PZ Myers. 2004 Mar 12. A straightforward example of creationist error. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/a_straightforward_example_of_creationist_error/>. Accessed 2008 Dec 04.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Friday, March 12, 2004
A straightforward example of creationist error
A creationist, Rob McEwen, left me a little comment here which lists a number of his objections to evolution. It’s a classic example of the genre, and well illustrates the problem we have. The poor fellow has been grossly misinformed, but is utterly convinced that he has the truth. I’m not going to dismantle his entire line of blather (thanks to Loren Petrich, who has already briefly pointed out the flaws in his thinking), but I do want to show what I mean with one example.
Here’s what Mr McEwen says:
Mutations have NEVER produced additional DNA structures. NEVER! Even as scientists study mutations in fruit flies or viruses… the mutations sometime just scramble existing DNA… but MORE OFTEN, they DELETE DNA structures. Certainly, “survival of the fittest” is a means by which nature purges the gene pool of bad mutations, but NO evolution occurs here. (This alone is a DEATH BLOW to Evolution.) I repeat… not a SINGLE scientist in the entire world has EVER recorded a mutation which produced additional DNA structures or material.... but DELETIONS are recorded ALL THE TIME!!!
Wow. He certainly is emphatic, isn’t he?
And here’s the scary thing: for all his certainty, which he almost certainly got from common sources in the creationist literature, he is absurdly, absolutely, trivially, unforgivably wrong. That paragraph is one solid block of lies. This is what biologists have to deal with all the time, people who rant falsehoods, either out of maliciousness or simple purblind ignorance, and the mobs of people who gullibly believe them.
The truth is that many kinds of mutations very commonly produce additional DNA structures. One very common and frequently observed method is unequal crossing over. Anyone with a little background in genetics or cell biology will be familiar with the idea of crossing over: during meiosis, homologous chromosomes line up side by side, and swap bits of their DNA at points of contact called chiasmata. Here’s what they look like:
Normally, crossing over occurs between homologous regions of DNA, so there is no net gain or loss of DNA in either chromosome. However, it can occur by error between nonhomologous regions. When that happens, you do get a loss of DNA in one chromosome, and a gain in the other. Take a look at this diagram, which illustrates what goes on in an unequal crossing over event:
As you can see, the end result is that chromosome number 2 has suffered a deletion and has no copies of gene C, while chromosome 3 has gained an extra copy of gene C. Quite contrary to Mr McEwen, every unequal crossing over event produces an equal number of gametes bearing duplications and deletions. If gene C is essential, however, the gamete bearing a deletion is unlikely to be viable, while the duplication may have no or little effect; in viable progeny, therefore, you are more likely to see duplications than deletions.
There are also additional well-documented mechanisms that can produce additional DNA, such as insertions and translocations. People design experiments all the time that make use of duplications. We can sequence the relevant region of the chromosome and explicitly identify duplicated stretches of DNA. You can open up catalogs of mutations and find long lists of lines that carry identified duplications; you can even send a little money to a stock center and they’ll send you back flies or fish or mice that carry such mutations.
I went to the Flybase database, for instance, and did a search for any duplicated alleles. It came back with a long list of them, and here is just the first one, an allele called abd-AUab-G1, which happens to be a Hox gene in the bithorax complex. Here’s the short description.
Head to head duplication of the starting P{(-FRT)lacZ.HP}UbxHC148A element, so that two copies (P{(-FRT)lacZ.HP}UbxHC148A and P{(-FRT)lacZ.HP}abd-AUab-G1) are present in abd-AUab-G1. (Bender and Fitzgerald, 2002)
You want the full citation so you can go look up the details in the peer-reviewed scientific literature? Yeah, we can do that:
Bender and Fitzgerald (2002) Transcription activates repressed domains in the Drosophila bithorax complex. Development 129(21): 4923-4930.
Let me remind you what Mr McEwen claimed. “Mutations have NEVER produced additional DNA structures. NEVER!” Well, that’s certainly not true, is it? How about his claim that “not a SINGLE scientist in the entire world has EVER recorded a mutation which produced additional DNA structures or material”? I think I certainly have shown that scientists have recorded such things. Want a few thousand more? I wonder if Mr McEwen even realizes that when he says such things to a scientist, the first thing that pops into their heads is a plethora of counter-examples and trivial mechanisms that trivially refute all of his points without even a moment’s hesitation...
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that Mr McEwen is a decent, sincere person in addition to being a fervent believer in his religious dogma. However, he has been consistently misled. His sources have lied to him. And he is working hard to propagate those same lies to more people. That’s the real tragedy of creationism, that it is a fabric of outright dishonesty that persuades good people to do wrong, all in the name of their religion.
-
Sounds like Mr McEwen is reciting a (poorly articulated) version of the 'no new info' montra.
Whether the parameter is 'information' or 'genetic material', the claim is trivial to refute, as long as there exist a valid metric to compare relative values of that parameter between genomes.
If ANY change always reduces genetic material/info, then a reversal, in this case a back mutation, will induce a reducto absurdum.
EG:
If genome A is mutated to genome B, then according to Mr McEwen's view, the quantity of genetic material/info in B is less than or equal to A, for any and every change right? We Discard the 'or equal to' possibility as it would mean there was no chance at all.
Let's note the relative quantity of the parameter as function I
giving us the notation I(A) > I(B), read as 'The info/DNA material of A is less than the info/DNA material of B. '
Now, because *any* change can only result in 'less than', a back mutation from B back to A would mean that A now has less genetic material/'info that B which gives
I(A) > I(B) > I(A),
or by transitivty I(A) > I(A)
QED
LOL... A has more material/info than itself, and this is clearly false.
~DS~
replace nospam with aol#: Posted by on 03/12 at 09:18 AM -
I think McEwen's comments come from James Perloff's book(s) The Case Against Darwin and/or Tornado in a Junkyard.
#: Posted by on 03/12 at 09:31 AM
-
"If ANY change always reduces genetic material/info, then a reversal, in this case a back mutation, will induce a reducto absurdum."
We don't even need to go that far. Even on the assumption that back mutations cannot occur, it is clearly true that genetic mutations occur at a rather high rate (Motoo Kimura's 1968 paper* suggested a rate of ~ 1 in 10^7 amino acids per year), so if any changes can only lead to a loss of information, and if the rate of loss is constant (as it does indeed seem to be), we have a monotonically decreasing function tending inexorably to zero. Life has been around long enough for that final state to have been reached eons ago, so clearly the initial premise is absurd.
*Motoo Kimura, Evolutionary Change at the Molecular Level, Nature Vol. 217, February 17, 1968.#: Posted by Abiola Lapite on 03/12 at 10:02 AM -
Oh Paul, this is hilarious. He left the exact same comment on my blog, which I answered at http://www.mblog.com/dispatches_from_the_culture_wars/012022.html How funny is that?
#: Posted by Ed Brayton on 03/12 at 12:28 PM
- It is pretty funny, and sad. This poor sap is wandering around wearing a big sign that says, "CLUELESS".
-
Enough about the poor sap. Let's return to that now crossed-over chromosome, the one that got the extra whatsits rather than the one that is now causing its bearer to shrivel up and die. (And I'll have to ask you to humour my very rudimentary understanding of these things.) So, the chromosome now has two complete and indentical sets of a certain string of DNA. So set 1 does whatever it has always done (let's say, making arms), while set 2 is more or less redundant. Except that set 2 is now free to be rejiggered itself in future crossings-over, and so might at some point start carrying out a new and separate task (say, making awesome dragon wings). Okay, my examples are doubtless grotesque oversimplifications as well as frivolous, but in principle is this not precisely one of the ways in which mutations cause us to, y'know, evolve?
Thanks, too, for the tip about the mailorder mutant mice. Still, I think I'll give 'em a miss, though no doubt the kids would love 'em.#: Posted by Mrs Tilton on 03/12 at 01:50 PM -
You've got it exactly right: "duplication and divergence" is the proper magical mantra that we use.
