondly, genetic change is simply that, change. Any assignment of loss or
>> gain of information is a subjective judgement, and is context dependant.
>> For example, if an enzyme becomes more specific to a single substrate, one
>> researcher might say it has *lost* its "generalist" capabilities, whilst
>> another might say it has *gained* in specificity: it often boils down to a
>> matter of perspective (and, sadly, bias in some cases...)
>
>This is word magic. Enzymes are catalysts, i.e. they speed up a reaction
>in the direction is would go anyway. The advantage of enzymes, as well as
>their efficiency, is their specificity. Spetner justifiably says that loss
>of specificity is loss of information.
Try http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/
>
>Are we going to return to such nonsensical ideas that an organism gains
>information for wingless or blindness?
Where did you get your definition of information?
http://netra.exploratorium.edu/complexity/lexicon/shonnon.html
http://it.ucsd.edu/IT/Society/shannon.htm
http://www.vma.bme.hu/mathhist/Mathematicians/Shannon.html
http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~iandc/Authors/shannonclaudee.html
>>
>> A general note on the text, a lot of which is snipped for brevity. The
>> most recent reference quoted was 1981, but the vast majority of those
>quoted
>> were in the early 70s. Molecular biology is an incredibly fast-moving
>subject,
>> and the "state of the art" in the 70's is primitive compared to the
>> knowledge and techniques available today.
>
>Indeed it is. We know that the design is even more fantastic than we
>thought 20-30 years ago.
So what are your credentials? Why don't you cite your papers in "The
Journal of Evolutionary Biology"?
>
>> Twenty years on from this paper, drug companies today are producing
>> antibiotics by massive screening programmes of artificially manufactured
>> chemicals never before seen in nature, and by molecular design techniques.
>> And yet, we still see resistance against these entirely novel biocides.
>> How can these forms of resistance have arisen, if not via mutational
>events?
>
>By creation. Oh, I keep forgetting -- materialistic/atheistic bigotry
>won't let you consider such an explanation, so there's no point trying to
>confuse you with the facts.
Do you mean that anyone who don't accept your fundamentalist cult
belief is atheist?
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of
the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge
he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus
offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk
nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based
in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an
embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in
the Christian and laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
>>
Isn't bearing false witness considered a sin in your religion?
>
>
>> The lost performance is compensated for by the fact that the host *isn't
>> dead*. When a driver slows down on icy roads, are they showing a lack of
>> information by not travelling flat out, or are they displaying *more*
>> information through their caution?
>
>No-one disputes that some mutations are *beneficial*. Creationists deny
>that such beneficial mutations have anything to do with particles-to-people
>evolution.
Lab molecules mimic life
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_217000/217054.stm
Hopeful Monsters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
Mechanism for evolution described
Scientists have discovered what they believe may be the molecular
basis of evolution.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_222000/222096.stm
The first self replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long, not so
far away from Millers work after all. The first self replicating
ribsozyme complex is made up of 3 subunits of 45, 75 and 39
nucleotides, easily generated in abiogenic polymerization experiments.
1) Demonstration that the building blocks of life can be made from
simple inorganics and delivered to the Early earth.
Done: Amino acids, nucleotides, sugars, lipids, enzymic
cofactors from Miller, Wacherhauser, Sagan and others.
2) Demonstration that simple building blocks can become long polymers:
Done (with some work in progress): for peptides, nucleotides
and some lipids (eg Orgel, Ferris, and others)
3) Demonstration that these polymers have enzyme activity and can act
as templates.
Partly done, lots of work still in progress: Peptides as weak
enzymes (eg Fox), nucleotides as enzyme free templates
(Ferris, Orgel, and others)
4) Demonstration of the self replication potential of small polymers.
Still in progress, shown for one peptide and one set of RNA
ribozymes, promising results with random synthesis of
ribozymes. Mathematical models of self replication chemistry
predict self-sustaining and evolving self replication.
5) Demonstration of membrane encapsulation of catalytic cycles
Done, and work in progress: Deamers work
Millers lab work surprised many people (including himself) because his
yields were so high compared to predicted yields.
Here's some web sites that might help:
An interview with Miller:
http://www.gene.com/ae/WN/NM/miller.html (see also links therein)
An American Scientist article on origin of life by C. de Duve:
http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/95articles/cdeduve.html
This account was written before the ribozymal polymerases were
described, and a number of other issues resolved so is slightly more
pessimistic than needs be.
A discovery article on Deamers work on protocells
http://www.enews.com/magazines/discover/magtxt/110195-7.html
It will dump you at the Discover site, go to the Archives, search on
November 1995 and click on the First Cell link.
A recent New Scientist generalist "warts and all" account of the
current state of play.
http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/big3/origins/origins.html
An article by Carl Sagan in Scientific American
http://www.sciam.com/explorations/010697sagan/010697sagan3.html
See also the talk.orign abiogenesis FAQ at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html and
http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/prob.htm
There is also a special Scientific American issue on the origin of
life, Orgel LE. The origin of life on the earth. Scientific American.
271(4):76-83, 1994 Oct, again, slightly dated due to recent
discoveries, but a good introduction.
See Also:
Vital Dust : Life As a Cosmic Imperative, by Christian De Duve, Basic
Books 1996, ISBN: 0465090451
De Duve gets a little excited, but the basic biochemistry is presented
clearly.
I would recommend that you read Stuart Kauffman.
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/
"The Origins of Order : Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution"
by Stuart A. Kauffman Paperback - 709 pages (May 1993) Oxford Univ
Press; ISBN: 0195079515
http://www.aic.nrl.navy.mil/galist/
The Genetic Algorithms Archive
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/coast/archive/clife/FAQ/www/
Hitch-Hiker's Guide to Evolutionary Computation
news:comp.ai.genetic
http://www.marlboro.edu/~lmoss/planhome/index.html
Evolutionary Computer Graphics (more natural looking evolutions)
The similarities between genetic algorithms and biology can be
seen here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature
>
>
>Jonathan Sarfati
So why are you unable to convince the Supreme Court, scientific and
business world that creationist fundie cult is doing any science?
Edwards v. Aguillard: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html
Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with creationism in
public school science classrooms. The majority opinions and the
dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia are provided along with the
amicus curiae brief filed by 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html
Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and other high tech companies who are
Mark Isaak
>Genesis (Australia):
>information for wingless or blindness?
Such changes likely come about by random mutations which, since they are
in genes for things that are no longer needed, aren't weeded out. And
nothing has more Shannon information than randomness.
>Of course, no-one disputes that organisms change over time. But
>creationists reasonably dispute whether observed changes can be
>exrtapolated to goo-to-you evolution.
Please explain what could possibly prevent such large-scale change.
I'm also curious why you believe that, although Genesis has Answers,
Exodus should be rejected?
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
Keith Littleton
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
<The following is posted on behalf of Ashby Camp, author of
<
<The Overselling of Whale Evolution
<http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/whales.htm
<
<This is the only response Camp will be providing concerning the matter.
I love the contrast between creationists like Mr. Camp who quickly
fold their hand and disappear when the card game gets tough and
scientists like Dr. Aker and Dr. MacRea who stay in the game come
what may. It certainly shows to me who in this discussion has the
courage of their convictions.
<In article <19981230023754...@ng109.aol.com>,
< bigd...@aol.comnospam (Bigdakine) wrote:
<
<>I looked this over.... briefly. Clearly a graduate of the Duane Gish
<>school of transitional forms. If you don't have all the gaps filled,
<>then you can't claim common descent.
<
<In my opinion, this contemptuous dismissal is not a fair characterization
<of the article, but others can judge that for themselves. The purpose of
<the article was to suggest that the fossil evidence for the alleged
<mesonychid-to-whale transition could not bear the weight being placed on
it
<in the popular literature (e.g., the claim that "the evolutionary case is
<now closed"). To that end, I first corrected the misimpression that
<mesonychids were considered to be actual ancestors of archaeocetes.
....... stuff deleted .........