Getting your animals from a stock center tends to be more expensive than just going to the pet store, anyway. My genetically defined zebrafish lines were started with fish that cost $5 each, rather than the 50 cents apiece I could get them for at the local aquarist. -
Getting your animals from a stock center tends to be more expensive than just going to the pet store, anyway.
Yeah, but it's so hard to find mice with human ears growing out of their backs at the pet store.#: Posted by Mrs Tilton on 03/12 at 02:25 PM - Those aren't mutants. Those are fun and educational arts and crafts projects that your kids can do in the supportive environment of your own home. When one of the little tykes gnaws off a visitor's ear, nose, or other appendage, no one ever thinks to look under Igor the Hamster's dermis for it.
-
Right. So, when you pop by for that arm-wrassle and I tear yours off at the shoulder, you'll find it under the cuticle of Cuddles the Wolf Spider.
#: Posted by Mrs Tilton, all aggressive now on 03/12 at 03:26 PM
-
This reminds me of Lee Spetner in Not by Chance; he apparently believes that both becoming more specialized and becoming more generalized are losses of information. But as DS has pointed out, if going one way is loss of information, the going the other way is gain of information.
And as to gene duplication, Ed from IIDB has claimed that that's not new information but saying the same thing in different ways. But duplicated genes can diverge..#: Posted by on 03/12 at 09:58 PM -
(from Rob McEwen)
...first of all, none of my post you refer to was copied directly from any other source... all of this I wrote myself... (I guess this just means that you all consider me an "original" idiot, not a "plagiarizing" idiot).
As noted, I did post this at two different blogs because, frankly, at the time, I was looking for blogs that had the pro-evolution viewpoint, and were willing to argue this viewpoint.... not that I like to argue... it is just that I find that the best test of something is to get the BEST opposing argument and facts and use them as a "crucible" to test the original viewpoint.
...OK... in my original wording... I probably did overstate my case regarding the mutations by using words like "NEVER" when clearly, there are some examples of mutation producing additional genes.
However, from what I have read from Dr. Lee Spetner, I think that these types of mutations you detail are, overall, rather insufficient AND too rare to produce the kind of evolution where one species evolves into another species of greater complexity... especially went juxtaposed against the VERY common mutations which delete and/or scramble genetic information.
In other words, I think that, to be a credible evolutionist, you have to consider the ACTUAL PROPORTIONS of these differing mutations AS FOUND IN NATURE. Going back to my shopkeeper example in my original post... So what if he does make a profit on a single sale every few years?... how can this possibly counteract or survive all the losses?
But, I must admit, the technical part of this discussion is beyond my expertise...
Therefore, I'll defer to Spetner and his book: "Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution"
(Spetner taught information theory for a decade at Johns Hopkins University and the Weizman Institute, and spent years studying mutations on a molecular level.)
Also, Spetner debates Dr. Edward E. Max over these issues and the dialog is detailed on the following pages:
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp
Frankly, from reading this debate (both pages)... (and admitting that I'm not properly educated or trained to understand all that is said) I think Spetner eats Dr. Max (and everyone else who has posted here) for lunch on this one issue.... but you be the judge.
Finally, if you read over the rebuttals to my original post, many of the refutations of my other points were rather lame... especially to my issues regarding the first single-celled organism.
Like this one:
>"Those are only probabilities
>of exact duplication."
I wasn't even taking into account the fact that, for this first single cell to work, it would need such things as a means of consuming food, converting this to energy, reproducing itself, and many other metabolic processed needed for life to exist and propagate... not to mention the DNA/RNA and the means to decifer the genes. The simplest single-celled organism is like a small city. Also, proteins have very specific specs in order to work. There are countless things that could go wrong. Left-handed and right-handed amino acids occur about the same in nature, but only one of these works in organisms. Stuff like this complicates the process, making it impossible to occur through natural forces and random chance.
(I recall that one of the co-discoverers of DNA speculated that life was planted on earth by aliens because he couldn't get around these problems... of course these same improbabilities would still occur on another planet!)
Also, like I said before, what are the chances of survival for this first organism in a world void of other organisms & these other organism's by-products? Or.. do you think that more than one organism generated independently of each other? Also, is there in existence today a living single-celled organism which could survive, reproduce, and then thrive in an environment void of life, with no remains or by-products of life?
BTW, by the time these complexities of life were understood, Evolution was already firmly ensconced in our University’s science departments. (For example, I recently read a quote where Ernst Haeckel described this singled celled organism as just a bunch of goo... or something like that.)
>Evolution can be slow by familiar standards
>and fast by geological standards
(another rebuttal on the original thread)
The problems with this statement is that, even when brushing aside many things which make Evolution impossible in the first place, the number of "chances" needed for mutations with natural selection to work causes the Evolutionist to need trillions of years to work this stuff out... (This is detailed in the Spetner/Max debate listed above) The problem here is that Evolutionist doesn’t have this much time to work with. In fact, they only have time starting from that point after the Earth cooled sufficiently enough to support carbon-based life... and this is limited to a handful of Billions of years... not near enough! But, again, this is assuming that it all got started by chance in the first place... which is already impossible.#: Posted by on 03/12 at 11:42 PM - Thanks for this clear and accessible refutation of a common creationist error!
-
OK, Mr. McEwen, where did I go wrong?
And here is the talkorigins.org version of the Spetner-Max debate.
I wasn’t even taking into account the fact that, for this first single cell to work, it would need such things as a means of consuming food, converting this to energy, reproducing itself, and many other metabolic processed needed for life to exist and propagate… not to mention the DNA/RNA and the means to decifer the genes. The simplest single-celled organism is like a small city.
Seems like Mr. McEwen needs to take a crash course in microbiology and some recent work on very early evolution. Here is a reasonable scenario:
In the interstices between vent-deposit grains in Hadean hydrothermal vents, lots of interesting organic chemistry was catalyzed by the mineral surfaces and driven by the redox disequilibrium between escaping gases and the Earth's surface. H2, H2S vs. CO2, etc.
Somehow, some simple self-reproducing organic-chemical system got started in one of those vents. It was "nourished" by diffusion from its environment and it did not have a well-defined cellular structure; it was something like Ernst Haeckel's Urschleim (original slime).
It somehow invented ribose, making a RNA organism, where RNA acted as both informational macromolecule and enzyme, just as its predecessor(s) had done. This organism still resided in those vents, lived off of its environment, and was still something like Urschleim.
But this early organism had a taste for using amino-acid cofactors; it gradually advanced its assemblage of such cofactors until they could take over enzyme duties. As it did so, it started making soap bubbles around itself, forming the first cells. They originally reproduced by getting too big and spontaneously splitting in to. But an early protein invented was a protein that acts as a cell-wall drawstring for making cells divide. Another early protein was involved in assembling ATP with the help of hydrogen ions leaking inward.
With their making cells out of themselves, they gradually transferred their metabolism from mineral surfaces to enzymes, sometimes keeping some mineral-surface chemistry in the form of iron-sulfur complexes. They also worked out how to build more and more essential molecules from scratch -- as they'd run out of one, they'd stumble on a way to make it from some similar, but available one, and so own down the line. Eventually, they succeeded in making everything they needed from simple compounds in chemical disequilibrium.
These RNA/protein organisms then invented a variant of RNA: DNA. Which became used as a master-copy molecule. At first, it was replicated by being copied onto RNA and back again, but eventually, it became copied from itself. This DNA-to-DNA copying was poorly-developed, if present at all, in the common ancestor of Bacteria and Archaea; it appears to have become developed independently in both groups of prokaryotes.
Eukaryotic cells have a more complicated structure than prokaryotic ones, and this likely reflects their multiple-endosymbiosis heritage. Mitochondria and chloroplasts are the more obvious cases; the nucleus was likely also a symbiotic prokaryote from Archaea.
This may seem long-winded and complicated, but it ought to indicate that one-celled organisms are not unevolvable.