This reply is quite revealing. First, it automatically
dismisses honest criticism as "contemptuous dismissal." Then,
it simply avoids many if not all of the technical aspect of the
criticisms that have been raised. Many of the issues that are
raised in his reply have been previously addressed by Dr.
Aker in a previous post. In addition, it indulges in a desperate
rehabilitation of a 1945 quote by Simpson, arguments over
the definition of what constitutes a transitional fossil and
lineage, and a partisan history of research into fossil whales.
What is missing is discussion of the actual fossils themselves.
This suggests to me that this replys just another
attempt to blur and confuse the matters being discussed
with obfuscationand doubletalk rather than honestly
the fossils themselves.
In contrast Aker pointed out major problems with the article by
Camp, to which Mr. Camp is seemingly unable to offer any real
solution. Some of these were pointed out by Dr. Aker in
Message-ID: <1998123118...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov>
on Dec. 31, 1998. He stated in that article:
...... stuff deleted ...
"The Overselling of Whale Evolution
by Ashby L. Camp
http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/whales.htm"
.....stuff deleted.....
"First, Ashby Camp:
1. Camp makes a great deal out of supposed dating
uncertainties, while at the same time noting that the given
fossils cannot be constructed to form a "lineage". These
are standard creationist ploys. What he does not
acknowledge is that definitive dates are only for the fossil
found -- single specimens do not provide the full temporal
range of existence of the species. I.e., Camp is invoking
the fallacy that descendant species must replace ancestral
species, and ignoring the more likely possibility that the
existence periods for these species probably overlapped
significantly. Thus, his discussion of dating uncertainties
is founded on fallacious grounds. Furthermore, the
closeness of the temporal range of existence of these
fossils is a strong argument FOR their relatedness -- a
point Camp obviously does not want to stress. I.e., the
period of transition between terrestrial predecessors and
aquatic descendants was only a few million years. Speaking
geologically, the existence of broad shallow seas during this
period made it an optimum time for the required "back to
the sea" evolution.
As do most creationists, Camp notes that there is a
lack of "clear ancestor to descendant relationships" in the
archaeocetes. While that may be, given that there are only
a small number of fossils, he does not want to talk about
the progression of modifications exhibited by the fossils.
To whit, development of swimming capability in the spine
and fins and the diminishment of limbs. Most notably, even
though the piece was written in 1998, Camp does not mention
Georgiacetus vogtlensis, which exhibits a spinal modification
critical to the change from terrestrial to aquatic. The only
thing that Camp attempts to do is cast doubt on the
relationship between the early archaeocetes and Basilosaurus,
and on the relationship between Basilosaurus specifically
and later archaeocetes (explained well in Andrew MacRae's
response regarding the Dorudontinae).
What does Camp leave out? Plenty!
-- the shape of the lumbar vertebra of Ambulocetus natans;
-- the entire litany of skull structures that connects
Ambulocetus with cetaceans, despite the fact that
Ambulocetus had complete forelimbs and hindlimbs;
-- the spinal modifications in Rodhocetus kasrani;
-- the type of sediments in which Rodhocetus kasrani was
found (deep-sea pelagic);
-- the reduction of the femur in Rodhocetus compared to
earlier archaoecetes;
-- the spinal structure of Georgiacetus vogtlensis;
-- the nasal conformation of Georgiacetus vogtlensis;
-- the fully-formed legs of Basilosaurus, which Camp
calls a "gigantic marine archaeocete" (emphasis on the
word MARINE); and
-- the conformation and location of the nostrils on the
snout of Basilosaurus.
Thus, when discussing the existence of transitional
whale fossils, it's clear that Camp doesn't want to discuss
evidence of transition!
(Just as an interesting sidenote, Camp also fails
to mention Aetiocetus, the transitional link between the
toothed whales and the baleen whales. MacRae also notes
this omission.)
For all readers, there is an extensive online
presentation regarding Georgiacetus vogtlensis at this URL:
http://www2.gasou.edu/facstaff/rhulbert/georgiacetus.htm "
This is a great web page. I would suggest that people also go to:
"Fossil Whales on the World Wide Web" at:
http://www2.gasou.edu/facstaff/rhulbert/whale_links.htm
"Whale Origins"
http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/Anat/Whale.html
"Archeology: One whale of a tale - 7/7/97"
http://www.detroitnews.com/1997/discover/9707/13/07070019.htm
Mr. Camp also fails to address technical aspects of comments
made by Andrew MacRae (mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca)
on December 30, 1998. MacRae addresses some of the issues
raised in the reply of Mr. Camp, e.g. uncertainties about whether
the mesonychids were the ancestors of the cetaceans. Concerning
"The Overselling of Whale Evolution," Dr. MacRae stated:
"|The Overselling of Whale Evolution
|by Ashby L. Camp
|http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/whales.htm
What does this show, other than the fact that the
record is still (and inevitably) incomplete, and there is
therefore uncertainty about the exact relationships of the
whale fossils that are now known? When will that ever
not be true, unless a near-perfect record were available,
which whale fossils do not provide by any stretch of the
imagination? What is known is still better than what was
known in the recent past. Ashby's points do not make the
connection between the uncertainty about relationships to
the conclusion that there *aren't* relationships (and he
does not try to, really), because he does not adequately
consider how the record should look given the geological
situation and the abundance of whale fossils (of any kind)
in the relevant interval. Whale fossils are not so common
in the lower part of the Eocene that they should be turning
up in huge numbers, the exact phylogeny can be determined
with great certainty, and the stratigraphic succession will fit
hypothesized phylogeny perfectly.
Ashby also makes several errors of omission or detail.
For example, he is correct that _Basilosaurus_ is not
considered the closest archaeocete ancestor to subsequent
whales, but _Dorudon_ and its relatives are, which has been
suggested since at least the late 1970s or so. He talks about
the subfamily Basilosaurinae (and _Basilosaurus_isis_ in
particular), but neglects the other subfamily, Dorudontinae,
that is classified into the same family Basilosauridae (the
Dorudontinae is likely paraphyletic, and gave rise to both
the Basilosaurinae and later dorudontines that are in turn
thought to have been ancestral to later whales). There are
other whales involved in the divergence of Odontocete
and Mysticete whales that he fails to talk about, such as
the agorophiids (e.g., species of the genus _Agorophius_)
and aetiocetids. Ashby rather undersells what is known
about the later parts of whale evolution from the
fossil record, although, inevitably, uncertainty still exists.
None of the uncertainty about relationships
diminishes the observation that the morphological gaps
continue to get smaller as sampling has increased, and even
if the hypothesis that whales originated from mesonychid
land mammals turns out to be in error (or even that
mesonychids have been misclassified themselves), it does
not diminish the basic evidence: that there are these strange,
limbed whales found only in the earliest periods of whale
existence."
Sincerely Yours,
Keith Littleton
litt...@vnet.net
New Orleans, LA
Dilbert Quotes
Les: "Stupidity is like nuclear power; it can be
used for good or evil."
Dilbert: "And you don't want to get any on you."
-Scott Adams.
the last panel of the 12/31/95 "Dilbert" strip.
Wesley R. Elsberry
Mark Isaak <at...@best.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>>The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
>>Genesis (Australia):
JS>Are we going to return to such nonsensical ideas that an organism gains
JS>information for wingless or blindness?
MI>Such changes likely come about by random mutations which,
MI>since they are in genes for things that are no longer
MI>needed, aren't weeded out. And nothing has more Shannon
MI>information than randomness.
[...]
And even if one wishes to argue from some casual concept of
information, if "wingless" or "blindness" as a trait comes
about via a process of suppression of the usual developmental
pathway, it is simply an additional instruction, and thus
more information.
Inhibition is an important property in both biological and
artificial neural networks. Would a new inhibitory neural
connection or structure be considered no new information
under Sarfati-Information, I wonder?
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"I've got a timebomb\In my mind mom\I hear it ticking but I don't know why"-O97
Robert Gotschall
says..
>
> One must be careful to distinguish macroevolution from microevolution.