As to the analogy with cities, though cities are designed, they are not built instantaneously by some single designer; cities are collectively designed, and some cities have existed for centuries. And evolution works much like that also.
#: Posted by on 03/13 at 05:50 AM -
OK, Mr. McEwen, where did I go wrong?
When you assumed that he would look at the data that contradicts his authority with the fairness of a scientist. It's the nature of the beast. Conclusions first, facts later. But I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that.#: Posted by on 03/13 at 01:18 PM -
Recognizing that the Spetner/Max debate is shown over at talkorigins.org (as mentioned by someone else above), I encourage everyone here, in all fairness, to still (or also) read the ones here:
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp
Why? First, Spetner claims that, while both versions of this dialog are accurate, Max's version reorders the dialog.
But, most importantly, Spetner provides further rebuttals to Max. In particular, there are several places where Dr. Spetner claims that Dr. Max has "strawmaned" some of Spetner's arguments in Max's responses to Spetner.
Certainly, in all fairness, Spetner "gets the last word" here. Nevertheless, if you really want to refute Spetner... or if you stand behind Dr. Max's effort, you must get "the whole story" by reading the pages I have listed as well.
>Conclusions first, facts later
Well..., why is the history of Evolution teaching is littered with the remains of illegitimate fossils and fraudulent evidence? (disagree?... I'll make a list) For example, ALL of the evidence on the pro-evolution side used in the Scopes trail is now utterly proven wrong or proven fraudulent. (disagree?... again, could make a list) Also, why do these frauds survive in high school textbooks for decades past when they were exposed as frauds? Why are some of the most famous pre-humans such pathetic & minute bone fragments surrounded by elaborate plastor-of-paris models for the Time Mag or Nat. Geo. photo shoot? I personally recall my oldest brother (when he was in high school) telling my second oldest brother that evolution was "a proven fact" because of the Haeckel drawing... which are now a proven fraud. Here are many examples of "conclusions first, facts later".#: Posted by on 03/13 at 10:32 PM -
Rob McEwen:
For example, ALL of the evidence on the pro-evolution side used in the Scopes trail is now utterly proven wrong or proven fraudulent.
Make a list.
Also, why do these frauds survive in high school textbooks for decades past when they were exposed as frauds?
Textbook writers often copy off of their predecessors; as Stephen Jay Gould has pointed out, it's unlikely that many textbook writers are dog fanciers, despite what one might conclude from the numerous comparisons of Hyracotherium to a fox terrier.
And if some scientists decided to set up a textbook-review committee, creationists would be crying foul. They'd say that those scientists are acting like the Inquisition or something.
Why are some of the most famous pre-humans such pathetic & minute bone fragments surrounded by elaborate plastor-of-paris models for the Time Mag or Nat. Geo. photo shoot?
I don't know where this comes from; the pictures of fossils in this fossil-hominid site are often much more detailed. Look at the Turkana Boy, for example. Below the neck, his skeleton looks very close to present-day Homo sapiens. However, his head looks noticeably different (brow ridges, no forehead, no chin, a smaller brain).
I personally recall my oldest brother (when he was in high school) telling my second oldest brother that evolution was “a proven fact” because of the Haeckel drawing… which are now a proven fraud.
They are not an absolute fraud; early vertebrate embryos often have a remarkable resemblance to each other. I've compared human and mouse embryos -- they look remarkably similar until after the hindlimb buds appear; after that, the human ones resorb their tails and stay flat-faced, while the mouse ones keep their tails and grow snouts on their faces. I've also seen chicken and parrot embryos -- they also look very similar until the hindlimb buds appear; after that, they grow big eyes and beaks. Frog and fish embryos do look more different, however, but they have the same basic features.#: Posted by on 03/14 at 12:47 AM -
I’m swamped with work… so I can only respond to this little by little. I hope that you don’t mind if I take this stuff piece by piece over a few or several days.
First, regarding the Haeckel drawings...
These were already exposed as a fraud almost a century ago in the following book:
Assmuth, J. & Hull, Ernest R. (1915) Haeckel’s Frauds And Forgeries, Examiner Press, 104
The following is a quote from this book:
"it clearly appears that Haeckel has in many cases freely invented embryos or reproduced the illustrations given by others in a substantially changed form. L. Rutimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at Basle University, called his distorted drawings ‘a sin against scientific truthfulness deeply compromising to the public credit of a scholar.’"
F. Keibel, professor of anatomy at Freiburg University
Therefore, as you see, we’ve been stuck on Haeckel’s fraud for almost a century and these myths seem to perpetuate.
But in case you still have doubts about Haeckel’s drawing being fraudulent, there is more:
Dr. Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George’s Medical School in London, doubted Haeckel, and he couldn’t find any verification from other studies. Therefore, he conducted his own study where he assembled a scientific team that photographed the growing embryos of 39 different species.
As a result of his study, the following is his summary found in an excerpt from a 1997 interview in The Times of London:
Dr. Richardson stated: "This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. … What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t. … These are fakes."
A more formal scientific summary of Richardson's findings is published here
Another good summary of Richardson’s findings is found here.
Haeckel’s whole point or conclusion is called “recapitulation theory”. This was one of the many fraudulent pieces of evidence used at the Scopes Trial. I’ll detail others later when I get some more time.#: Posted by on 03/15 at 09:51 AM -
You can also find discussion of this issue on this site, here and here. You are making an error here. Yes, Haeckel cheated, and yes, Haeckel's biogenetic law was wrong. But you are mistaken to claim that either Haeckel's false evidence or Haeckel's false interpretation are any part of modern evolutionary biology. There are similarities in embryos; we can illustrate that point any time with data untainted by Haeckel; one of the things Richardson did so well was to illustrate the similarities and the range of variation in disparate vertebrate embryos. As for the biogenetic law...it was dead on arrival. Von Baer had effectively argued it off the table in the 1830s. While it sidetracked a number of scientists at the end of the 19th century, it was abandoned with little regret as genetic and morphological evidence demonstrated with increasing forcefulness that it was untenable.
This is like someone harping on the phlogiston theory as proving that modern chemistry is false. All you do is show that you don't know any modern theory. -
Judging from Richardson's (and others) conclusions, it is obvious that science teachers in high schools and universities across the world are, at the least, "overplaying their hand" on this issue. The conclusions taught to the typical science student (even today) regarding recapitulation theory are generally far beyond the scope of what you (seem to) argue here.
But this brings up another common fallacy of Evolution. The proponents of Evolution always consider that common features ALWAYS means common origin. I have had several debates with Evolutionists who seem to think that common features found in extremely different creatures "settles it". They act like the've just done a "slam dunk".
Carl Linnaeus, "the Father of Taxonomy", was, at the least, a theist and he did NOT believe this mantra... at least, not at all in the way that Evolutionists do.
From what I have read, Linnaeus considered "Genus" to be a reference to the original creation.
Or, as one creationist site I recently read put it: Evidently, many of the types we now call "species" are really just "varieties" of a large, poorly delineated "kind." (kind referring to the "kind" described in Genesis.)
Therefore, "Species" would include decedents of a common ancestor. This ancestor would be at the head of the "family tree" for their particular "Genus".
The science to study this stuff in Linnaeus's time was very clumsy and, certainly, at that time, Linnaeus and his contemporaries probably made many clumsy guesses... Therefore, it wouldn't be fair to refute Linnaeus's overall conclusions based on his particular choices at the time. I think that even Linnaeus realized and readily admited that the science of classification would get more accurate in the future as science progressed. Also, current scientists who "decide" on classifications make these decisions through the "lens of Evolution" instead of creation/speciation. Obviously, the classifications would probably be somewhat different if most of the scientists of the world had the creationist/speciation point of view during the past century. Therefore, please don't waste time in this thread by showing how our current system of classification might contrast this view at a particluar point here or there.