> David Buckna
>
A definition somewhat more succinct then vague references to 'kind' would
help.
--
rg
"Look, your worship," said Sancho; "what we see there are not giants
but windmills...."
_DON QUIXOTE_ by Miguel de Cervantes
Robert Gotschall
> posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in Genesis (Australia):
> Pretty obvious, I would have thought. It's like the difference between 'a
> cow can jump' and 'a cow can jump over the moon'. The first doesn't
> entail the second, and minor changes in beak size, moth coloration etc
> don't show that they came from a single cell.
How about the difference between 'a toy rocket can shoot into the sky'
and 'a larger rocket can orbit the moon'.
The thing is, there are known restrictions on just how far the chemical
energy of muscle can propel a cow.
These restrictions do not apply to rockets.
Nor do they to evolution.
may...@andrews.edu
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
> Genesis (Australia):
>
> ---
> equivocation
> > >by evolutionary propagandists. They provide examples of minor changes,
> > >then claim that this makes the case for goo-to-you evolution and against
> > >creation!
> >
> > belief of the american right wing, most evolutionists dont
> > 'propagandize' evolution since there is no need to do so.
>
> I'm neither American nor particularly right wing. And propagandize is
> precisely what evolutionists do.
It's mostly American, though. Australians might take 2nd place. Creationism in
America tends to be associated with political conservatism, but it's not as
highly a political movement as some people seem to think.
> > >Who said I doubted speciation? I've made it clear that speciation is an
> > >important part of the creation model. No, it's you who must prove that
> > >jumping cows are moon-jumping cows.
> >
> > ah, so evolution happens, except when it doesnt.
>
> More of this deceitful equivocation. At least Kerkut was honest enough to
> differentiate the general and special theories of evolution (which I
> usually call 'evolution' and 'variation' respectively). He also pointed
> out that evidence for the special theory doesn't prove the general theory
> -- he said that the evidence for it was not strong enough to consider it as
> any more than a 'working hypothesis'.
Macroevolution, by any definition of the word, has been observed in the fossil
record. The biochemical evidence for evolution is very convincing: most people
that think it isn't convincing are simply unfamiliar with it.
> > of course you've never told us where we can see creation. you just
> > admitted evolution is a fact.
> >
> > where may we see creation?
>
> In the complex design all around us. Haldane said that evolution would be
> falsified by finding wheels or magnets in living organisms, as these could
> not be built up gradualistically by Darwinian mechanisms. But we now know
> that there are wheels (e.g. rotary motors) and magnets in living things!
If Haldane actually said that, he was wrong. There's no reason to think wheels
or magnets could not develop gradually.
> > thats one major difference between scientists and creationists.
>
> My scientific qualifications are at least as good as yours, buddy, so give
> up this ridiculous caricature.
What field are you in?
> > scientists dont have a central scripture or authority like a pope or a
> > bible. creationists cant 'think outside the box' so conceptualize
> > science in religious terms like 'he is regarded as an authority by
> > atheist/agnostic'....etc.
>
> All scientists have biases --- the question is which bias is the best bias
> with which to be biased. Dawkins can't think outside his materialistic box.
Are theistic evolutionists biased by materialistic boxes? More likely, they're
biased by the evidence, which strongly favors evolution.
> > >Yes, another smokescreen. Most branches of modern biology were founded
> by
> > >creationists like Ray, Linnaeus and Pasteur.
> >
> > gee so science hasnt made any progress in the 300 yrs or so these
> > folks lived?
>
> Umm -- your turn to make a slip -- Pasteur was a contemporary of Darwin.
>
> The point is, the creationist world view was extremely fruitful for
> scientific discoveriies. Most of the branches of modern science were
> founded by creationists.
They may have been creationists, but I think the real point is that science
made progress in spite of their creationist views: scientific theories
developed "around" creationism rather than "through" it. In fact, creationism
either made no contribution to scientific progress, or was pushed aside by
the advances of science. For example, in the 19th century the tenets of YEC
were disproven by people like Lyell and Darwin; creationists tend to think of
this some kind of progressive "apostasization," but in reality, the evidence
was simply growing stronger and stronger that a literal interpretation of the
Bible was wrong.