In summary:
(1) Linnaeus, "the Father of Taxonomy" did NOT fall into the trap of always believing that "common features ALWAYS means common origin". He considered that many common features found in creatures from different "Genus" were perfectly explained by having a common "Creator" (God). ...in the same way that a Honda automobile and a Honda lawnmower might have also have similar features.
(2) Linnaeus, from what I have read, did believe in speciation where cats and tigers, for example, descended from a common ancestor. Modern creationists call this speciation and find this totally compatible with molecular biology (in contrast to Evolution, which depends of cumulative overall additions of genetic material via mutations).
Speciation can be summarized:
First, a population of a particular creature gets separated geographically into two or more groups...
Then, the following occurs:
(1) Thinning of the gene pool in one of these particular groups makes them "different" than the original. (Similar to what would happen if a racist dictator killed committed genocide... no evolution occurs, but there would be definite differences in the resulting gene pool). Black bears and polar bears are a good example: They are fully sexually compatible and descended from a common ancestor. All varieties of dogs are another good example of this. (While a chiwawa isn't going to "mount" a St. Bernard anytime soon for practical reasons, they are, technically, biologically sexually compatible and descended from a common ancester... and ZERO evolution occured here.)
AND/OR
(2) Mutations (which almost always REMOVE information from DNA) cause one subgroup to change from the original. Over time, this can cause much more drastic differences from the original (ancestors) than merely thinning the gene pool. Also, in more extreme cases, the resulting sub-group may not even be sexually compatible with their "cousins" who decended from the same common ancestor.
It is funny and telling that people get degrees in Biology all the time without getting this particular perspective.#: Posted by on 03/15 at 11:54 AM -
Incredible. A creationist learned something: he inserted an "almost" into his declaration about the effect of mutations.
He's still wrong, though. -
I though it was more revealing to read the following phrases from Loren Petrich's explanation of how raw materials turned into the first single-celled organism. I wish that I could go back and BOLD the following portions in his post:
...Here is a reasonable scenario:...
...Somehow, some simple...
...It somehow invented ribose...
...one-celled organisms are not unevolvable...
(...wording like this for something that is supposedly proven fact?)
Regarding my statement regarding mutations "almost always" removing information from the DNA... I standby my shopkeeper analogy, which I described in my original post on another thread and then fine-tuned on this thread.
Here is the latest version of the shopkeeper analogy:
(btw, this analogy is commonly used by creationist, this is not my original idea):
Believing that mutations with natural selection can produce evolution of creatures into different creatures of GREATER complexity is like a storekeeper who loses a little bit of money on ALMOST every sale, (the exception being that he does make a tiny profit on a single sale every decade or so), and then says, “don’t worry, I’ll make it up on volume”.
#: Posted by on 03/15 at 12:35 PM -
Phlogiston was a substance supposedly released by combustion and calcination (rusting). However, around 1750, Lavoisier noted that both combustion and calcination involve the consumption of oxygen, and he decided that phlogiston was a vacuous hypothesis.
Also, has anyone ever tracked down a copy of "Haeckel's Frauds and Forgeries"? If that book exists at all.
Also, Dr. Richardson has published pictures of embryos -- and early ones do look similar -- especially early amniote ones. Examination of anatomical details only supports that conclusion.
About common descent vs. common design, what similarities would creationists NOT consider evidence of common design? Also, creationists often maintain something like:
* Similarity is because the creator wanted to use some shared designs.
* Difference is because the creator wanted variety.
Which is almost as vacuous as phlogiston.
As Charles Darwin himself had noted, evolution admirably accounts for the hierarchical pattern of similarities that one readily deduces -- if one did not see such a pattern, one would not reasonably conclude descent with modification.
Claiming that evolution inside a created kind is not really evolution is pure hooey. Evolution, by any other name, is still evolution. And evolution from an ancestor of a putative kind is not necessarily subtractive -- it can be additive.
Many creationists think that Felidae is a single created kind. But it includes felines with a variety of sizes (an adult housecat is about the size of a lion or tiger cub) and coloration patters (striped, spotted, solid). Some felines, like lynxes, have tufts of hair on their ear tips that most others lack. Some felines (Panthera - lions, tigers, leopards, etc.) roar; most others do not.
But the most dramatic differences of all are in the lion, Panthera leo. Lions are the only social felines; all the rest are solitary. Their social organization consists of small groups of females that males fight each other for. Male lions grow manes, female lions do not, and neither do other felines. Lion manes are a sort of virility advertisement; female lions are especially interested in male lions with dark manes, but dark-maned lions overheat more easily.
Furthermore, lions do not split off from the base of the feline family tree; they are most closely related to tigers and leopards.
Subtractive evolution requires that the original felines were lion-like with tufted ears. However, that requires losing ear tufts, roaring, sociality, and manes several times. It's much easier to suppose that the ancestral felines were solitary and non-roaring with lookalike sexes and tuftless ears.
But I'm sure that an imaginative creationist can think of a subtractive-evolution scenario that produces tufts, roaring, sociality, and manes.
If additive evolution is required to get from one created kind to another, and additive evolution is possible inside a created kind, then additive evolution can happen between kinds.
In fact, creationists have remarkable disagreements about what a created kind is, despite their attempts to create a science of "baraminology". Hugh Ross thinks that it's a species, while many others think that it's various larger taxa.
Consider this site. It divides mammals and birds more finely than reptiles and amphibians. Yes, it claims that all these are single created kinds:
Frogs and toads
Turtles
Snakes
Present-day turtles can pull their heads into their shells. Some of them turn their heads sideways (side-necked), but most of them pull their heads inward (hidden-necked). And the extinct Jurassic turtle Proganochelys was apparently unable to do either. Turtles come in a variety of sizes, and they inhabit a variety of habitats, including the oceans.
Snakes are also diversified; they have a variety of sizes, and they live in a variety of habitats, including the oceans. The venoms of the poisonous ones are very diversified, often being a mixture of hemotoxic and neurotoxic agents. Rattlesnakes grow rattles on their tails, but are most closely related to other viperids. Like lion sociality and manes, this is another challenge to subtractive-only evolution.#: Posted by on 03/15 at 05:36 PM -
Rob McEwen:
I though it was more revealing to read the following phrases from Loren Petrich’s explanation of how raw materials turned into the first single-celled organism. I wish that I could go back and BOLD the following portions in his post:
(reasonable, somehow, ...)
(...wording like this for something that is supposedly proven fact?)
The details are less-than-clear, but I think that the concept of abiogenesis is fundamentally sound. And what would make you happy, Mr. McEwen? To go back in a time machine?#: Posted by on 03/15 at 05:49 PM -
>published pictures of embryos-and early ones do look similar
I am having a hard time reconciling this statement to Richardson's quote I mentioned earlier. Also, I've seen some of Richardson's photos beside the corresponding Haeckel drawings and the differences are severe... It is obvious that Haeckel did MUCH embellishment. Also, I've seen some of Richardson's photos with difference creatures at the same stage side by side and the differences between species are also very distinct. I suppose, on a certain level, anyone can look up at the clouds in the sky (for example) and see the shapes that they WANT to see. Moreover, even if you are correct, the similarities between creatures are not NEARLY as dramatic as Haeckel's drawings and, as I stated before, the average high school or college science student is given a very misleading impression.
Regarding Speciation:
The more well-thought-out creationists web sites I have seen which speculate about which kind or kinds the Felidae descended from consider that the Felidae classification is actually a combination or grouping together what really should have been separated into (at least) two distinctly different lines descended from (at least) two kinds.
Frankly, the truth of the matter on this issue (regarding all species/Genus) is probably somewhere in between the one extreme you listed (noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk) and the opposite extreme you mentioned (Hugh Ross). Sorting out which species share a common ancestor as their original "created kind" is a science which would take an enormous amount of research and study to determine in a definitive way. Because almost every University's science dept. is dominated by evolutionists... I don't see creationists having the proper resources to do this anytime soon. Also, in all fairness, the noahsarkzoofarm site qualified these statements with the word "probably". Nevertheless, the fossil record, molecular biology, and mathematical probability already strongly supports the creation/Speciation model over the classic evolution model where mutations add genetic info combined with natural selection. Therefore, proving EXACTLY which creatures fall into which categories is a NOT needed at this point.