> > yeah, that ties in with the above view of creationists about how
> > religion is science. religion, to creationists, doesnt change. once
> > you've got an answer, thats it. science changes depending on the
> > evidence.
>
> Rubbish. First, the creation model is different now to what it was 20
> years ago. Second, you have repeatedly admitted that you will consider
> only materialistic explanations.
Some evolutionists think that way, for a variety of reasons, but many others
(myself included) simply believe whatever the evidence points toward; if the
evidence pointed to a nonmaterialistic explanation, we would accept the
explanation. There is, however, no evidence pointing toward creationism.
> > >I doubt that anyone says that the Platypus is a link between reptiles,
> > >birds and mammals! The fact remains, Archaeopteryx was a perching bird
> > >with assymmetric flight feathers. We have yet to find a form with
> > >structures that are half-scale/half feather, and others with
> > >20%scale/80%feather etc.
> >
> > we do, however, find dinosaurs with feathers, and with NO other avian
> > features...caudipteryx is one such animal as is protoarcheopteryx.
> > thus transitionals exist
>
> Feduccia and Martin believe these were flightless birds, not feathered
> dinosaurs. They even had gizzard stones, something theropods lacked.
Feduccia and Martin are biased by their determination to believe that birds
evolved from something other than dinosaurs. The skeletal evidence seems to
place caudipteryx and protoarcheopteryx well within the Maniraptora division
of the theropods. The presence of gizzard stones is not a diagnostic
characteristic of birds, by the way; sauropod dinosaurs, for example, had
them. But your claim sounds kind of suspicious, since these kind of rumors
arise often about dinosaurs, but have generally turned out to be wrong; I
would be interested in a reference for it.
> > >The genetic system is wonderful at conserving variation to limits.
> > >Experiments by breeders support a limits to variation. No,you need to
> show
> > >one kind changing into another, not just producing more and more mutant
> > >Drosophila,
> >
> > meaningless. according to this definition, humans and chimps are the
> > same 'kind'.
>
> Ever seen a chimp evolve into a human?
Nobody expects them to. He was just pointing out that the morphological
differences between chimpanzees and humans are so slight that you would
consider this to be an example of "microevolution" (creationist definition) if
it weren't for your Biblical biases.
> Is there any more point continuing this (and I won't be able to respond
> till the 15th anyway?).
I think you're just afraid to debate more. You feel like you've made some
good points (rhethorically, they sounded pretty good to me, anyway), but you
realize that there's nothing solid underneath the rhetoric, and you fear that
if you come back and discuss it some more, you'll see your beliefs crumble
around you.
> The bottom line is, you insist on materialistic
> explanations for origins, and I don't.
There is no reason to exclude nonmaterialistic explanations, as long as they
can be tested. Creationism has been tested and falsified by the data.
> And you consider any 'change' as
> evidence that all living things came from a single cell.
No, the data from molecular biology which arranges living things into a nested
hierarchy (which God would have no particular reason to create except to mimic
the behavior of evolution), is strong evidence that all life shares a common
ancestor.
--vince
Stephen Carville
Rossl...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 1/2/99 12:27:18 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
> stsca...@worldnet.att.net writes:
>
> > Say, maybe it's time for skeptics to create our own "A Million
Questions
> > Creationists Cannot Answer!"
>
> I believe you meant to say "trillion" instead of "million" in the
above
> quoted material. Just so you don't leave anything out if you decide to
put
> that FAQ together. ;-)
Well, I think it is time we went on the offensive against this creationist
foolishness. For too long the creationists have been getting away with
their nihilistic, tear down the establishment approach. Apparently, their
hope is that by creating enough doubt on evolution in the mind of the
common voter they can win at the polls what they cannot win by science.
As long as science remains on the defensive the creationists will win.
Not
becasue they are right but becasue they can create the illusion that
evolutionary science has lots of "problems" without ever having to answer
for their own. As long as the creationists can hide behind the perception
that their side doesn't need to defend itself but only attack a strawman
version of evolution they can win by default.