The following explains why the Creation/Speciation model more likely or feasible than the Evolution model:
As mentioned earlier, the overwhelming majority of mutations delete or detrimentally scramble genetic information
Therefore, the few mutations that do add material are so rare and limited in scope that it would take too long to get enough of these to go from single-celled organism to human with a handful of Billions of years (probably not even possible with unlimited time). However, because mutations that cause deletions and/or which scramble genes are VERY common, speciation (where there is a loss of genetic information for a given population) can work in a MUCH shorter period of time and is more compatible with molecular biology and the timescale.
Overall, the fossil record shows very distinct creatures with tons of gaps in between these creatures. The fewer examples of remarkably similar animals are better explained by speciation because, frankly, the evolutionists gloss over the huge number of missing transitional fossils. The gaps are so big and pervasive... its like Swiss cheese run amuck where the cheese collapses because the ratio of holes to cheese leaves too many gaping holes and not enough cheese. After over a century of digging... this is our fossil record.
Next, Michael Behe's Irreducible Complexity (of stuff like The Bacterial Flagellum, ATP Synthase Molecule, blood clotting, etc).. kicks in and, at the least, further complicates the time problem. Its interesting... I have noticed that many evolutionists refute Behe by taking him to task for his mouse-trap analogy. They then show how the mouse-trap really could evolve. The funny thing is... once they are done... they say "case closed" ...as if refuting this one illustration really refuted Behe's whole point (pathetic).
But, ironically, even the evolutionist's explanation of the evolution of the mousetrap inadvertently damages the evolutionist's overall case from a different, unexpected perspective. Basically, the evolutionist always has to come up with very complicated and elaborate schemes to get around the Irreducible Complexity issue. They say that the many parts of the whole evolved independently and many DIFFERENT "ingredients" happened by pure coincidence to get each or most of these separate parts to develop independently of each other so that, eventually, and, again coincidentally, they then united to form the final system. Herein is the rub... when the Evolutionists does this, they may have found a fascinating explanation for overcoming Behe's challenge, by they have ALSO further RAISED the bar on the mathematical/probability side... which was already sky high due to the difficulties of getting to the first cell.
When you combine these elaborate schemes used to attempt to overcome Irreducible Complexity with the fact that those mutations which add genetic material are so rare and limited in scope in the first place... this is like combing the task of finding a needle in a haystack the size of a football field to having to do this task deaf, blind, and without feeling. One by itself is far-fetched... the two combined is totally impossible.#: Posted by on 03/15 at 11:53 PM -
(Rob McEwen's continuing to get worked up over Haeckel's infamous embryo drawings...)
Why continue to bark up the wrong tree?
Rob McEwen:
he more well-thought-out creationists web sites I have seen which speculate about which kind or kinds the Felidae descended from consider that the Felidae classification is actually a combination or grouping together what really should have been separated into (at least) two distinctly different lines descended from (at least) two kinds.
Which ones? I've never seen any creationists claim that -- they usually claim that Felidae is one, not two created kinds.
As mentioned earlier, the overwhelming majority of mutations delete or detrimentally scramble genetic information.
Demonstrably false. A large fraction of mutations is selectively *neutral*. And large numbers of "good" mutations are not necessary. Even one can be made more abundant by natural selection.
Therefore, the few mutations that do add material are so rare and limited in scope that it would take too long to get enough of these to go from single-celled organism to human with a handful of Billions of years (probably not even possible with unlimited time).
I wonder if Rob McEwen has seriously read PZ Myers's comments earlier in this thread -- there is lots of evidence of addition of genetic material.
Polyploidy is very common in plants; among animals, it is less common. But early vertebrates had two genome duplications, and teleost fish have had a third one.
Also, what "gaps" exist in the fossil record?
As to irreducible complexity, I disagree that it is unevolvable.#: Posted by on 03/16 at 01:30 AM -
A Straightforward Example of Evolutionist Faith
L. Petrich wrote:
"...I think that that the concept of abiogenesis is fundamentally sound."
You think?!
You BELIEEEEEEVE?!
Can you PROVE that abiogenesis occurred?
Can I get an AMEN?#: Posted by on 03/16 at 10:54 AM -
Unless you happen to be one of those strange people who believe that the universe has always existed, and that life is eternal and never had a beginning, I think that on purely logical grounds that abiogenesis is necessary and certainly is a sound concept.
The really bizarre example of logical dissonance is exhibited by those creationists who rant about a "law" that says all life must come from other life, and therefore evolution is disproven...never considering that if that law were really valid, it would also disprove the book of Genesis to the same degree. -
I'm not sure what Eric Baker wants, short of going back in a time machine and watching it happen.
#: Posted by on 03/16 at 12:49 PM
-
Can you PROVE that abiogenesis occurred?
"Unless you happen to be one of those strange people who believe that the universe has always existed, and that life is eternal and never had a beginning, I think that on purely logical grounds that abiogenesis is necessary and certainly is a sound concept.
The really bizarre example of logical dissonance is exhibited by those creationists who rant about a “law” that says all life must come from other life, and therefore evolution is disproven...never considering that if that law were really valid, it would also disprove the book of Genesis to the same degree."
Is that a "no"?
#: Posted by on 03/16 at 02:09 PM -
"I’m not sure what Eric Baker wants, short of going back in a time machine and watching it happen."
Some proof to accompany your conviction might be nice. In the absence of such, abiogenesis remains a testament of your faith.#: Posted by on 03/16 at 02:42 PM -
Mr Baker: you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.
One answer is no: scientists don't deal in proof, and we do not talk of "proving" things true.
Another, better answer is that yes, we certainly accept that abiogenesis occurred. The earth has a definite beginning, 4.5 billion years ago, at which time there was no life present. Later, life appeared. Abiogenesis happened. Get over it.
The point of my earlier comment was that creationists also accept abiogenesis. The difference is that they think a supernatural being poofed life into existence. I suspect that other, natural processes started the whole business, and think that the fact that biology is chemistry write large and baroque is sufficient evidence. -
Speaking of abiogenesis...
A synthetic self-replicating molecule.
A synthetic peptide that reproduces in such a way that either left-handed-only or right-handed-only constructs predominate -- mixed constructs get out-reproduced.#: Posted by on 03/16 at 04:43 PM -
Eric Baker:
Try to be more humble. For example, there are many questions and challenges raised in this post by the evolutionists which have not yet been answered. It cheapens the dialog when, after our side scores a few points, you act like we've already won the game... but if you insist on participating, please do score some REAL points yourself. (Also, lets make every post count. I don't want to lose their attention by wasting their time.)
EVERYONE:
Loren Petrich asked:
Also, what “gaps” exist in the fossil record?
Related to this question, the following is an excerpt from my original post on the other thread:
the science of evolution has degenerated into a pseudo-science. Unlike REAL science, it fails to make risky predictions. For example, Darwin did make risky predictions about what the fossil record would look like after more digging is done… and these predictions failed!
Therefore, I will now back up my statement and answer Loren Petrich's question at the same time.
Darwin himself wrote:
The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record?
(from Origin of Species, emphasis added)
Darwin was convinced that the ONLY reason that the fossil record had such huge gaps was because we hadn't done enough digging at that time. Fair enough. But he DID make a risky prediction about the fossil record for the future. These statements are summarized by Darwin as follows:
The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory
(emphasis added)
Darwin is correct in saying "truly enormous" because, since evolution depends on mutations with natural selection, it is a VERY SLOW process which requires, by definition, imperceptibly different and enormous amounts of transitional creatures. The "law of averages" allows only so much concentration of particular creatures in the fossil record at the exclusion of others... for the same reason that scientists a thousand years from now will never accept the theory that a "1" existed in a deck of cards but simply hasn't been found in the records.
Therefore, what is the current state of the fossil record today? According to Darwin, if a century of digging does NOT produce "enormous" quantities of "finely graduated" "interminable varieties", then it would be "right" to reject his theory.
Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Zoology at Harvard University stated:
The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'
(This problem is the very reason that "punctuated equilibrium" was "thought up" in the first place!)
The Gould quote is the tip of the iceberg.
Many more quotes like this can be found here and here
The few times that there is some proof of adaptation, it appears in "clusters", with HUGE gaps between these clusters. In other words, the adaptation doesn’t span these gaps and is rather limited in scope.
Also, diagrams which compare the actual fossil record to what the fossil record would have looked like if evolution occurred can be found here and here.
The diagrams of what actually happened display a PERFECT fit for the creation/speciation model.#: Posted by on 03/17 at 09:23 AM -
Carefully selecting quotes to support one's position may be OK when interpreting one's favorite sacred books, but that is not considered legitimate scientific argumentation.
Stephen Jay Gould's position is that species-to-species intermediates may be hard to find, but at higher levels, there are numerous intermediates. Simply consider groups with well-preserved fossils like horses, cetaceans, etc. Check out Prothero's nice article on Punctuated Equilibrium.
And if the ancestors of each species or each "created kind" are specially created, they must be specially created over geological time, NOT all at once.
Furthermore, this argument from apparent discontinuity causes trouble for the hypothesis of multi-species "created kinds"; why are apparent discontinuities in the fossil record bridgable for some species and not for others?#: Posted by on 03/17 at 10:59 AM -
Loren Petrich,
I really enjoyed reading the article you listed in your last post. It does a great job of supporting many of the points I made in my last post. ("thank you for proving my point")
I encourage everyone to read the whole thing. (Especially to prove that none of my quotes from this article are taken out of context).
Here are some excerpts:
The few supposed examples of gradual evolution were featured in the journals and textbooks, but paleontologists had long been mum about their "dirty little trade secret:" most species appear suddenly in the fossil record and show no appreciable change for millions of years until their extinction.
...
As paleontologists had known for over a century, most species are stable for millions of years, and change so rapidly that we rarely witness it in the fossil record.
...
More impressive are demonstrations of species stability in spite of well documented environmental change.
The article goes on to solve these problems in three basic ways:
(1) Uses a twist on Speciation
(As I described in a previous post, to a large degree, creationists like myself ALREADY agree that Speciation happened, but don't think that this proves evolution).
This "twist" is that a population separates into two groups. Next, one of these separated populations "evolves". (We creationists would argue that the separates population "devolves"... as most mutations... other than neutral mutations... usually delete or detrimentally scramble genes). Here is the juicy part: To account for the fossil record problems, the particular population that evolved HAPPENS to do so in an area less conducive to providing fossils. Next, (and I don't know if this part was necessary) the original population dies out.
While it is certainly possible that speciation could possibly work in such a fashion every once in a while, the Evolutionists NEEDS this to happen almost all the time. But, the "law of averages" would prevent applying this scenario to such an extremely large percentage of situations. In fact, it is outside the realm of possibility that this scenario could account for more than a small percentage of the huge gaping holes in the fossil record. (See charts that I linked to in my earlier post.)
(2) The second thing this article does is: Assumes that "Speciation" IS "Evolution" and tries to blur the distinctions
This reminds me of Loren Petrich's post earlier in this thread where he said:
Claiming that 'evolution inside a created kind is not really evolution' is pure hooey. Evolution, by any other name, is still evolution. And evolution from an ancestor of a putative kind is not necessarily subtractive—it can be additive.
But these things gloss over many fundamentals of speciation. Mainly that, as described earlier, speciation is MOSTLY the result of lost or damaged genes. This is more consistent with molecular biology because, as Dr. Lee Spetner proves, mutations which delete or scramble DNA are MUCH more prevalent that those few which add material to DNA (which are also limited in scope). While "goo" to "you" evolution REQUIRES mutations to ADD information, the Genesis account fits better with creation starting out as "perfect" and then degenerating from there.
Furthermore, the rapid rates that "evolution" occurs in under the "punctuated equilibrium" model are a better fit for Speciation through deleting/scrambling mutations. Think about it... if, to reconcile with the fossil record... scientists start entertaining theories where evolution occurred "rapidly" (relatively speaking, of course)... then, where changes did occur, these are better explained by deleting/scrambling mutations because additive mutations are too rare and too limited in scope to get the job done quickly.
I must clarify that the speciation I refer to which is demonstrated in the fossil record is still very limited in scope... doesn't go from whale to cow, for example... but would explain how a horse and zebra (which CAN mate, BTW) probably descended from a common ancestor.
For a list of links about Speciation, as described by creationists, go here. One of the more interesting of these links is the following: Ligers and wholphins? What next?
(3) The third and final thing that the article does... it gets desperate and starts philosophizing or hypothesizing as shown below:
Still others suggest that there might be properties of species that may not have been discovered yet by geneticists and evolutionary biologists, properties which operate on scales of millions of generations and years
...
Clearly, all of evolutionary biology is undergoing ferment and change.
Obvious, science is ALWAYS undergoing change... but I think that they are grasping for something more substantial than a little teaking (Actually, this is an understatement!).
Clearly, they have ruled out the creationist model BEFORE considering the evidence pro/con... How do I know this? Well, its very telling that the fossil record fits the creationist model so well, yet the evolutionists continue doing such back-flips and hypothesizing to force fit the fossil record to evolution model.#: Posted by on 03/17 at 01:24 PM -
Even if it is correct that the large majority of mutations are "bad", that is totally irrelevant. Most organisms can easily out-reproduce their carrying capacity, and those with defective genes will usually not be represented in later generations.
A well-fed Escherichia coli bacterium can divide every 10 minutes, producing two bacteria. Although this bacterium weighs only about 2 picograms, nearly 24 hours of nonstop division will produce an Earth mass of bacteria!#: Posted by on 03/17 at 01:52 PM -
oops, I said in my last post:
Especially to prove that none of my quotes from this article are taken out of context
I meant:
Especially to prove that none of my quotes from this article are not taken out of context
(I guess you figured what I meant).
I recall Dr. Lee Spetner, (who has a PhD degree in physics from MIT, btw... not that this counts for anything. I'm sure you can produce pro-evolutionist with impressive credentials... just want to be sure that readers of this don't blow Spetner off) ... I recall that Spetner studied these types of rapidly multiplying organisms for over a decade. No additive mutations were OBSERVED (or, if I'm wrong, very, very few were OBSERVED). But, MANY deleting or scrambling mutations were OBSERVED.
Still, you make a good point about bad mutations being eliminated through natural selection and leaving the additive mutations to do their work.
Nevertheless, at some point, through random chance alone, damaging mutations (which occur much more often) may very well unravel the effects of some or many of these additive mutations.... not that this would eliminate all of them... but this would slow the process down.
This leads to that pesky issue of time.
Did you read what Spetner had to say in his debates with Dr. Max regarding the scope of additive mutations? (linked to earlier in this thread?)
Because additive mutations are rare and limited in scope, and because damaging mutations play into the mix in a much stronger way than additive ones... a handful of billion of years is simply not near enough time... especially when you factor in what I said earlier about evolutionists' elaborate solutions to Irreducible Complexity which then create an additional need for even much, much more time compared to the time needed if Irreducible Complexity wasn't an issue.#: Posted by on 03/17 at 02:31 PM -
Sorry, I accidentally submitted.
So if one of these bacteria has a genetic defect, it will be out-reproduced by the other bacteria.
Furthermore, "good" mutations do NOT have to be common; they will get amplified by natural selection. Imagine a Petri dish with bacteria in it -- bacteria that are susceptible to some antibiotic. One of them gets a mutation making it resistant, and that antibiotic will kill all but that lucky one. But that lucky one will then multiply and produce a whole population of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Also, Rob McEwen has yet to demonstrate that speciation is entirely because of lost or damaged genes. Polyploid and hybrid speciation are counterexamples to that proposition. Also, what lost or damaged genes have resulted in lynxes having ear-tip fur tufts? Or pantherine cats roaring? Or lions being social with male ones having manes?