--
Stephen Carville
stsca...@worldnet.att.net
----------------------------------------------------
Management: The art of hiring intelligent, skilled individuals and then
ignoring their advice.
Ric Carter
From: Stephen Carville <stsca...@worldnet.att.net>
>As long as science remains on the defensive the creationists will win.
>Not becasue they are right but becasue they can create the illusion
>that evolutionary science has lots of "problems" without ever having
>to answer for their own. As long as the creationists can hide behind
>the perception that their side doesn't need to defend itself but only
>attack a strawman version of evolution they can win by default.
So, how to best point out the big and little lies of creationism?
How to educate the public about wishful/magical thinking, about the
power issues involved, about how their money and lives are affected?
Because the "evolution vs creation" debate isn't just abstract or
academic, isn't just ivory-tower quibbling - it's about who controls
public discourse, public monies, the power structures of nations.
Creationist thought is ultimately suicidal, but how is this best
conveyed to mass audiences? How do we convey the historical reality
that societies that give up on vigorous exploration are dominated
by nations that DO push the boundaries of the unknown? How do we
display the excitement of science and the tawdriness of religion,
in mass-media presentations? How do we best market science?
* r...@sonic.net * http://www.sonic.net/~ric * ICQ# 19633976 *
*
*** SkeptiChat: sliding down the razor-blade of life ***
now featuring SkeptiNews: All The News That's Fit To Question
email INFO or SUBSCRIBE SKEPTICHAT to: majo...@lists.sonic.net
.
Ian H. Spedding
>
>The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
>Genesis (Australia):
>
>---
(...)
>> Twenty years on from this paper, drug companies today are producing
>> antibiotics by massive screening programmes of artificially
manufactured
>> chemicals never before seen in nature, and by molecular design
techniques.
>> And yet, we still see resistance against these entirely novel biocides.
>> How can these forms of resistance have arisen, if not via mutational
>> events?
>
>By creation. Oh, I keep forgetting -- materialistic/atheistic bigotry
>won't let you consider such an explanation, so there's no point trying to
>confuse you with the facts.
And thus do you and your creationist colleagues neatly impale yourselves
on
the horns of a dilemma.
Bacteria have either evolved resistance to antimicrobials or were endowed
with it by God. Since evolution is anathema to creationists they default
to the preferred claim of divine intervention.
The problem is that the bacteria in question have injured and killed
millions - perhaps billions - of people over the millenia. Antibiotics
are
the best defence yet devised against such suffering and slaughter, yet you
are claiming that your God has deliberately engineered resistant strains
of
bacteria which are able to break through that defence. In other words,
you
believe in and worship a God which is, in effect, practising germ warfare
against His own highest creation - ourselves.
To Hell with that!
Ian
Ian H Spedding
--------------
When virtual reality becomes cheaper than dating society is doomed.
- Dogbert
Ian H. Spedding
At 17:15 01/01/99 +0000, Dr Sarfatti wrote:
(...)
>The point is, the creationist world view was extremely fruitful for
>scientific discoveries. Most of the branches of modern science were
>founded by creationists.
Irrelevant and - coming from a professsional scientist - incompetent. You
should know better than to confuse correlation with causation. The fact
that scientists may hold particular religious beliefs does not mean that
they are applied to their research. Newton studied alchemy, for example,
but I doubt if it had much influence on his work in mathematics and
physics
and you yourself have written about how you are able to work effectively
in
your chosen field despite being obliged to exclude your creationist
beliefs.
Ian H. Spedding
(...)
> Would a new inhibitory neural
>connection or structure be considered no new information
>under Sarfati-Information, I wonder?
Surely, the concept of creationist information is oxymoronic?
They have argued that the genes which confer antibiotic resistance on
bacteria were always present in the genome. Presumably, by extension,
they
would assert that any apparently novel phenotypical attribute which may
emerge is derived from genetic information which has been present since
the
moment of creation. Since this information has been "known" to the gene
pool - if not to us - it is not new. Indeed,
If I understand it correctly, in the Shannon sense it is not information
at
all. However, since the whole argument is founded on an untestable claim
of supernatural authority it cannot be a credible alternative to the
theory
of evolution.
Ian
Stephen Carville
> On 1 Jan 1999 19:34:37 -0500, jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >
> >This is word magic. Enzymes are catalysts, i.e. they speed up a
reaction
> >in the direction is would go anyway. The advantage of enzymes, as well
as
> >their efficiency, is their specificity. Spetner justifiably says that
loss
> >of specificity is loss of information.
Jeez, this is really lame. The opposable thumb give the human hand
greater
ability and thereby makes it less specific. By the odd argument Sarfati,
Buckna, and Spetner use, the opposable thumb constitutes a loss of
information.
> and CHANGE of specificity is?
If this is the nylon metabolizing thing again, it wasn't just a change, it
was in an added ability not found in the original population.
None of which has anything to do with the amount of information in the
chromosomes anyway.
[snip]
> >By creation. Oh, I keep forgetting -- materialistic/atheistic bigotry
> >won't let you consider such an explanation, so there's no point trying
to
> >confuse you with the facts.
Anyone else notice that Buckna and Sarfati are getting nastier as the
debate goes on? Any bets on what it is he is trying to provoke? I saw
this all the time over on TO: A creationist would make an outrageous
claim
and, when refuted, ignore the facts and started whining about
atheistic/materialistic naturalism and how the scientific establishment is
conspiring against "god-fearing" people all over the world.
Forget the evidence, we are all a bunch of filthy atheists and therefore
our arguments can be rejected without consideration.
> >Again, more blatantly dishonest word magic (and again, given the lack
of
> >moral foundation in an evolutionary world view, why should we be
> >surprised?). There are plenty of creationists who have advanced
science
> >degrees and perform scientific research, so are scientists by any
> >reasonable definition free from atheistic bigotry.
More insults -- no surprise there. Now we are not just bigots but immoral
bigots. Oh well, it's Sunday and I have to clean my hunting rifle --
there
are lots of god-fearing, church goers out there to practice on and I
wouldn't want to miss out on the weekly massacre.
[snip]
Bill Loughman
Ric Carter wrote:
>
[ snip ]
> Creationist thought is ultimately suicidal, but how is this best
> conveyed to mass audiences? How do we convey the historical reality
> that societies that give up on vigorous exploration are dominated
> by nations that DO push the boundaries of the unknown? How do we
> display the excitement of science and the tawdriness of religion,
> in mass-media presentations? How do we best market science?
By simultaneous exposure, on a 'level playing field'?
WD "Bill" Loughman
Berkeley, California USA
wdl...@ibm.net
Barbara Meissner
> Creationist thought is ultimately suicidal, but how is this best
> conveyed to mass audiences? How do we convey the historical reality
> that societies that give up on vigorous exploration are dominated
> by nations that DO push the boundaries of the unknown? How do we
> display the excitement of science and the tawdriness of religion,
> in mass-media presentations? How do we best market science?
>
I always thought that Carl Sagan did a magnificent job in his
Cosmos series.
My 5-year-old and I sat down and watched it each week. As
complex as the ideas it presented were, they were accessible to that
(admittedly bright) child. If that show was "required reading" for
every 1st-3rd grader in the country, we would have a much better
educated population with a real sense of the awesomeness of reality. A
few shows like it are available. The problem is that there is no money
in it. "Secrets of the Invisible Astronauts" and "Mysteries of Noah's
Ark" make so much more money than an honest science show.
And we can't get past the cowardice of our school boards. Even
those not dominated by Fundamentalists strongly discourage the teaching
of real science to our children out of fear of the hassles of being sued
by said fundamentalists. Text books are written to appease everyone,
resulting a in book that contains little information and no discussion
of how science gets done. Children are actively taught that asking
questions is wrong, that one should accept the pronouncements of
authority (teacher, government official, preacher) and not cause
trouble.
(Sigh) There are sensible people out there. Unfortunately,
they are mostly too busy accomplishing things to spend much time on soap
boxes. That is our fundamental problem.
bam