Note that that ligers-and-wholphins link shows a diagram of feline evolution, with the implication that all present-day Felidae are in one "created kind".
The apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, appears to be caught in the middle of speciation, with a population that parasitizes apple trees diverging from a population that parasitizes hawthorn trees.
As to going from whale to cow, those two animals share an early-artiodactyl ancestor; cows are NOT descended from whales or vice versa. Artiodactyls have a fairly good fossil record, even if not as well-known as the equine fossil record.
Many fossil species are NOT very different from presumed ancestor species; simply consider all the species between Hyracotherium and Equus. If all the species in between are special creations, then each species was created with a remarkably strong resemblance to some presumed ancestor species.
Even human evolution fits that picture well. The earliest hominid fossils are relatively chimplike, but walking upright; the later and later ones tend to be more and more like Homo sapiens (sapiens), though with several now-extinct offshoot species along the way.
Finally, mainstream scientists had considered creationism, though most such scientists were pre-Darwinian. Darwin made such a strong case for evolution that the mainstream of the scientific community quickly became convinced. The last big-name mainstream scientist to be a creationist was Louis Agassiz, and his views departed rather strongly from Biblical literalism. He believed in special creations over geological time, and believed that entire populations of species get created, distributed over the species' ranges. Thus making him much like Hugh Ross -- and unlike young-earth creationists.#: Posted by on 03/17 at 02:54 PM -
I don't have all the answers... But I do think that it is ironic that your critique of speculations made by that creationist site seem to raise the bar so high on what creationists must prove while, at the same time, as shown, so much bad evidence or evidence against evolution (both past and continuing) is so easily forgiven or overlooked by evolutionists in general. Also, as shown on this page evolutionists are so free to "fill in the blanks" with wild speculations, but, as shown in my last post, can't deal or reconcile with what we DO know!
(btw, I still haven't listed the Scopes trial mis-evidence, as asked... I'll get to that tomorrow or Friday).
>all present-day Felidae are in one “created kind”.
Funny, there are two separate lines in that chart... but, I do see how this chart shows the bulk of today's cats are from one of these two lines (maybe that was your point?)... still, the chart is labeled "Possible history of cats since creation" ...see post earlier in this thread regarding the actual field work on determining this stuff... I explain why the evidence for this type of speciation is plenty powerful enough even though the science of understanding WHICH were the created kinds (from a creationist's perspective) is in relative infancy.
>Rob McEwen has yet to demonstrate
>that speciation is entirely because
>of lost or damaged genes
I NEVER said that my examples are the ONLY causes of speciation... only that the examples I give are much more prolific or common than additive mutations combined with natural selection. (strawman argument)
To be sure, examples of bacteria having additive mutations is NOT very common. (I know... you were saying in your last post that it didn't need to be common). But, to be sure for anyone reading this thread... The overwhelming reason that the "bugs" and viruses we get sick from each year are getting more powerful is due to mutations which delete or scramble rather than those which add. Not that this proves anything regarding your last post... its just that so many science students get so "convinced" of evolution just because they "know" that evolution "happens so often in viruses and infectious bacteria" when, in actuality, the science student is "confusing apples with oranges"#: Posted by on 03/17 at 03:33 PM -
First, all the present-day Felidae are on the right-hand tree; the left-hand one contains only extinct ones like Smilodon (the sabertoothed cat).
And calling that tree "possible" is claiming that it is speculative.
Creationists often whine that they have not had much of a chance to develop a science of creationism, including a science of baraminology, of identifying "created kinds". But their being grossly politicized suggests what their real priorities are. If they were not trying to achieve political triumphs, they might have more effort available for developing a science of creationism -- if it is possible to develop a reasonable such science.
Finally,
The overwhelming reason that the “bugs” and viruses we get sick from each year are getting more powerful is due to mutations which delete or scramble rather than those which add.
is absolutely laughable. Those mutations may not be beneficial to us, but they are beneficial to the bacteria and viruses. And how do such mutations "delete" and "scramble"?
#: Posted by on 03/17 at 04:14 PM -
You seem to to say (or infer) that science of baraminology has to be perfect or even very well developed as a prerequisite for accepting all the other conclusions, arguments, professional opinions, and scientific evidence I've presented...
This is absolutely ridiculous and absurd.
It is also hypocritical considering the fact that the evidence for evolution was so particularly bad, fraudulent, and/or inaccurate during the 19th and early 20th century. For example, the complexity of a single-celled organism was way, way underestimated. Dating at that time was certainly the "circular reasoning" kind as more sophisticated methods were just being refined. Yet, during this same time span, few scientists could "get anywhere" without subscribing to evolution. The politics behind supporting evolution was intense. Phillip Johnson's "Darwin On Trial" extensively details the nasty politics behind the science of Evolution for those "heretics" who tried to differ for purely scientific reasons.
To be sure, having this prerequisite for baraminology would be like going back to the time when astronomers first knew for positive that stars were millions of miles away and then rejecting their conclusions purely on the basis of them not yet having the universe precisely mapped (for that portion that could be "seen" at that time).
Also, regarding the "wining"... if you quadrupled all of these organization's budgets and focused ALL their attention on baraminology... this would still be a small fraction of the combined budgets and staff of all the major Universities which strongly support Evolution.... and you'd still have to give them years to catch up.
>they were not trying to achieve
>political triumphs, they might have
>more effort available for developing
>a science of creationism
I can't blame them... for example, I've read of documented cases where teachers at colleges were fired or not promoted because of doing things like presenting a seminar which discussed some these difficulties with Evolution... in many cases, the teacher didn't even espouse or hint at creationism or Intelligent Design... it was simply... "here are some problems that Evolution has trouble dealing with". Also, I meet people ALL THE TIME who believe Evolution is absolutely proven... but then back this up with the most easily refutable evidence... apparently... they would have done a better job if they had attended PZ Myers'a or Loren Petrich's classes
... but given the overall state of ignorance... the way I see it, (at the least) these creationists are doing everyone a favor by making the Evolutionist clean up their act... and the example I mentioned where a teacher gets fired... in this case... the teacher was also doing the science of Evolution a favor... you can't improve something until you recognize and deal with the weaknesses!
>Is absolutely laughable
I can't figure out what is so funny... but I do realize that, in my haste, I've probably been very sloppy and have oversummerized this process regarding viruses and bacteria mutating. A better explanation is found here and here.
I'm sure that there will be something that you will disagree with in the links I've provided... but try to stick to that portion which is relevant to my point... which is, basically, mutations that add information, because they are so rare, are almost always NOT the reason that the bacterium or viruses gets resistant or stronger. Other reasons, (like, but not limited to) deletions or scrambling of DNA usually makes the bacteria or virus more resistant to drugs or more resistant to our immune system. Many, many science students conclude from their course studies that this area is a slam dunk for evolution because they are led to believe that better resistance ALWAYS means additional complexity and added DNA... the truth is quite the opposite.#: Posted by on 03/18 at 08:17 AM -
You seem to be incapable of grasping a simple point that I had thought I had clearly explained: mutations that "add information" are not rare. They are quite common. Repeating a fabrication over and over on your part will not eventually make it true.
And please...let's see you document those cases "where teachers at colleges were fired or not promoted because of doing things like presenting a seminar which discussed some these difficulties with Evolution". I've discussed deficiencies in evolutionary theory right here in this weblog. I teach courses in which I regularly discuss non-Darwinian mechanisms of evolution. Talk to any evolutionary biologist and they will gladly discuss the open questions in the field -- if there weren't any, there wouldn't be any research to do, now would there? Your claim is so absurdly ridiculous and so trivially contradicted by the status of the science that I find myself wondering why anyone, including myself, is bothering to reply to you. -
A PROOF THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS FALSE
1. If the theory of evolution were true, it would be possible to explain the diversity of species without intelligent design.
2. It is not possible to explain the diversity of species without intelligent design.
3. Therefore, the theory of evolution is false.
Surely you will agree that this is a VALID proof. I do not understand why you, Dr. Myers, and your RAVING ATHEIST and VERY STUPID colleagues and conspirators REFUSE to ADMIT the manifest TRUTH of premise 2, especially after so much CLEAR and PERSUASIVE reasoning has been presented to you.
Perhaps if you took your IDEOLOGICAL BLINDERS off for JUST A MOMENT and examined the STUNNING RESULTS of the NEW BARIMINOLOGICAL SYNTHESIS, you would understand how FOOLISH you are making yourself appear. - Geez, Gully, watch out. Irony is a very difficult tool to apply to creationism, since they are so dang close to parody already.
-
>let’s see you document those cases “where teachers...
I'd me more than happy to... one zinger comes to mind... but I'll wait a day or two to look these up again... (I can only do so much at a time)
>are not rare
Really... are you sure? If you mean not rare as in you can count billions of them happening... then I'd agree with you... from this perspective they are not rare... but if you are looking at the PROPORTIONS of additive mutations to scrambling and/or deleting mutations... then, according to Dr. Lee Spetner’s research, they ARE rare. This is the first time in this thread that my assertion has been challenged... assuming that you meant proportions and not raw numbers when you said "not rare"
>discuss the open questions in the field
yes… but with the pre-disposed bias that creationism is beyond contemplation by any rational scientist... just as most of the evolutionary scientists before you did this dating back to a time when the Evidence was absolutely preposterous. (it’s improved… now it is just somewhat preposterous)
…but I digress… it would be nice to get this thread back to more “hard” science and less opinions… you could start by explaining all those gaps in the fossil record I detailed earlier (see links that I listed).#: Posted by on 03/18 at 11:15 AM -
I can't quite figure Gully out. (see a few posts back). His post on his blog about this thread contradicts his posts here... leading me to believe that he is really an Evolutionist "playing the role" here of a crazy, out-of-control creationist just for fun. I bet he PZ Myers know each other. Nice try.
#: Posted by on 03/18 at 12:57 PM
-
I don't know Gully, but I can recognize that Gully's last comment and yours are similar in information content. You might keep that in mind when you call that comment "crazy creationist" talk.
Spetner's wrong. Both in absolute numbers and relative proportions the kinds of mutations you initially thought impossible (but now grudgingly admit might happen rarely) are not exceptional at all.
I'll talk to you about gaps after you bring me the skull of your great-great-great-grandfather. I don't believe he existed, and therefore you are some of kind of horrible lab-born creation...after all, without absolute, incontrovertible evidence of the physical remains of every member of your lineage, that ancestry must not have existed, and you can only be the unnatural spawn of some evil, non-biological process. -
Just a few observations from a non-scientist observer:
1) In Science there are a lot of things that you can't prove. You can just collect evidence and deduce that it is or it happened.
2) Disproving evolution doesn't mean proving ID or proving creationism.
I can be totally wrong... so can the creationists in this forum educate us on why you think the universe was designed by an intelligent entity? Where does this entity come from? If this entity is complex enough to design the universe doesn't it require a designer too? After all complexity requires a designer, right?
Please educate us.#: Posted by on 03/18 at 01:35 PM -
I can’t quite figure Gully out. (see a few posts back). His post on his blog about this thread contradicts his posts here… leading me to believe that he is really an Evolutionist “playing the role” here of a crazy, out-of-control creationist just for fun. I bet he PZ Myers know each other. Nice try.
Drat! Foiled again!
You were right, Dr. Myers, to warn against irony. - Although it was amusing that he could figure out that your extravagant claims, complete with McElwaine-style capitalization, were the mark of a looney...but didn't notice the similarity with his own comments that I quoted up there. I think you managed to score!
-
Rob McEwen:
You seem to to say (or infer) that science of baraminology has to be perfect or even very well developed as a prerequisite for accepting all the other conclusions, arguments, professional opinions, and scientific evidence I’ve presented.
Creationists have had plenty of opportunity to work out in detail one of the critical parts of their belief system, but for the most part, they've preferred politicking and propaganda to serious research. Simply consider this triumph of baraminology, creationists' disagreements on whether various hominid fossils are ape or human.
... the evidence for evolution was so particularly bad, fraudulent, and/or inaccurate during the 19th and early 20th century.
???
For example, the complexity of a single-celled organism was way, way underestimated.
So what? That's a problem for abiogenesis, not evolution. And as our knowledge of details has increased, so has our understanding of the very early evolution of life. Much of that complexity is not primordial, but the result of evolution. DNA, for instance, was (and still is!) a modification of RNA, and part of eukaryotic cells' complexity comes from multiple endosymbioses (mitochondria, chloroplasts, nucleus, ...).
Dating at that time was certainly the “circular reasoning” kind as more sophisticated methods were just being refined.
Stratigraphic correlation is NOT circular reasoning.
The politics behind supporting evolution was intense.
WHAT politics?
I’ve read of documented cases where teachers at colleges were fired or not promoted because of doing things like presenting a seminar which discussed some these difficulties with Evolution
Such as...
Many, many science students conclude from their course studies that this area is a slam dunk for evolution because they are led to believe that better resistance ALWAYS means additional complexity and added DNA… the truth is quite the opposite.
Demonstrably false. Bacteria can spread antibiotic-resistance genes by injecting copies into other bacteria. The recipient bacterium gets a more complex genome as a result of this added genetic material.
Also, many mutations do NOT scramble or delete DNA. Many mutations are point mutations, which alter single bases. And, of course, there are insertions, duplications, etc.
#: Posted by on 03/18 at 05:01 PM -
I'd also like to add: where are the creationists who compare rival hypotheses of baramins and try to puzzle out who is right about what? Evolutionary biologists do similar things all the time -- I've seen numerous papers comparing proposed phylogenies.
#: Posted by on 03/19 at 02:32 PM -
Demonstrably false. Bacteria can spread antibiotic-resistance genes by injecting copies into other bacteria. The recipient bacterium gets a more complex genome as a result of this added genetic material
OK. You are correct... Basically, you are taking advantage at my lack of thoroughness and, from a debating standpoint, I deserve to get refuted here.
But, but my premise stands... why... well, Spetner accounted for horizontal transfer of genes and gave an irrefutable argument as to why horizontal transfer of genes between microbes cannot be considered upward evolution... in a nutshell, the reason is that the additional complexity is taken from genes that already existed in another organism. For true evolution to take place, you have to increase complexity without borrowing what is already available because, basically, in the beginning, you started with practically nothing.
I've slowed down on this thread not because I don't have answers... but because I find Myers & Spetner at odds with one another. Therefore, I'm taking some time out to double-check some of my sources. I'm currently carefully reading the Spetner/Max debate. I've also e-mailed some related questions to two other scientists who are, at least, not so militantly anti-ID. One of these scientists e-mailed me back with the following:
In the case of microbes, there is much horizontal transfer of genetic information from one organism to another and that type of information, in my view, should not be included as “mutations that add information”.
I didn't ask permission from him to use his name (though he probably wouldn't mind)... I'll just say that his is a professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology at a school in the top 50 on this list. I've asked him and the other scientist to join in this thread, if they have the time and inclination.
So far, I still feel very comfortable with my assertions. I think that, as I've said, the best debating points scored against me have been more due to some of my poor or improper explanations. And I realise that I've left some questions unanswered... I'd get to them as soon as I can.
In the meantime:
Have any of you been able to demonstrate in a lab a positive verification of a series of mutations in a microbe or virus which led to that organism having greater complexity and an increased amount of DNA while, at the same time, zero genetic transfer between organisms occurred?#: Posted by on 03/19 at 04:16 PM - Yes. See this talkorigins.org page, which documents several examples. In particular, I will point you to the